The NCAA rarely moves that quickly so even if it's an NCAA violation, I don't see it impacting the bowl game this year. *Maybe* they'd move that fast if it was a gambling issue.

Yes, it does.

The University is probably zipped tight because unlike the wrestling team and the Marching 110, Mr. Smith has a lawyer and any defamation to Mr. Smith's reputation will lead to yOUr donations going to the award Mr. Smith will receive.

Interesting to note, Ohio's 2023 wrestling season ended on March 16, and the coaches were put on leave March 17. Greenlee and one assistant were reinstated on July 31st. So that's four and 1/2 months. The third coach remained on leave for awhile after that. Makes me think if we had advanced to Detroit, this would be happening next week.

The difference is the university issued a press release (as it did for the 110) listing general circumstances regarding the allegations. In the wrestling case, it was an OUPD investigation regarding injuries sustained at practice. In the 110's case, it was an OU Community Standards investigation that took six months to find out that some kids ate a few edibles and called each other stupid on occasion.

So don't expect anything soon, I suppose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but after the university issued those news releases didn't they clam up, like they are doing in the Brian Smith case, and say nothing else for the longest time. I think that was what SBH was alluding to.

Also of note, neither investigation led to the dismissal of leadership. The wrestling coaching staff is exactly the same as it was on March 17, 2023.

Also the 110 investigation was a little different in that OU was looking into the organization, not necessarily the director. OU conducted interviews with many of the student members and news of what they seemingly focused on/asking about was leaking out just based on the sheer number of people involved. I'm not sure that it was getting into the press, but it wasn't as tight of a lid back in 2019, I think that was.

Of course the whole administration has more/less turned over since then, so I'm not sure how similar things would be anyways.

From what I know about the situation, this is isolated and solely on the coach. Players and bowl status would not affect this. They will get an invite Sunday and accept. Let the process play out. Hopefully he can prove his innocence.

Very Good article in The Post about O.U. needing to explain what's going on.

Well-written column but a bit naive. Does the author expect the university to specify the allegations, which might be utterly unfounded? Imagine the damage to the coach's/program's reputation (and recruiting) if they turn out to be false. It's hard to write this, but I trust the lawyers on this one.

I agree. Well written, but... You can also tell her major was corporate PR with little or any legal reporting experience. Often, it's not the accused withholding publicity of allegations but the alleged victim. Saying that generally not specifically to the instance necessarily.

But there’s a massive middle ground between “tell us everything” and “say almost nothing,” and that’s where OU fell short. The vague initial statement “on leave for an undetermined period of time” with no framing whatsoever left the public to fill in the blanks. Some people assumed a health issue, others assumed possible NCAA violations, and within hours the rumor mill was digging for divorce documents, reporting on homes being put on the market and inventing narratives the school never intended.

The article may overreach in spots, but she’s right about the core point: crisis-comms practice stresses owning the first version of the story even when you can’t disclose specifics.

Other schools have handled this much better without violating anyone’s rights.

Washington’s softball program put Heather Tarr on leave last year and immediately said it was a personnel matter, not a safety issue and not NCAA-related. That single sentence kept speculation contained.

Baylor did the same with an assistant football coach: they said it was a non-criminal personnel issue and confirmed there were no student-athlete safety concerns. They didn’t reveal anything sensitive, but they set guardrails so the public understood the basic category of issue.

Both coaches ultimately returned after their reviews concluded.

That’s the middle ground OU didn’t use. You obviously can’t share allegations, but you can responsibly tell people what kind of situation this is or isn’t. If the intent was to protect Smith’s privacy, the ambiguity is doing him a disservice.

Been my gripe all along.

The vagueness has allowed all these things people keep saying isn't happening, to happen.

Nothing has happened in the last week, we've learned nothing, no bombshell reports, no charges, no allegations made by outside parties, no reason as far as the eye can see for a forced release. They're not covering their ass or protecting anyones privacy, on the contrary, they've opened him up to embarrassment and scrutiny while everyone now knows some sort of perceived wrongdoing and investigation into such is ongoing.

The only thing we now all know is he's going through a nasty divorce, he's trying to liquidate or protect some assets, he's trying to purchase a home, this involves his child. All things I'm certain he didn't want brought up on online forums and sports websites.

As far as Brian is concerned, he's probably feeling like his new AD, and the University aren't on his side and DID NOT protect his privacy. Which is going to leave a really bad taste in his mouth if he's brought back.



IF he is fired, and some of the rumors are true, OU didn't protect itself from scrutiny for the vague response, you're just open to more. No one is going to be like, WOW OU really nailed this. They're gonna say you put out a vague report attempting to cover your ass, and didn't, while you knew he did xyz. Making it public that you're investigating him for (secrets), isn't going to change the language around being fired for cause. It's just fodder for this board to say, I trust the lawyers. This is pr 101.