Buckeye-geddon: 1-year bowl ban, 9 schollies, extra probation, JT Show Cause
One thread to rule them all;
One thread to find them (guilty of Major Violations);
One thread to bring them all (additional scholarship reductions);
And in Columbus bind them (during bowl season).
EDIT: Check, check, check, and check. Ohio will not be eligible for post-season play next year, which includes the B1G Championship game. The NCAA added 4 scholarship cuts to Ohio's self-imposed 5, and added a year of probation. Tressel also hit with a Show-Cause.
EDIT II: There is some confusion about the lost scholarships. My understanding is that 9 scholarships over 3 years means that they have to AVERAGE a maximum of 82 scholarships per year over the next three years, as opposed to the typical maximum of 85 per year.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
should have their contracts renewed in perpetuity. They have done a wonderful and fantastic job so far.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
"OK, so it's worse than I thought it might be, but in the grand scheme, at least we didn't kill five...well...you know the rest, right?"
December 20th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
Should have self imposed a bowl ban this year, enh Buckeyes? Although the real icing on the cake is the JT show cause.
The team will definitely need to be on their toes next year, because The Game just because tOSU's bowl game.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
and to all a good night!
Time to turn up the Christmas music!
December 20th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
Where are the Schadenfruede links? I want Schadenfruede and I want it now!
December 20th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
11 Warriors is completely offline right now.
I've had to resort to their SbN blog: http://www.alongtheolentangy.com/
December 20th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
December 20th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
I don't think this changes anything for Dunn. Odds are he won't be the feature back for a year (if he ever is, considering Meyer's spread), so missing one bowl is little to do. And the loss of nine scholarships over three years isn't going to degrade OSU's capabilities too much. More likely, it will stop deserving walk-ons from getting scholarships. So really, if Dunn wanted to a Buckeye so badly, and it seems clear he did, I can't see this changing anything.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
Agreed. He will stay with Meyer and become one of their best blocking backs of all time. If he works hard, he might even get to play special teams.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
It's obvious he is a Buckeye at heart...he chose OSU and he needs to live with that decision. Skills mean squat when your heart and determination aren't in it. Bring on a talented 2013 class that loves Michigan.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
#HALOL
/buckeyeheadsasplode
December 20th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
Bucknuts is down as well
December 20th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
December 20th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
From junior class (not this Brionte Dunn class I believe)
- total 82 (2013, subtract 3 from 85), 82 (2014), 82 (2015). Total 9;
- or Urban does his math and figures out the optimal combination (for example, no reduction in 2013, 2014 but only 76 total in 2015)
Not a big deal considering all the walk-ons earning schollies. He will still get his lion's share of talents. Of course, it is a totally different monster if it is a reduction like USC suffered.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
It means they are only allowed to have 82 (85 - 3) scholarship athletes on the roster for the next 3 years.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
Glad they got at least what they did, but I'm surprised that they didn't get at least a two year bowl ban for knowingly using ineligible players in last year's bowl.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
Love the pandemonium.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
i'm guessing they can have 76 recruits instead of 85, but the bowl ban hurts them BADLY.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
They can have a max of 82 for three years.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
I disagree. This won't hurt recruiting at all. The freshmen are likely redshirted anyway.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
Looking for some clarification on the scholarships. How does it work? How many scholarship years are they losing here? Is it 9 scholarship years so that they can bring in guys and tell them they'll have to pay for a year of school, or is it 36 scholarship years? I'm going with the understanding that a scholarship has four scholarship years (years on scholarship).
December 20th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
Over the next three years normally they would have a total of 255 players on Scholarship, or 85 per year. This means that over the next three years they can have a total of 246 players.
So it's up to them how to do this, they count do 3 per year and only have a max of 82 guys on scholarship for '12, '13, and '14. Or they could do 0, 3, 6; or 0, 0, 9, something along those lines.
Scholarships aren't a 4-year thing, honest coaches will honor them, and if a coach doesn't that's where we get into the SEC's "yearly scholarship" excuse they use to justify oversigning.
So yeah, they could bring guys in, and have them pay for a year themselves or something along those lines
December 20th, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^
Thanks for the explanation.
December 20th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
Thanks for this. I've been digging around fir an explanation and this is the clearest one I've found.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
shredders and hard drive reformats for Christmas this season ... because if the truth ever comes out ????
