OT: OSU AD Swayed by Sugar Bowl CEO

i can't believe money played a factor in them being allowed to play  *sarcasm*

Read an article that said that UM was flatly not interested in UGA, and State Penn was less interested than OSU. I'm really surprised that UM wasn't interested.

Does that make ESPN Nazgul or Sauron?

I'm sure it took a ton of pressure to convince them.

Hoolahan:  "You should push back the suspensions to protect the mone-, ah, I mean the integrity of the game"

Smith: "I don't want our asses kicked on national TV"

I'm still holding out hope Tressel does the right thing, and levys some suspension on them, but I seriously doubt that will happen

so yes, if it seems like eyeball volume will drop significantly, there can be an immediate impact, and certainly a long term impact.  The bowls are an entertainment show, and everyone who has bought advertising time expects the eyeballs to show up.  If they bought 5 spots, they can easily pull them down to just 1 spot with a corresponding impact on revenue.  But also it's really hard to sell that advert space next year if a huge drop in ratings occurs.

Ohio State was picked in part to deliver a performance with a specific cast.  If that cast changes enough to create a perception change in the audience, it's  going to have a big impact.

Of course, the best way to punish a school, and a conference would be for the NCAA to force the issue and require the suspensions.  BUT the goal of the NCAA is to ensure that competition is equal, and does selling some trinkets really affect the competition?  Paying a player to come to your school versus some other school is an unfair advantage.  Players being creative on generating more "bling" money really isn't impacting the competition, unlesss OSU were helping to sell the trinkets, and thus creating an environment where their players always got more benefits than other schools players.

This is a one time stupid thing, and OSU is the only entity that needs to take corrective action.  Just like how an athletic department responds to all the other tangential issues, that indicate a lack of character in certain individuals.

Sometimes people don't start for 5 minutes of a basketball game, sometimes people get welcomed back to practice after being in jail, and some people get kicked off the team and lost their scholarship.  I think it's better that the School take their own responsibility on things that are not affecting the fairness of play.

I know Lou Holtz is a subject of derision here because he has turned into a parody of his old self, but he used to be a very good football coach.  And he used to suspend starters for bowl games for infractions a lot less potentially damaging than these.  And he won a few games doing it. 

If Tressel had gonads, which he apparently doesn't (it would explain the perpetually pinched expression on his face), he would suspend the players for the game for "violation of team rules" and use it as a motivational factor.  If he had any respect for the rules, he would also suspend them. 

In fitting with his pattern at both OSU and YSU, though, he will continue his policy of committing as many violations as possible with as few consequences as possible.  As a few commenters have already said, I'm not surprised.

Ironically enough, it was with Arkansas that Holtz had his best moment.  He suspended three starters for the Orange Bowl against Oklahoma and his team won 31-0.  The Hogs' message boards are all drawing paralells to this game and their fans, of course, are saying that even Bobby Petrino would have suspended the players immediately. 

This is becoming more of a delicious soap opera for OSU every day.

That was the most shocking comment to me.  Usually people try to pay lip service to the rules.  In his quote, Hoolahan (a.k.a. Sugar Bowl Daddy) couldn't have more clearly said "screw fairness, this is all about the dollaz."

Maybe Hoolahan hasn't received his ethics training either. 

But they aren't moving as fast as southern values.

in questionably ethical hands with Allstate.

In general, isn't ignorance of the law never a valid defense? It is a mitigating circumstance in some cases, but I don't think it has ever been successfully used as a standard defense. I'm not a lawyer but perhaps another MGoBlog member is and can confirm this.

"I didn't know using privilege information to trade stocks was illegal."

"I didn't know selling company/government secrets was wrong."

"I didn't know shouting fire as a prank in a crowded theater is against the law."

The whole NCAA shamateurism is shameful, but at least the NCAA should try to be consistent. Amazingly at the end of the year, the NCAA has managed to be doubly bad. First it has the same old shamateur hypocrisy of some dreamy world of college sports which never ever existed except in movies from the 1950's. They compound this with the mishandling of the Cam Newton pay-my-folks-as-a-shill-for-me situation and then this tattoosu mess. Any other body would have said that the rules are not great but here they are and suspended all of the players for the bowl game and next year. Way to go NCAA; hard to believe but the powers there actually manage to make themselves even LESS respected than before.