OT: NCAA Denies Playing Favorites With osu and Auburn (Updated)

Submitted by jhackney on December 29th, 2010 at 1:58 PM

All I have to say in response to the NCAA is...Srsly?

The NCAA responded to critics today by making this statement today.

"Money is not a motivator or factor as to why one school would get a particular decision versus another. Any insinuation that revenue from bowl games in particular would influence NCAA decisions is absurd, because schools and conferences receive that revenue, not the NCAA."

You forgot about the advertising. If players from osu are suspended for the Sugar Bowl and they start to get clobbered, a lot of people will turn the channel, missing the advertising. Advertisers may be cautious next time around about sponsoring BCS bowls. At least that is my take.

Link for ESPN story

Here is the official release from the NCAA

Doesn't change my Epinion. In fact it may increase the ANGAR I have for the NCAA.

In relation to the decision last week involving rules violations with football student-athletes at Ohio State, several current student-athletes were interviewed as part of our fact-gathering process. They indicated they were not aware there was a violation and learned of the issue based on later rules education, which was confirmed by OSU through interviews and supporting documentation.

Inadequate rules education is often cited in student-athlete reinstatement and other waiver cases (such as inaccurate or misguided academic advising), but it is just one of many factors considered in these types of situations.

Ok...They didn't know/did it for their families.(No way) Also would this be a failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance? From the mouths of osu's coaches and AD came the admission that they didn't adequately inform players of the rules against selling memorabilia. Will there be a investigation for this?

There have been questions as well since last week related to the withholding policy and student-athlete reinstatement for NCAA championships and bowl games. This policy was developed and implemented by the Division I membership, specifically the Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement and approved by the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, in 2004. It allows for suspending a reinstatement condition in specific instances involving NCAA championships or bowl games.  It recognizes the unique opportunity these events provide at the end of a season, and they are evaluated differently from a withholding perspective for student-athlete reinstatement.

What is the unique opportunity Mr. Emmert? Are you teaching student-athletes a proper moral lesson on breaking rules/laws with this exception to punishment? I'm sure here in the real world the police would let me go to my wedding if I was caught selling "hot" items illegally, wouldn't they?

Gag me with a spork.



December 29th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice this.


let's face it...even parents have favorite kids.  its all about not admitting it in the open.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^

So you are implying that, the NCAA is fabricating the truth to us? How dare you.

Directly From the NCAA home page"

"THE NCAA's CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount"

This obviously the motto they stick to when making their decisions



December 29th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

Just like Texas or Texas A&M wouldn't have gotten the death penalty if they had been caught doing what SMU did, OSU and Auburn have been treated differently. There is a long history of the NCAA giving preferential treatment to the bigger programs. Does it suck? Yes. Is it understandable? That's also a yes. These programs drive the value, and as Jim Delany will readily tell you...it's all about the money.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^

Agree with you. But then why make a public show denying it? How about just keeping quiet and wait for it to make it's way out of the news cycle when most will just not care or remember anymore. When you accuse critics of being wrong, they deserve to be roasted on pikes and spit on by a person with halitosis.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^

I actually think this was in the news cycle. With it breaking this morning that the Sugar Bowl chief lobbied for the OSU players to play in the bowl game, I think this question was raised. Trust me, I don't agree with the NCAA and think they are being less than forthright. But I think you do have to say something. Every entity defends their brand even if we all see through it as being disingenuous. 

EDIT: read that as you saying this was out of the news cycle for some reason. But I still think you have to defend yourself in the face of criticism or you risk being completely defined by the media. There are always a few naive people that will buy what they say.

Zone Left

December 29th, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^

The NCAA doesn't make money off of bowls, right? I thought that was a big part of the issue with a playoff, the NCAA would get a huge windfall and the bowls would lose their money.


December 29th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^

may not make a profit as it is an umbrella as previously mentioned  However, all then @ssholes want to keep their cushy jobs.  They get to fly around the country to any college sporting event they want.  The NCAA is a joke with this ruling.  They dont care about integrity.  Never have...never will.

If there was ever a time when we needed the "Atomic Bomb", this is the time.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^

It's hard to believe that revenue generation did not influence the end decision. The players found guilty were responsible for 97% (ESPN stat) of the offense this season. Can you imagine the debacle that would be the Sugar Bowl? The TV ratings, advertising, perhaps attendance would all take a hit which ultimately affects sponsors and their cash. If this were Central Michigan playing in the Motor City Bowl, do you think the players found guilty would be eligible?


December 29th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^

I know this case is completely different, but could a small school have fought the NCAA and won like Michigan did? Our entire society and way of life is all about money. It's ridiculous and naive to assume that the NCAA will somehow rise above that. Now, if we were to have a communist revolution, then perhaps the problem could be fixed...

Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

...could a small school have fought the NCAA and won like Michigan did?

Absolutely.  If they hired the Lightfoot firm, or another firm of that caliber, and if they had facts as good as Michigan's (albeit set up to ridiculous heights by the ridiculous newspaper reporting before the investigation).

Michigan got its weak self-imposed punishment approved, because the allegations were so weak and trifling to begin with.  Only the newspaper made it sound serious.  Michigan did not buy its way out of anything.  Michigan didn't need to. 

Section 1

December 29th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^

At least in the case of OSU, the NCAA has a pretty clear record of imposing exactly the same penalties in other similar cases.  Four games, plus one for slow/poor self reporting.

And as for letting the players play in the Sugar Bowl, it is still my understanding that OSU's original self-report to the NCAA recommended self-sanctioning in the form of suspending all the players for the Sugar Bowl (albeit only for the Sugar Bowl).  The OSU fanbase wanted the guys suspended [only] for the Sugar Bowl.

But the NCAA, I think, has some precedent for not imposing penalities on the eve of championship games, et cetera.  I think the NCAA can make that case, with other examples, although I confess I'm not sure what they are.

No doubt; this response was deemed necessary by the fact that Jim Delany and the Sugar Bowl Committee both acknowledged lobbying the NCAA on behalf of the OSU guys playing.

Maize and Blue…

December 29th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^

Seeing as how they self report so many violations how did it take them a year to figure this one out.  They lead the country in self reported "secondary violations".  Yet, OSU is treated different and you need look no further then the Maurice Clarett case.  What punishment did OSU get?


December 29th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^

This is my recollection, given not as a definitive list, but as an explanation of what M fans are most likely thinking about when referencing Maurice:

  • Had tutors taking his exams for him, and/or tutors who had access not given to other students to either former tests from the professors, or the pre-versions of the tests themselves.
  • Held a job during his time at OSU, set up through friends of the program, where he got paid salary for not working or even being there. I think he was the one working at a dealership, but alleged that teammates had a similar summer gig at a golf course. Anyway, the deal was mostly that he show up and hang out all day - not expected to work - and for doing so was given an hourly salary beyond what a typical 19-year-old would be paid. Maurice was expected to show up to get paid, but found that he still got paid if he didn't show up.
  • Was given access to borrow cars, including the one he reported as stolen, from a dealership owned by a friend of the program
  • That OSU knew about and allowed these boosters to provide student athletes such special compensations.

These are mostly, if I recall correctly, from statements Maurice made after leaving the university (when he felt OSU threw him to the dogs). These statements he later retracted.

Like I said, this isn't a list of things OSU was found guilty of. And as a Michigan fan I am not the guy whose opinion in these matters is going to be un-biased. But the strongest memory I have of these incidents around Clarett were that his descriptions of the shady things going on at OSU were very detailed, credulous, and delivered with candor, while his retraction came after a kind of reunification with the school under the auspices of an agent who, since disgraced for paying players back in the day, wrote a tell-all in which he describes the whitewashing of Clarett in order to get him drafted was the best work he's ever done.

Like I said: this isn't an accusation or a statement of fact. But if you asked me to honestly guess, based on Clarett's two statements, plus the suggestion that the whole car-borrowship story was repeated almost exactly (again, unproven) with Troy Smith a few years later, I find Maurice's original statement far more believable than his retraction of them, meaning my best guess is that those things were occurring at OSU.

In his mind, I think Maurice was trying to convince NFL teams that Ohio State, not he, was at fault for making him act like he's above the NCAA. I don't doubt that his reasons for saying it were the mark of a person not able to take responsibility for himself -- which is pretty much a dead giveaway that this guy has major personality problems that can lead to criminal behavior. What's interesting though is that he named specific examples, where if he was trying to fabricate a scenario where OSU was responsible for his big head, why not just talk about being a big man on campus instead of naming specific violations? I think he was pissed at OSU and tried to betray them to save himself, and then found that people in football care far more about OSU than they do him.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^

doesn't need to end up here in 5 minutes. We are all fanatical enough to check that website ourselves or are tech savvy enough to setup RSS feeds.

For a guy making a living (if mgopoints can be called that) posting one single youtube video over a dozen times every day supposedly because you deem those threads not worthy of the interwebs, you generate a lot of dredge yourself.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^

I think any publisist would tell them to just keep their mouths shut for a while.  The fact that they are trying to defend themselves in the face of such ridiculousness makes them seem even more disingenuous.  Is it just me, or is the violation/suspension stuff getting more and more press over the past half decade or so?  Maybe that has something to do with it.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^

1. This argument by the NCAA is dumb because the ratings will not be as high if fewer high-profile players are in the game, which will subsequently lower the value of advertising.

2.  Michigan would likely be treated the same way for the same reason.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^

It is all about money, yes the NCAA doesn't collect money from the games but the ads are where they make the money.  The NCAA just put this out there to appear PC, when everyone knows what is really going on behind the scenes.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^

This is the first year in which all five BCS bowl games will be telecast on ESPN (or ESPN on abc); ad rates for the succeeding years of the contract will be based on the ratings of this season.


December 29th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

NCAA is really, really corrupt.  The fact that they issued this statement further makes the case that it is "all about the money."  I understand that much of the American public is dumb but this is just insulting.  Anyway, I already posted the following on a previous thread but feel this info is warranted here as well. 

All Nielsen rated networks guarantee a specific number of eyeballs and when they don't deliver they make them up with what they call ADUs (free commercial units in future programming).

The ADUs should be in programming that is as similar to what the original broadcast was (both in terms of content and ratings). They will provide as many ADUs as it takes to make up for the loss of eyeballs. These ADUs would otherwise be sold at their standard price to other companies. TV networks live and die on their ratings. Sugar Bowl is big time money


December 29th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^

The NCAA is only looking out for their bottom line in the end!! They and ESPN have whored themselves out to the advertisers and consumers, and after losing 14 million+ households, due to those that dont have ESPN, they need to have quality bowls to generate the much needed revenue! If the NCAA wasnt in bed with ESPN we would be having a playoff system with less bowls, but more money to the colleges. Maybe I'm just a disgruntled fan but my god the NCAA NEEDS TO GO!!


December 29th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

I have wanted to see them end shamateurism for at least twenty years now.  Really, though, the NCAA is doing a great job of managing their main interest here: money.

They allow both teams to play their bowls and make a lot of money.  Then, later, they can put them on probation if they find more and they can take back the money the teams earn in their bowls for their general fund.  In other words, almost everybody wins.  The bowls get their money, TV gets their ratings, the NCAA reserves the right to make the schools "pay back" the money they make to the NCAA instead of the bowls themselves, and the schools "get what they deserve" later. 

As usual with the NCAA, the only people who lose are the players who didn't take any money and the fans.