Given the most recent news, I'm hoping to get some wider debate going on the subject of competitive advantage. I think it's the questions that matters most to many fans, including this one.
Tressel, by using players he knew to be ineligible, gave OSU an obvious on-field edge. But I'm talking about the crimes, not the cover-up: tattgate, helmetgate, some degree of cargate. To what degree, if any, did the crimes translate to wins?
Tatts and cash don't make anyone play better. But given the breadth of (alleged) corruption, I see a major edge in terms of recruiting: How many recruits were drawn in by all that permissiveness and entitlement? Or am I reaching here?