OT: OSU AD Swayed by Sugar Bowl CEO

Submitted by JamesBondHerpesMeds on December 29th, 2010 at 10:47 AM


In all honesty....I'm not surprised.  Bowl execs wield as much power as those tall robed guys in Lord of the Rings, but I shake my head at how these guys, with no ties to the program other than copious sums of money, can have such an unwieldy effect on this situation.


Poster Nutbag

December 29th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^

I wonder how much of a kick back Gene Smith and Senator Sweater Vest got?  I'm sure they were able to finagle a tattoo or two along with some other things.  Their players are just following the example of those in charge.




December 29th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^

Interesting choice of words:

"I made the point that anything that could be done to preserve the integrity of this year's game, we would greatly appreciate it," Hoolahan said.

EDIT: Just beaten to it (see directly above).

Zone Left

December 29th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

He said athletic director Gene Smith said to him that OSU was trying to push the suspensions back to the 2011 season, and Hoolahan then told Smith how strongly he felt about the players participating in the Sugar Bowl.

It seems like this was OSU's plan all along, the Sugar Bowl just supported it, for obvious reasons.


December 29th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^

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

Urban Warfare

December 29th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^

Tressel and the seniors are discussing whether the idiots should be suspended from all or part of the Sugar Bowl.  My guess is that Tress does what he did with Troy Smith in the 2005 Texas game: announce that he won't be starting, and then play them only part time after that.  I'd bet that they're suspended for the first quarter/half.  Hopefully, Terrelle has a good enough game after that that he leaves. 


December 29th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

Can someone help me out on the money trail here?  Since you have to assume this decision is about money.

The ESPN contract is in place regardless of who plays in the Sugar Bowl.   The tickets are already bought, they don't offer refunds.   The only thing I can think of is that ESPN has some sliding scale of pay for the bowls based on ratings.   The whole thing is freakin ridiculous.

Blue in Seattle

December 29th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^

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.


December 29th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

Correct. I buy TV and print advertising for a company here in Michigan. 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 11:03 AM ^

WTF!! Im shocked and...wait...no I'm not I guess! These BCS/Bowl officials only want to see the massive payday that these games bring into their states with all the fan spending. On one hand I wonder if Mark Cubans playoff system would be better?? God i hope Arkansas KILLS the Taint!!


December 29th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^

wait... no one's shocked at this quote:

"I made the point that anything that could be done to preserve the integrity of this year's game, we would greatly appreciate it," Hoolahan said. "That appeal did not fall on deaf ears, and I'm extremely excited about it, that the Buckeyes are coming in at full strength and with no dilution."

I'm pretty shocked at how ridiculous of a statement that is.  Integrity?  Really?  Wrong choice of words.  Also, what's up with the "Midwestern values" I guess that's an open admission to what others have been saying all along about the "south" and SEC values?  Wow.


December 29th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^

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.


December 29th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^

This shit is bananas...there a lot of good article about the absolute crap that the NCAA has handed down this year alone and how this decision is the most recent in a long line of fuck ups.  I don't know if they have made a decision yet that seemed appropriate

NOLA Wolverine

December 29th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

Why in the world would they want to shell out a bunch of money to watch Joe Bauserman throw hitch routes to Duron Carter the whole game? I had already assumed that All State made it clear to the NCAA that they were not going to have their game ripped apart. 


December 29th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^

They lied about the violation-the "we didn't properly educate the players" defense; the lack of action by Tressel to date; now the decision to take action, or not to take action, being influenced if not dictated by the Sugar Bowl. No semblance of character at any level of the university or the program.


December 29th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^

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.