Talcelm

December 20th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^

As one of the "money makers" for NCAA anyone who believes that O$U will get anything more than their self imposed needs to come back to reality!! They are going to get off scott free....tressel will be scapegoat and Meyer will be proclaimed the savior of a program led awry by one man and his own deeds. USC...Miami...UNC will all gnash their teeth put on sackcloth and scream "NOT FAIR" but it will all fall on deaf ears. Sucks but it's the true and we all are going to get a huge bite of this s**t sandwhich!!

lbpeley

December 20th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^

If you really think that "osu is one of the money makers" is the reason they'll get off light then please explain the usc situation.

Smith (or Gee? I can't keep the fuckers straight) is buddies with Emmert. That would be the one and only reason why osu gets off light.

PhillipFulmersPants

December 20th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^

The NCAA doesn't make money off of football. The conferences and teams do. That is, OSU football makes money for the B10 and OSU.

NCAA's revenue comes almost entirely from March Madness and the corresponding television contracts they've negotiated with CBS and other partners.

 

Magnum P.I.

December 20th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^

Ugh, I get so tired of people smugly posting this response to conflict-of-interest arguments regarding the NCAA and punishments. Is it that big of a mental leap to see how the health of big-sports colleges is in the direct interest of the NCAA as an organization? Dropping the hammer on OSU football may not have a direct and immediate financial consequence on the NCAA, but it represents a risk for them. How many scorned big-sports colleges like USC need to get crushed before their ADs start talking about alternative systems to the NCAA?

Your argument is very narrow-minded.

LSAClassOf2000

December 20th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^

....something more than a $50 fine and time served, but I am not all that hopeful right now that the punishment will be on the same scale as the crime. That being said, if for some reason the NCAA did the right thing this time, my mood would be much improved at 3:01 PM.  

Lately, it seems like the NCAA cares when it doesn't know, and then when it knows, it doesn't exactly care.

96goblue00

December 20th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^

the men of Troy lay down their own hammer against the NCAA. I am not sure on what specific legal grounds they could bring a case but it seems that if they got the book thrown at them and OSU skates away with a very minimal punishment there are some issues of equity. I feel it in my bones that OSU will get a slap on the wrist. Gentlemen, time to suit up.

polometer

December 20th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^

Ohio's choice not to use their old coaching staff to do recruiting is an important step in the right direction.  The old staff is tainted by the allegations and misgivings.  For Ohio to go ahead and use a new staff for official football buisness is a sign things are moving in the right direction.

Indiana Blue

December 20th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^

that Fickel is not leaving.  So they change head coaches ... but they lose nothing at the coaching level.  If Fickel stays as DC - then tsio pulled another "fast one" over on the NCAA ... because the coach they "lost" is actually still on staff and out there recruiting.  

tsio owns the NCAA ... and it is obvious for anyone to see.

Go Blue!

sheepman

December 20th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^

I asked this once before, but I am still trying to get my head around the losses of scholarship thing. If they lose 5 for 3 years, does that mean that instead of 85, they can only have 80 scholly players for 3 years? Then they can take as many kids as will bring them up to 80?

polometer

December 20th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^

the 5 scholarship proposal worked as follows:

1st year--the entire program must be 3 scholarships under the NCAA limit, i.e. at 82

2nd year--the entire program must be 1 scholarships under the NCAA limit, i.e. at 84

3rd year--the entire program must be 1 scholarships under the NCAA limit, i.e. at 84

over 3 years, this seems pretty worthless of a reduction

maizenbluenc

December 20th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^

sucks to be the last deserving walk-on or 5th year senior in line at Ohio State the next three years.

I'd bet on these guys being the ones who did not partake in free tatoos, cars, cash for charitable appearances, and no-show jobs. What an effective punishment.

joeyb

December 20th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

Yea, if you go with the double rule, it should be closer to 30 over 3 years because they had 5 players taking benefits for 3. That's 15 scholarship-years, which doubles to 30. That's never going to happen, though.

mfan_in_ohio

December 20th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^

They had 5 players taking benefits for a year that they knew about and covered up.  That's, at minimum, five scholarship-years, which doubles to ten.  Ten scholarships over three years, plus a show-cause on Tressel and vacated wins, should be the base level of punishment we are talking about.  If the NCAA wants to add on additional penalties for the cover-up, including the "investigation" done prior to last year's Sugar Bowl, then great, but it's hard to justify less than a ten scholarship reduction.

DixieWreck

December 20th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^

was opened when the NCAA looked the other way with Auburn and Cam Newton with little to no complaints around the college football world.
I don't expect much if anything to come down on TUO$.

BRCE

December 20th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^

How do you know they "looked the other way"? If Cecil Newton got paid by Auburn in return for his son's services, it would be on the NCAA to investigate and prove it. That's not as easy as it sounds for an institution that doesn't have subpoena power.

A lot of you seem naive with your ideas of what the NCAA actually is. It's not a police outfit.

 

superstringer

December 20th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^

12 months ago, if someone had said, "A school in the Big Ten with a house-hold name will have a scandle so invidious and dispicable, it will shred the schoo's reputation and send their future into a black hole" -- we'd have been, like, "wait--whaaa?--not us right?"

If you'd have said the same thing 4 months ago, we'd be like, "Yup!  Take that, tSIO!"

And now, that statement is indeed true, but it's not tSIO.  Even more unfathomably, it's taken down JoePa.

So, it seems whatever the fate of tSIO is today (read:  they'll do nothing), it sort of doesn't matter anymore, does it?

JeepinBen

December 20th, 2011 at 9:52 AM ^

Hypothetical set of penalties here:

OSU gets little more than what they have right now. A real slap on the wrist. Maybe a few more scholarships, longer probation, etc.

BUT...

Tressel gets a HUGE Show-Cause (8 years or so? loss of all OSU retirement package? can the NCAA do this?). Smith gets a Show-Cause and is fired, hell even Gee is reprimanded like crazy.

What does the board think of punishments like that? One thing I didn't like about USC is I felt like it punished the kids and no one else. Bush kept his $$. Carrol fled for the NFL and kept everything. Any USC player was screwed. Personally I'd like to see the adults involved get punished, not necessarily the redshirt sophomore nobody who committed to Tressel last Feb. Well, I'd like to see the NCAA hammer OSU, but I'd like to see the adults get hammered too. Thoughts?

Mr. Rager

December 20th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

Another one:

NCAA : Ohio State

as

Federal Government : AIG

when it should be:

Federal Government : Lehman Brothers

sheepdog

December 20th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^

If OSU=sanctions, and sanctions=2 year bowl ban

Then Brionte Dunn=visit Michigan

Dunn= Michigan visit + OSU - scholarship

Dunn=commit to Michigan

MGoBlog=muppets