5 players suspended for 5 games in 2011 regular season (Appeal has been denied)

[robbothehut]

A little mental masturbation here I know but follow me.

I know rules are rules, but it seems to me that if the school GIVES you something, you then own it outright. I know what the NCAA says, well at least i know what they say this time, but once I own something I can do whatever I want to with it....its property law. A gift is a gift, there was no compulsion on the part of the school to give it to anyone. No one could sue the school and say I played against Michigan and beat them you owe me pants. It was a gesture of brotherhood or something.

If I took my gold pants, assuming I had some, and gave them to my girlfriend, and she was extremely grateful and I got lucky for a change, then....did I break a NCAA rule? ...In this case, taken to the absurd, then I think so. I mean to some of us nooky is still more valuable than a tat right?

And what if I let her sleep in my jersey and she again reciprocated um...favorably....is that renting trim through the use of the something the school gave me? ...yup.

I understand the rule in this case, but it is stupid...a gift is a gift. At some point the property belongs to the player and not the school or the NCAA and he can do with it what he wants.

Actually I think the NCAA is just angling for some licensing nooky. Lets ask the compliance folks, who obviously never get laid.

 

[Steve19]

A little mental masturbation here I know but follow me.

I know rules are rules, but it seems to me that if the school GIVES you something, you then own it outright. I know what the NCAA says, well at least i know what they say this time, but once I own something I can do whatever I want to with it....its property law. A gift is a gift, there was no compulsion on the part of the school to give it to anyone. No one could sue the school and say I played against Michigan and beat them you owe me pants. It was a gesture of brotherhood or something.

If I took my gold pants, assuming I had some, and gave them to my girlfriend, and she was extremely grateful and I got lucky for a change, then....did I break a NCAA rule? ...In this case, taken to the absurd, then I think so. I mean to some of us nooky is still more valuable than a tat right?

And what if I let her sleep in my jersey and she again reciprocated um...favorably....is that renting trim through the use of the something the school gave me? ...yup.

I understand the rule in this case, but it is stupid...a gift is a gift. At some point the property belongs to the player and not the school or the NCAA and he can do with it what he wants.

Actually I think the NCAA is just angling for some licensing nooky. Lets ask the compliance folks, who obviously never get laid.

I'm having difficulty following this. Can you please post pictures?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You don't need to post pics of your first sentence though.

 

[MaxBuck]

I just don't see any benefit to this for the Buckeyes in terms of winning championships next year though. It feels like they've taken a 5 game suspension next year, to play in this years bowl game which has no bearing on next years season.

It's cutting off our nose, in spite of our face. Say the NCAA would have given the Bucks a 4 game suspension (same as AJ Green) starting with the Bowl game, our players would be out 3 games next year. Much more likely that they come back for their senior seasons, and they're all back for Big 10 play.

A much better scenario for our program and championship aspirations. As nice as it is to be in the Sugar Bowl, it doesn't get us closer to another National Championship or Big 10 title win or lose.

I'd rather preserve as much of next year as possible.

That dead horse is calling. He's saying, "Enough already."

 

[billmac91]

That dead horse is calling. He's saying, "Enough already."

why don't you back off??

It was in response to finding out the Sugar Bowl committee made a pitch to our administration. It was new information. IMO, satisfying the Sugar Bowl committee and asking the NCAA to allow the players to play isn't in the best interest of the program next year, outside of my personal feelings regarding the matter.

Your personal attack on my posts is getting old.

 

[MaxBuck]

Your personal attack on my posts is getting old.

I guess we're pretty much even, then. For me, your continual drone that "ethics demand we sit the players out for the Sugar Bowl" is not just old - it's neolithic.

We disagree on this; get used to it (I have). On the hoops forums, we agree pretty much all the time, so that's what I'll focus my attention on. We're a basketball school here in Columbus anyhow, aren't we?

GO BUCKS!

 

[sflbuck]

Maybe SLF bucks' ethics -- or maybe this guy:....
....My, my. I look up at my diploma, and my LM Alumni Card and I'm glad to see that when it comes down to WWWD (the third W is Woody)? The Buckeye's went in the opposite direction and took the high road along with the money, the NO C of C and the Suits from the TV network.

I will not restate my feelings on the current situation. Post by others, especially BKB, have expressed exactly my take.

I did want to expand on your bringing Coach Hayes into the discussion. What Would Woody Do? indeed. Some of the younger members of Buckeye Nation might not know that in 1956 The Ohio State University football program was placed on probation by the NCAA for 1 year. You may ask why did this happen. It happened because our coach, one Wayne Woodrow Hayes, paid some of his players money out of his own pocket. For those who would only look at the black and white of this situation, you would say that there is no possible explanation or mitigating factors and this coach who knowingly broke the rules of the NCAA should not be dispatch with all due speed and its football program strapped with severe limitations.

But lucky for us there was some gray and lucky for Coach Hayes both tOSU and the NCAA looked at that gray. You see in the 1950's players got jobs around town in the summer. But the black players would always be paid less for the exact same work for no reason other then the color of their skin. And Coach Hayes did not think that was FAIR. So Coach Hayes paid the black players that difference out of his own pocket.

So what would Coach Hayes say about this current situation. I don't know for sure. But when he was faced with this decision, he knowingly broke the cardinal rule of amateur athletics because to him the higher ethical imperative was being fair to the young men intrusted to his stewardship.

 

[Jake]

Chris Spielman just said he thinks Tressel should bench these guys for the bowl, comparing it to the Belisari DUI situation. I disagree. This isn't the same at all. These guys are suspended by the NCAA; Belisari was not.

He also thinks the NCAA will reduce the suspension if he does it. Again, I disagree. I think they'll reduce it to 4 on appeal, whether they sit for this bowl or not. If the powers that be wanted them out of the bowl they would've suspended them for it.

He also thinks 80-90% of Buckeye Nation agrees with him. Well Chris, I'm not among that alleged 80-90%, and I don't believe the number is nearly that high.

 

[LightningRod]

So the story now is favoritism toward OSU and the Big10 by the NCAA. Bruce Pearl must be laughing in his sleep over this. Pearl lied to the NCAA and directed SAs to also lie to the NCAA, and he has not yet missed a game. Yeah, yeah, I know, an 8 SEC Conf game suspension which constitutes 16% of Tennessee's regular season games. Give me a break about favoritism.

 

[Jake]

Here is what I think you're saying: "What is important is that there is to be a football game. The ethics of who plays or doesn't play is immaterial.

The NCAA has rendered its decision. There is nothing unethical about complying with it.

My, my. I look up at my diploma, and my LM Alumni Card and I'm glad to see that when it comes down to WWWD (the third W is Woody)? The Buckeye's went in the opposite direction and took the high road along with the money, the NO C of C and the Suits from the TV network.

I looked up at my diploma and my LM Alumni Card and I didn't see anything on it that said if the sentence is to cut off your right arm, you should cut off the left one as well just to make some people feel better about it.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Well Chris, I'm not among that alleged 80-90%, and I don't believe the number is nearly that high.

Jake :highfive: 'Bus

 

[buckeyeintn]

So the story now is favoritism toward OSU and the Big10 by the NCAA. Bruce Pearl must be laughing in his sleep over this. Pearl lied to the NCAA and directed SAs to also lie to the NCAA, and he has not yet missed a game. Yeah, yeah, I know, an 8 SEC Conf game suspension which constitutes 16% of Tennessee's regular season games. Give me a break about favoritism.

+1

 

[matt_thatsme]

Chris Spielman just said he thinks Tressel should bench these guys for the bowl, comparing it to the Belisari DUI situation. I disagree. This isn't the same at all. These guys are suspended by the NCAA; Belisari was not.

He also thinks the NCAA will reduce the suspension if he does it. Again, I disagree. I think they'll reduce it to 4 on appeal, whether they sit for this bowl or not. If the powers that be wanted them out of the bowl they would've suspended them for it.

My thoughts after Spielman made those comments were this: If the NCAA insisted on allowing the players to play in the Sugar Bowl, would sitting those players against the NCAA's wishes not make the chance of them reducing the suspension less likely?

I definitely agree that this is not like the Belisari situation.

What do you think about sitting them for the first quarter, first series, half, etc? More of a symbolic statement than anything.

 

[Nicknam4]

Chris Spielman just said he thinks Tressel should bench these guys for the bowl, comparing it to the Belisari DUI situation. I disagree. This isn't the same at all. These guys are suspended by the NCAA; Belisari was not.

He also thinks the NCAA will reduce the suspension if he does it. Again, I disagree. I think they'll reduce it to 4 on appeal, whether they sit for this bowl or not. If the powers that be wanted them out of the bowl they would've suspended them for it.

He also thinks 80-90% of Buckeye Nation agrees with him. Well Chris, I'm not among that alleged 80-90%, and I don't believe the number is nearly that high.

Spielman said 80-90% of Buckeye Nation would follow Tressel if he decided to bench them. I am among them, even though I am still a bit neutral on the subject.

 

[heisman]

Maybe SLF bucks' ethics -- or maybe this guy:



My, my. I look up at my diploma, and my LM Alumni Card and I'm glad to see that when it comes down to WWWD (the third W is Woody)? The Buckeye's went in the opposite direction and took the high road along with the money, the NO C of C and the Suits from the TV network.

Woody gave money to many of his players in need. What do your ethics say about that?