Breaking it down: ‘Tattoo-Gate’ scandal costs Ohio State almost $8M
Published: Monday, June 4, 2012
Updated: Saturday, June 16, 2012 01:06
Adding up Haynes, Hazell, Johnson, Peterson, Siciliano, Lichter, Sutton and Dick Tressel’s last available salary — and Fickell’s 2010 salary — you get $1,877,119 per year.
Adding up Coombs, Drayton, Hinton, Zach Smith, Vrabel, Marotti, Pantoni and Voltolini 2012 salaries, you get $1,870,000 per year.
A difference of $1,262,881 per year across all assistant coaches.
Assuming sans-scandal staff turnover would have been minimal, the additional cost of assistant coaches for the period remaining on Jim Tressel’s contract — through the 2015 season — is $3,788,643.
Attorney costs for players - $230,980.06
When news broke of the compliance issues in December 2010, and continuing issues persisted through November 2011, the university sought legal representation for the players involved in the “Tattoo-Gate” scandal.
Jim Lynch, university spokesman, said the university hired two firms for these players. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Crabbe, Brown & James.
“NCAA rules allow the university to secure legal representation for student-athletes when their eligibility is in question,” Lynch told The Lantern.
The university paid $29,499.85 to Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, and paid $201,480.21 to Crabbe, Brown & James.
NCAA investigation consulting - $1,408,184.07
Again, when news of the scandal broke in December 2010, the university sought the assistance of three firms shortly after to assist in compliance, legal affairs and communications.
The university hired The Compliance Group, based in Lenexa, Kan., “provides an array of quality and cost-effective compliance services to intercollegiate athletics departments and conference offices.”
The total cost of hiring The Compliance Group was $282,840.27.
“(The university) sought the counsel of The Compliance Group, who has strong expertise in NCAA compliance issues. The company has worked closely with the university since January 2011,” Lynch said.
The university also hired Kekst and Company, based in New York, which is “a leading strategic, corporate and financial communications firm.”
“Given the nature of this issue, the university sought communications counsel to assist in its efforts to manage ongoing communications on this matter. The company has worked with the university since mid-March (2011),” Lynch said.
The total cost of hiring Kekst and Company was $617,415.92.
And finally, the university hired FTI Consulting, Inc., a worldwide consulting firm that defines itself as a “global business advisory firm that provides multidisciplinary solutions to complex challenges and opportunities.”
“FTI, which is experienced in complex investigations, served as a consultant to the Office of Legal Affairs concerning the NCAA investigation,” Lynch said.
The total cost of hiring FTI Consulting, Inc., was $507,927.88.
Between these three firms, the total comes to $1,408,184.07.
Compliance revamp - $506,950
Because all violations and cover ups committed are a failure in the athletic compliance department, the Board of Trustees are creating the Office of University Compliance and Integrity.
While the office has not yet been created, the Board of Trustees spent months on an internal review, advising and research totaling $506,950.
The Audit and Compliance Committee hired two outside consultants for a review of the compliance of the university. The committee hired Protiviti, a business-consulting firm from Menlo Park, Calif., for $226,950, according to the Office of Business and Finance.
The committee also hired a New York-based law firm, Dewey and LeBoeuf. Leslie Flesch, associate vice president in the Office of Business and Finance said payment is expected to be $280,000.
Audit and Compliance Committee chairman Robert Schottenstein said in a July 2011 meeting this was an opportunity to improve on all levels of compliance.
“This process, which we fully embrace as an opportunity to get better, was actually triggered by the problems in our football program that first surfaced late (2010),” Schottenstein said.
President E. Gordon Gee said the athletic compliance issues were the most public, but the athletic compliance is a small part of university compliance.
“The compliance in athletics is more public perception. If you spend a certain amount of your budget on athletics and it gets 90 percent of the airtime. So it’s a perception that you want to get that right. … The notion of having a centralized compliance system is that we have a filter that is constantly looking at our overall compliance,” Gee told The Lantern on Feb. 6.
Although the need for the OUCI was in response to a public failure in athletic compliance involving the scandal, the office will deal with university-wide compliance issues.
Geoff Chatas, the university’s chief financial officer, said the original plan was to hire one consulting firm for the project, but upon further review, the decision was made to hire two firms.
“It became quite clear when we looked at the task at hand — which is looking at the organization of compliance, the process of compliance and then the legal process around compliance — that we needed two areas of expertise,” Chatas said at a September Board of Trustees meeting.
This again, is just the cost of consulting for the OUCI, and additional costs will surface when the office is created.
Sugar Bowl vacated and future bowl vacated - about $740,000
Because of the scandal, OSU forfeited its share of the Big Ten’s payment for playing in the 2011 Sugar Bowl.
OSU vacated the entire 2010 season, including the Sugar Bowl. Meaning the $388,811 that comes with participation in the Sugar Bowl is gone.