Go Blue!
December 20th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
Remember when USC got their ban, the younger guys were allowed to transfer...I'd like to know if that is possible at OSU.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
It's not the younger guys, it's the older guys. The bowl ban effects the rising seniors, so I believe theyw ould be allowed to transfer without having a sit out a year.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
What cracks me up is the amount of righteous indignation coming out of columbus. The commentors on the dispatch article seem to think that they got too severe of a penalty because "everyone's doing it". they still have no idea what they did was wrong. Not to mention the fact that they never bring up tressel's cover up when explaining away their problems. The level of delusion coming from columbus is worse than I could have ever imagined.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
If this does not translate into a Michigan advantage on all fronts, I'm going to lose it.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
we tend to keep to ourselves.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
They are talking about legal action against the NCAA on Bucknuts. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
December 20th, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^
that USC should take, right?
They're all about fairness at Bucknuts, after all...
December 20th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
Anyone see that Scott McVey applied for medical harship? McVey held offers from Ohio State and Michigan among other schools. He played for Cleveland St. Ignatius and his injury his senior season allowed for the emergence of Jake Ryan. There was already speculation that his career might be over, but it's also well known that the medical hardship is an SEC recruiting tool. Especially since Meyer is down a few schollies now I just found it interesting. If it's purely for medical reasons I feel bad for the kid
December 20th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
Medical hardshipp scholarships happen more than you would like to think. Just schools like Alabama for some reason has more of those cases.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^
I think Hoke medical'd two players this year. It may be an SEC thing, but sending 1 kid here and there who has an injury history isn't the same as sending them to St. Saban's Memorial Hospital
December 20th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
If this turns out to be correct, then they got off fairly easily. Scholarship losses are what hurt, and 9 isn't such a huge number - just ask USC. The bowl ban won't scare off recruits, many of whom might be redshirting next year, anyway.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
Crying game . . . .
December 20th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
Another question - will the NCAA allow players to transfer from OSU without sitting out a year based on the bowl ban?
December 20th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
The NCAA has an automatic rule that goes into effect with post-season bans. If a player's entire remaining eligibility is covered by a post-season ban, that player can transfer without sitting out a year. That means all seniors can transfer if they want.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
It should be noted that, if precedent holds, the kids that transfer will be/would be the ones lower on the depth chart, who move to schools where they can be potential starters. That is certainly what happened at USC. The seniors who were starters...I guess they have too much invested in their school, and they still get to show what they can dio for pro-scouts. The bowl never seems to make that big a deal for them.
In effect, it gives the opportunity for players lower on the depth chart to look for greener pastures.
December 20th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^
Which would open up more scholarships. Allow some whose only shot at playing in a game is on special teams to transfer and replace them with bluechip recruits. If that happens, in the first year anyway, there would be no effect of scholarship reduction at all.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
Meyer: Rhymes with Liar
December 20th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
Is missing the little caesars pizza bowl in 2013 really going to cripple the buckeyes long term?
Further, a combination of buckeye myopia possessed by many ohio recruits and Meyer's ability to jedi mind trick these kids will keep their team relevant. Additionally, the buckeyes have put together really solid recruiting classes recently, mitigating the effects of losing an average of three scholies a year for the next three years.
Regardless, next years M/OSU game will basically represent their bowl game, and crushing them at the shoe will be epic...
December 20th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
i think you're missing the point. no one thought osu was going to get a death penalty. but they got something when everyone thought it would be nothing. if you're a michigan fan, take a moment to say a silent hooray, today is a good day.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
I too didn't think the bowl ban was forthcoming, however, my post was addressing the practical effect the punishment will have on their program which I believe will not be as severe as some might perceive.
Personally, no hoorays here... our opposition's fan base thrives on making excuses anytime their program doesn't perform on the field. I'd prefer no excuses, and we beat the strongest buckeye teams possible.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
Things sure have changed for the better as a Michigan fan in 2011. I never thought this would have been the case last January 1, 2011 at 5pm-ish.
Thanks Hoke for running an honest and clean program (and winning with Michigan character).
December 20th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
+ 1 billion. What an incredible performance by an incredible group of people. My expectations were low. If you had told me at the start of this season your prediction was that we'd be 10-2 and going to a BCS bowl I would have laughed in your face.
December 20th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
But.....Urban said nothing said nothing else would happen.