5 Ohio State Players Suspended

[PADukeMom]

Football not basketball.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5950873

[Bluedog]

Interesting that they're suspended for their first five games of 2011 vs. the likes of SW Missouri State, but not for the bowl game. Can somebody explain to me this rationale?

The players are eligible for the bowl game because the NCAA determined they did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred, Lennon said.

If that's the case, isn't it Ohio State's own fault for not educating their players? If the NCAA accepts the fact that individual players shouldn't punished for Ohio State's lack of education, then why are they suspended for five games in 2011? Makes no sense to me. Either they are at fault, or they aren't. You can't say they're at fault "somewhat" so we'll suspend them only for games that are more convenient for them to miss...I'm not saying they should be suspended for the bowl game necessarily, just that the penalty should make sense and not be dependent on the upcoming matchups. Pryor will probably be turning pro anyways so won't miss any games.

Edit: Also, I find it somewhat humorous that players could easily sell their merchandise/awards once they graduate without any repercussions (as far as I know it's not illegal to sell possessions), just not when they're in school. But I understand the premise behind the rule.

[johnb]

Ohio State takes a big hit if it means Pryor leaves for the NFL in 2011 rather than 2012, but it is sort of a joke. It's obvious that the NCAA doesn't want players to be selling their stuff, and the players must have known it, though it does underline the weirdness of a system in which the only people in the country with such restrictions are NCAA athletes.

I also liked this exchange:

On Twitter on Wednesday night, Pryor posted, "I paid for my tattoos. GoBucks"

Pryor's high school coach, Ray Reitz, told ESPN's Joe Schad that Pryor sold items because "he wanted to help his mother."

[nmduke2001]

The ncaa is so hypocritical. How can they justify all of the free stuff that the bowls give to participating players?

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com...rticleId=67518

Aren’t those things “extra benefits?”

Don't get me wrong, I think a scholarship is more than enough for these athletes and they shouldn't receive anything extra. I just think the NCAA is just laughable with their rules enforcement.

[sagegrouse]

The ncaa is so hypocritical. How can they justify all of the free stuff that the bowls give to participating players?

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com...rticleId=67518

Aren’t those things “extra benefits?”

Don't get me wrong, I think a scholarship is more than enough for these athletes and they shouldn't receive anything extra. I just think the NCAA is just laughable with their rules enforcement.

If players need extra money, can't they apply for student loans? Other students use them for living expenses, and in some cases, live pretty darned well. For players who are bona fide NFL prospects, paying them back shouldn't be a problem. Or maybe the NCAA doesn't like this either.

I have to say that the constant drumbeat of negative ink on the NCAA because of picayune player transgressions is a terrible way to promote your sport. There's gotta be a better way.

sagegrouse

[dukelifer]

If players need extra money, can't they apply for student loans? Other students use them for living expenses, and in some cases, live pretty darned well. For players who are bona fide NFL prospects, paying them back shouldn't be a problem. Or maybe the NCAA doesn't like this either.

I have to say that the constant drumbeat of negative ink on the NCAA because of picayune player transgressions is a terrible way to promote your sport. There's gotta be a better way.

sagegrouse

Not sure it is possible. For regular students on fellowships- all new money acts to reduce the amount of their award. One could imagine a booster creating a loan program and never expecting to get paid back.

[sagegrouse]

Not sure it is possible. For regular students on fellowships- all new money acts to reduce the amount of their award. One could imagine a booster creating a loan program and never expecting to get paid back.

I was in grad school many years ago. Is it really true that if one chooses to incur a student loan through a federal program, that it would reduce the stipend, which is already to small to live on, esp. for those with families?

I know a bit about law students and med students these days, and the amounts borrowed are amazing.

Anyway, if this route were to be used, it couldn't be a booster-run program. It would have to be a federal or NCAA-approved program.

sagegrouse

[Acymetric]

I would think athletes on scholarships would still qualify for unsubsidized Stafford loans...does anyone know for a fact that this is untrue? If they do qualify they can get $5,500 their freshman year, $6,500 their sophomore year, and $7,500 for all subsequent years with a maximum of $31,000 from all years combined.

