Young Pretty a…

December 23rd, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^

Looks like Lil brother MSU, will benefit from the suspension as well. OSU vs MSU 5th game of next year

 

Sat, Sep 03  Akron Columbus, Ohio   TBA    
  Sat, Sep 10  Toledo Columbus, Ohio   TBA    
  Sat, Sep 17  Miami (Fla.) at Miami, Fla.   TBA    
  Sat, Sep 24  Colorado Columbus, Ohio   TBA    
  Sat, Oct 01  Michigan State * Columbus, Ohio   TBA

umich1

December 23rd, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^

MSU playing tOSU without Pryor, Posey, and Herron is a WIN - WIN as a Michigan fan.

Scenario One:  MSU wins.  This, by extension, means OSU loses.  They could have two loses by week five next year.  I will not lose any sleep there.

Scenario Two:  MSU loses.  This takes a "respectable loss" for MSU off the table - you HAVE to beat them when they are without their three best players.  Watching Sparty implode ahead of M game = priceless.

Not a Blue Fan

December 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

I would love to hear you make a case for this. Please, go on. This I must hear. Actually, nevermind. Some HERP DERP about Maurice Clarett is unnecessary and, frankly, I'll save you from looking silly. The program had nothing to do with these clowns selling their shit. It was wrong and they'll be punished for it (as they should be). I'm just glad that Ohio State has the dignity to admit it when something happens and then work with the NCAA to resolve it. Hell, it's a model program in that respect (and, let it be clear, so is Michigan - they worked with the NCAA to resolve their petty issues too).

FWIW, I actually don't really give a shit about the players suspended. Posey will probably go pro (and would have anyway), Adams has consistently been in the dog house, Thomas is a relative non-contributor, and Herron is going to get surpassed by the half dozen 4 and 5 star RBs behind him. Hell, no Pryor just means that we might see Braxton Miller sooner.

Not a Blue Fan

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^

Me: <Eating lunch, browsing MGoBlog> Well, that wasn't so bad. Let's see what the guys who can't sellout their first bowl game in 3 years have to say.

You: WHAAAAAAARGARRRRBLE NON COMPLIANCE LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL

Me: <slapping forehead> Goddammit, why can I not just let people wallow in their own stupidity. <types response>

<END SCENE>

NateVolk

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^

You make a good point that OSU didn't sell the items. USC didn't hook up Reggie Bush with a sport's marketing group either.

The new law of the NCAA was loud and clear after USC's sanctions: you are responsible for heightened scrutiny of the activities of your high profile players.  Under that standard, it is not at all obsurd to question why a failure to promote atmosphere of compliance investigation isn't happening here.

Not saying I think Ohio State did anything wrong, just as I really don't think USC did either.  But the standard is the standard.

Not a Blue Fan

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^

A good point, but I would argue that USC got slammed because Pete Carrol allowed agents to hang out in the locker room, at practice, on the sidelines...pretty much wherever they wanted. If Jim Tressel is allowing sports memorabilia guys to hang out in the locker room and at practice, then I agree with you. However, I don't think this is the case. In principle, however, you are correct. I just disagree with the comparison.

Serth

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^

its more like, a few randos saying lack of control, while the majority of us saying: What, that is total bullshit and ridiculous. [redacted for grammar and lack of support of my statement]. Why doesn't the NCAA do something more with seemingly obvious offenses that are more of a gameday/recruiting advantage over other schools? But...I'll take it. PEACE.

4godkingandwol…

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

... with these suspensions.  They are sort of meaningless.  The NCAA has no spine whatsoever.  The logic being used to say they should be suspended 5 games next year is that they didn't know the rules so we shouldn't suspend them this year.

Really? 

1) If they didn't know the rules that's failure at the institutional level and should be punished via institutional sanctions not player punishments.

2) If they didn't know the rules this year, why delay the suspension?  How is suspending them next year any different than this year. 

My gripe here is with the NCAA -- this is definitely a system issue just as much as it is a TP being TP issue.

Not a Blue Fan

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

Yeah, I'm kind of looking at it that way. I don't see the logic here. However, listening to the radio jerks here was interesting; Demetrius Stanley (you remember him, right?) pointed out that while it may be clear that you can't sell what is perceived as 'school property' (e.g. jerseys) it may not be clear to some athletes that you can't sell your own property. That is, why can't I sell my Big Ten championship ring (which is my own property) but I can sell, say, my CD player. The distinction seems clear to me (one is derived from your athletic pursuits and you're supposed to be an amateur), but I can see how somebody would not understand that (and, let's be honest, very few college football players are Alfred Einsteins).

So I can see how the school could argue that "we didn't make it clear enough". Especially when this happened last November; if it happened after the AJ Green thing, that would be a hard row to hoe (since it should be very clear to everyone by now). That's not the case.

They were arguing that "it's not fair to the fans or sugar bowl or seniors or  jesus to hold them out of a game at the last minute"...that's bullshit. Either suspend them or don't. The rationale of not suspending them for the Sugar Bowl is pretty thin.

thisisme08

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

Simple really...the NCAA refuses to punish their current golden goose.  UM BBall, USC, OSU (not relavent in the BCS Championship this year) etc.  while Auburn had a shot @ a heisman winner and a BCS championship so therefore their rules are different.

justingoblue

December 25th, 2010 at 9:11 PM ^

I agree with almost everything you said, and I certainly don't think this falls under lack of institutional control, but basically what happened is OSU dove in front of the bullet for these players and are coming out of it with no harm.

I think if OSU wants to say that the players weren't educated so they deserve a reduced punishment, then fine. But on the flip side, that means the school didn't educate them properly and should be held accountable in some way.

In the end though, this is all silly, and is only really an issue because Pryor is involved. That and sorry, but it's nice to see some havoc in Columbus every now and then.

m83econ

December 23rd, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

The logic is impeccable, but you forgot that the NCAA would really like to just see these players leave college. 

 

In addition to the suspension, there are repayments involved:

_____________________________________________

Pryor must repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, a 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 Gold Pants, a gift from the university for players on a team that beats arch-rival Michigan.

Herron must repay $1,150 for selling his football jersey, pants and shoes for $1,000 and receiving discounted services worth $150.

Posey must repay $1,250 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring for $1,200 and receiving discounted services worth $50.

Adams must repay $1,000 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring.

Thomas must repay $1,505 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring for $1,000, his 2008 Gold Pants for $350 and receiving discounted services worth $155.

"These are significant penalties based on findings and information provided by the university," Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs, said in a statement.

____________________________________________________

Selling "gold pants"?  Before even graduating?  Is that what their honor is worth?

InterM

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^

Your university already has made it for us:

"We were not as explicit with our student-athlete education as we should have been in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years regarding the sale of apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department," Smith said in a statement. "We began to significantly improve our education in November of 2009 to address these issues. After going through this experience, we will further enhance our education for all our student-athletes as we move forward."

"We as coaches feel the buck stops here," Tressel said at the news conference. "We're the ones who need to make things even more crystal clear."

 So, these guys seem to think the program had something to do with it.  Not that I don't agree with you that even "petty issues" can lead to full-blown, expensive investigations under the NCAA's byzantine rules and enforcement scheme -- as we know all too well around here.

ish

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^

you kind of miss the point.  the athletic director said "We were not as explicit with our student-athlete education as we should have been in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years regarding the sale of apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department,"

he kind of admitted to failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance.  if one kid does it then you don't worry about the atmposhere because the atmosphere probably didn't influence one kid.  but when six break the rule, it shows that the university failed to properly instruct the kids as to the rules.  i.e. failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance.