December 30th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^

Are they really sorry that they did this, or are they just sorry that they got caught?  My money is that they are just sorry that they got caught.  I didn't think Pryor sounded very sincere or remorseful.


December 30th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^

Sent From TWoolf on the 23rd.  He was notified of the suspensions (#2 and #3) and his response is #1!!!

He is hungry.  Can't wait to see him back!!!

  1. All I know is there better be Playn when we play them cause when we beat them I want them to be at there best.
  2. @Mjade_beauty I know that exchanged there signatures for free tattoos.lol
  3. pryor, adams,heron, posey, and thomas from Ohio St. are suspended for the first 5 games next year for accepting benefits #hahadummies


December 30th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^

You aren't understanding so I'll explain (not meant as a dig). As a Michigan fan I don't like OSU. Hate is too strong for anything in life so there is no hate from me. I have always admired Tressel because he seemed to care about his players on a level outside of football. To expand on that an example, although not him, is how I saw Tressel.


For the OSU game Rich held Hagerup out of the game and he wasn't even allowed to travel with the team. This shows that Rich has extremely high integrity and cares for his players outside of football. Teaching Hagerup that football is secondary to following the rules is a tremendous effort to show that he cares about his players more than football players and wants them to become moral men. This is how I viewed Tressel.


To have the NCAA suspend five players for the first five games for breaking the rules it is easy to see that this is a serious infraction. If Jim had any integrity whatsoever he would suspend those players for the Sugar Bowl as well. Although it is not on the level of Dantonio it is still an action which shows that football is more important than development from boys to men in the eyes of Jim.

Not a Blue Fan

December 30th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^

I see your point of view, and I think I understand where you're coming from. This is my point of view:

Jim Tressel has one of two options: he can play the guys or he can sit them. Now, if he decides to sit the guys then, in effect, they are serving a one game suspension because most of them will just go pro, completely circumventing the NCAA's ruling. There are obviously pros and cons to this; as you say, it shows the players that the coach will take steps to punish players. However, it also shows that the NCAA has, esentially, no power to punish players who break the rules. Now, there is also the matter of whose rules were broken here. Certainly any NCAA rule should be considered a team rule - that essentially goes without saying. On the other hand, it's a steep argument to make that the players did something that hurt themselves or the team or...well, anybody. Personally, I'm don't think that the players should be allowed to play in the bowl game, but it's my opinion that the NCAA should suspend them for the game - not the team. Why? Well, because they haven't done anything to hurt the team. They broke an NCAA rule. The NCAA should have the spine to enforce their own rules. It's not Jim Tressel's responsibility to enforce the NCAA's rules in lieu of the NCAA doing their job.

That's why I think that this is the best compromise that he can make. Assuming that the players keep their promise (big assumption, of course) then he's doing a couple of things. He's telling the players that they have to pay the price for breaking the rules (by forcing them to take their NCAA medicine) and he's not usurping (or supplanting, whichever you prefer) the NCAA's authority to enforce their own rules. Now, I totally understand that some people would see this as a circuitous, self serving route to getting the guys to play in the game. I would, however, point of that I'm actually in favor of the NCAA suspending the guys. I do not, however, think that the team has any duty to do what the NCAA refuses to do - especially when this rule is arguably unethical and illogical (although that's another discussion). So I think that Tressel is making a reasonable compromise (again, assuming the guys actually honor their promise).

So I'm not going to argue that you're wrong or anything. Opinions are inherently subjective. I do, however, think that there are good arguments to be made on both sides.


December 30th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^

I believe that the players did hurt the team and also the University. Suspensions for what should be 38% of the 2011 season from starters will most definitely hurt the team. However, I don't agree with the rule but it is a rule and has to be followed. A statement that was made above is a certain possibility and would negate this quid pro quo between Tressel and the aforementioned players. That can be broken quite easily and this would set a precedent for juniors to were they could break NCAA rules if they had decided to go pro and forgo their senior season.

Not a Blue Fan

December 30th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^

So, if I understand you correctly, you are not actually responding to my question about why asking the guys to return and, you know, actually serve the suspension reflects poorly on Jim Tressel. You're just reiterating the talking point that you've been trying to bait me with for the past week. Well, I guess everybody needs a hobby.