I'm going this route and I'll only be making 30-50k tops in my career, don't see why I should feel bad that athletes would have to take out loans as well so long as there's no NCAA rule against it.

[west_coast_devil]

I would think athletes on scholarships would still qualify for unsubsidized Stafford loans...does anyone know for a fact that this is untrue? If they do qualify they can get $5,500 their freshman year, $6,500 their sophomore year, and $7,500 for all subsequent years with a maximum of $31,000 from all years combined.

I'm going this route and I'll only be making 30-50k tops in my career, don't see why I should feel bad that athletes would have to take out loans as well so long as there's no NCAA rule against it.

If not unsubsidized Stafford loans, a student athlete could always take out a private student loan. Those loans are horrible, but to be honest, I had to take out a private loan for housing costs after an illness in my immediate family rendered a change in my family's financial situation.
My point is, there is money available for college student D1 athletes to pay for living expenses, regardless of their situation. It just depends on what route that individual must take; just like any other student. If that student athlete is prospected to be drafted as a pro, they already have it significantly easier then the above average college graduate to pay their debts... Just my opinion.
To tie-in with this thread, yes, I do think the NCAA does punish incosistently and in a manner that will not effect their cash flow. I believe that the way college football is set up is actually "one big wet rag being squeezed for every drop of water". What occured recently with Ohio State is a prime example.

[JasonEvans]

Here is a good link on the spineless nature of the NCAA from Pat Forde or ESPN.

So there you have it, future NCAA rules breakers of America (and your parents). Go for the gold. When you get caught, shrug and say, "Why, I had no idea." Blame it on your dad and/or a negligent compliance staff at your university.

There is a very interesting part of the article where he talks about the stuff that Pryor and other players sold.

If they had a full appreciation of what it means to play for Ohio State, and to play in a bowl, and to be part of a tradition much larger than themselves, they wouldn't have sold what they sold. The championship rings would mean too much. So would the gold pants, which are small jewelry awards given to every Buckeye for beating Michigan.

I've seen Ohio State players wearing their gold pants proudly on necklaces. I've heard them talk about what those trinkets mean.

To Pryor and Thomas, they meant one thing: cash on the flash.

--Jason "what fools the NCAA will look like when Pryor and these other guys bolt for the pros" Evans

[SoCalDukeFan]

Evidently Tressel has gotten the Ohio State 5 to verbally commit to coming back next year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls1...ory?id=5970169

The NCAA has issued a statement on its web site trying to show that money had nothing to do with their decision.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...ules+decisions

In my opinion this is a curious and misleading statement.

The Cam Newton aspect is curious. If Cecil Newton had been successful in getting money for his son's services, then Cam would have been suspended. So I guess their is no penalty for attempted payoff, just for payoff. The NCAA says:
"Put simply, had Cam Newton's father or a third party actually received money or benefits for his recruitment, Cam Newton would have been declared ineligible regardless of his lack of knowledge." Evidently the NCAA is trying to clarify "recruiting and amateurism rules when benefits or money are solicited (but not received)"

The statement about the NCAA not getting money is misleading. The NCAA has a vested interest in high ratings and lucrative TV contracts. If ABC/ESPN and the advertisers take a bath in the NC game and/or the Sugar Bowl, then the NCAA will eventually be damaged. It is in the NCAA's best financial interest to have Auburn and not TCU in the NC game. It is in the NCAA's best financial interest to have Ohio State at full strength with their star qb for the Sugar Bowl. The NCAA took care if its broadcast partner, ABC/ESPN and I am sure expects ESPN to take care of the NCAA.

Lastly the NCAA points to a policy adopted in 2004 for "student-athlete reinstatement for NCAA championships and bowl games." Of course the Ohio State five have not been suspended so how can they be reinstated? There is no mention of any precedent.

I am pretty certain that they NCAA will show how really tough they are by throwing out USC's appeal. Of course, USC is in the Pac 10 and their games are on Fox.

SoCal

[Acymetric]

Evidently Tressel has gotten the Ohio State 5 to verbally commit to coming back next year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls1...ory?id=5970169

The NCAA has issued a statement on its web site trying to show that money had nothing to do with their decision.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...ules+decisions

In my opinion this is a curious and misleading statement.

