Buckeye-geddon: 1-year bowl ban, 9 schollies, extra probation, JT Show Cause

Submitted by BiSB on December 20th, 2011 at 1:35 PM

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.

Comments

CRex

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.  

bigpapa.KG

December 20th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

Dunn thread coming? He needs to decommit from Ohio and come play for Hoke where he won't be punished for something he didn't do and for a coach who has never lied to him.

Belisarius

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.

Dubs

December 20th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

 

So, if someone could clear this up...
 
Does this mean that OSU can only utilize 22 of the 25 max. recruits per season? Or does this mean we subtract the 3 scholarships from the number of available scholarships (OSU has 18 spots - 3 lost = 15 total this year) for each of the next 3 seasons?
 
Also, what are the details of the probation? If they slip up again, they're toast?
 
I guess I'm not so good at the semantics of these rulings...

team126

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.

WhoopinStick

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.

BrownJuggernaut

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).

Lionsfan

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

Maizeforlife

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.

pdgoblue25

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

Sons of Louis Elbel

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.

Belisarius

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.

LoyVaughtfrom16

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...

LoyVaughtfrom16

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.

Bombadil

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).

steeltownblue

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.