December 30th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^

We have yet to see if they do return. Don't count your chickens until they hatch. Pyror might go to the draft. He and the others could make big money for their families. Isn't that why they sold their awards in the first place? I am saying this infraction reflects poorly on Tressell because of a failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance. If he is cleared by the NCAA then I am wrong, but they should at least investigate it. From his and the AD's own mouth, they admitted not informing the players enough about the rules about selling items such as the ones they sold. That sounds like a tacit admission of failure to promote an atmosphere to comply, hence it reflects poorly for the job Tressell is supposed to do. Be a responsible coach.


December 30th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^

Yes. Suspension comes down from the ncaa, what is said to the players. I could understand the 5 games for next year being sufficient penalty if this happened this summer. This happened 2 years ago. The investigation is done. Suspensions should begin immediately. This is a farce perpetrated by the ncaa and upheld by osu. Tressel turns out to be similar to his buddy, St Mark.


December 30th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^

Dantonio's actions are much more severe than Tressels because one team had players commit violent crimes followed by one of the perpetrators getting behind the wheel impaired while all the osu players did was sell a couple of the awards they had won. Dantonio will always be in a league of his own.

Still in AA

December 30th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^

Tressel and Smith were very clear that these kids sold things to provide for their poor families in these tough economic times.  Now Tressel is denying them a chance to earn a decent living by requiring them to come back to school for another year in exchange for playing time in a bowl game.  That's just heartless, man.


December 30th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^

Personally I am happy they're coming back because I want to beat the Bucks with Pryor as their QB more than anything...especially in his senior season.


December 30th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^

Funny how OSU's AD said the items were being sold due to financial hardships being faced by their families....wouldn't going pro really help these "hardships"?

Also the NCAA and OSU keep stating that the players did not have proper education on these rules when the items were sold.  They sold 2008 championship rings.  When did did become "educated" to these rules, why wasn't it brought to the NCAA's attention then and not when the tattoo parlor got raided.  Hopefully the NCAA is doing alot of interviewing with Thaddeus Gibson.


December 30th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^

Here's a funny side note.  Listening to 1270 this morning (I know...it's my fault for doing so), Gator (I think) was complaining that MSU didn't get OSU's BCS invite.  His reasoning...that the players should have been suspended for the bowl game (completely agree) and that they wouldn't be in such a spot if MSU had gotten the offer.  He continued to complain about a lack of discipline for these players at OSU without realizing the amazing irony given the whole Dantonio Cup situation.  


December 30th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^

Per 11 Warriors, Tressel said that if these kids hadn't committed to return next season, they wouldn't have made the trip to New Orleans.  So, a group who sold their trinkets to a tattoo parlor and lied about it to the NCAA has now given "their word" to the Vest.  Sounds like a way for both sides to save face.   I'd be willing to put good money that at least two see their "situation change" after the game and opt for the NFL draft.  Just more PR and handling out of Fort Tressel...  


December 30th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^

Per Rittenberg:

Jim Tressel says the players facing five-game suspensions next season would not have traveled with the team to the Sugar Bowl if they had not pledged to return in 2011.

Well, I'm glad Tressel got Pryor to promise.  I'm sure he's a man of his word, especially since these guys could be playing their last game for draft status above anything else.


December 30th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

The fifth game of the suspension was for lying to the NCAA when initially asked about selling their trinkets.  AJ Green was suspended for four games for selling a jersey, but he was truthful with the NCAA when came knocking.  This "pledge" has everything to do with saving face and nothing to do with whether the players are coming back next year. 

Section 1

December 31st, 2010 at 12:53 AM ^

There's a sidebar to this story that I found interesting.  When either four or five OSU guys submitted their draft-rating paperwork, the OSU press (the Dispatch, the OSU blogs) immediately set to work, analyzing the story, quickly determing that only one of the guys was a likely draftee, etc.  Just basic, solid reporting.

Now, when Mike Martin of Michigan does the same thing, the Free Press, in a Mark Snyder story, does a quick few paragraphs that make it sound as though Martin has essentially delcared for the draft.  And leaving the reader to think that Martin was leaving the program as soon as the Gator Bowl game was over.  Supplying none of the other cautionary information as to what the draft paper work actually signifies.  Naturally, MGoBlog's readership essentially reported the story better, on a message board, than the Free Press' Michigan beat-writer did, in a published story.