The Cam Newton aspect is curious. If Cecil Newton had been successful in getting money for his son's services, then Cam would have been suspended. So I guess their is no penalty for attempted payoff, just for payoff. The NCAA says:
"Put simply, had Cam Newton's father or a third party actually received money or benefits for his recruitment, Cam Newton would have been declared ineligible regardless of his lack of knowledge." Evidently the NCAA is trying to clarify "recruiting and amateurism rules when benefits or money are solicited (but not received)"

The statement about the NCAA not getting money is misleading. The NCAA has a vested interest in high ratings and lucrative TV contracts. If ABC/ESPN and the advertisers take a bath in the NC game and/or the Sugar Bowl, then the NCAA will eventually be damaged. It is in the NCAA's best financial interest to have Auburn and not TCU in the NC game. It is in the NCAA's best financial interest to have Ohio State at full strength with their star qb for the Sugar Bowl. The NCAA took care if its broadcast partner, ABC/ESPN and I am sure expects ESPN to take care of the NCAA.

Lastly the NCAA points to a policy adopted in 2004 for "student-athlete reinstatement for NCAA championships and bowl games." Of course the Ohio State five have not been suspended so how can they be reinstated? There is no mention of any precedent.

I am pretty certain that they NCAA will show how really tough they are by throwing out USC's appeal. Of course, USC is in the Pac 10 and their games are on Fox.

SoCal

Yeah, the thing about the NCAA not making money doesn't quite sit with me. So its the NCAA's member institutions making money, not the NCAA. Is that a meaningful distinction?

[PADukeMom]

Evidently Tressel has gotten the Ohio State 5 to verbally commit to coming back next year.

A "verbal commitment" is only as good as the paper it was written on.

[roywhite]

I know some tOSU fans who have had about enough of Terrelle Pryor, and look forward to him moving on.

Just heard some of Kirk Herbstreit on the radio with Cowherd, and Herbie was ripping Pryor pretty hard...not a leader, selfish, immature, etc.

[terrih]

I think this is stupid. And in fact, it makes me a little angry. There is zero understanding on my side for how these guys are allowed to play in the bowl game. If I wasn't done before this with the NCAA and how they handle college football, I am now. It seems like complete and total hypocrisy.

[strawbs]

now I know it would be difficult to prove when these players got the tattoos, but hypothetically speaking let's say the players got these tattoos at some point during the regular season. Wouldn't that mean that osu had players playing in games when they were ineligible and should forfeit said games? The reason I ask is because i get confused with all the different rulings the ncaa hands down about player eligibility/suspensions etc...
Isn't that what happened with usc/reggie bush? He received gifts, participated in games, and that was ruled ineligable and usc had to forfeit games. I realize there is a difference between tattoos and large sums of money, but at the same time they are both gifts.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about.

What penalty for Ohio State for not educating the student athletes?

The NCAA is all about MONEY. Somehow they decide not to punish Cam Newton because they could not prove that his father was trying to sell him to the highest bidder. Now they let the Ohio State players play in their bowl game because they were not properly educated!!!!!

Give me a break.

Of course USC gets hammered. At the time I thought the USC penalties were severe but understandable. In light of these decisions the USC penalties are way too severe.
Maybe Reggie Bush should have said he did not know his parents were getting a free house or that it was a loan and he was not taught that your parents could not a loan.

Of course what is really ironic is that the Ohio State players will get gifts from the bowl worth hundreds of dollars. No problem.

Would have been interesting if one of these guys was a senior.

SoCal

[PADukeMom]

I fail to understand most of what the NCAA does. If there were to be any suspensions they should have been immediate IMHO.
It's all good thought for me if Pryor declares since I am a Penn State fan.
"Go my tatts"...WOW...talk about priorities.

[jafarr1]

I don't really care whether Pryor is a good player, a selfish player or a bench-warmer. I'm just tired of the NCAA passing out penalties that certainly seem intended to protect their business interests.

Heck, with their ruling, the NCAA set it up so compliance departments actually have a disincentive to educate their players on the rules. If the players don't know the rules, they won't be suspended for bowl games.

[BD80]

Next thing you know, the NFL will suspend Brett Favre 5 games {next year) for the Sterger issue.