DaveyBoy;1843240; said:
This article suggests otherwise...
There is an alternative viewpoint that seems much more plausible. Here is the essence of the article that you cite:
Hoolahan said he appealed to Smith to do everything he could to ensure the Buckeyes players could be in uniform in New Orleans.
"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."
Many Ohio State fans believe the suspensions should start immediately.
"I appreciate and fully understand the Midwestern values and ethics behind that," Hoolahan said. "But I'm probably thinking of this from a selfish perspective."
This suggests a different and more likely scenario. Ohio State notified the NCAA about the issue that had arisen and its internal deliberations about suspensions. The NCAA responded tentatively, citing the precedent for five-game suspensions. Ohio State decided to start the suspension immediately but appeal its duration. Ohio State notified the NCAA and the Sugar Bowl of its intention and all hell broke loose.
On hearing the news, Hoolahan and the Sugar Bowl people went ballistic. You can imagine the telephone call when Hollahan told Ohio State that suspending the players would cost the Sugar Bowl millions in advertising revenues for years to come. Consequently, Hoolahan then made it clear that faithfulness to "Midwestern values" would have a price that Ohio State and the Big Ten could not afford to pay.
Do you really think that this conversation happened in the PR speak of that article? Do you really think that Hoolahan has made his involvement public out of altruism?
When Hoolahan mentions deaf ears, he more likely means that Ohio State understood the implications of the threats he made, not that he found willing co-conspirators. It is clear that Ohio State tried to assert the argument that it had to be faithful to the values that Ohio State and its constituency endorse. Hoolahan makes it very clear that his job was to protect the interests of the Sugar Bowl and he could care less if that offended anyone's sensibilities. And why should he, especially when nobody broke the law and the loss of millions against the chump change the player's received seemed too high a price for the Sugar Bowl to pay?
Anyone who has worked at this level knows what that conversation was like. No doubt, Hoolahan made it very clear to the Big Ten and Ohio State that, if they did not help him lobby the NCAA to lift the suspensions for the bowl game, Ohio State could be sure that the Sugar Bowl would be doing everything in their power to avoid hosting a Big Ten team in the future, and to do whatever they could to exclude Ohio State and the Big Ten teams from considerations for at-large berths.
It sounds very much like Ohio State tried very hard to stand for doing what it thought was right but then found the BCS, Sugar Bowl, NCAA, and the Big Ten making very explicit promises if they were faithful to their "Midwestern values" would have a price that Ohio State and the Big Ten did not want to pay.
Now, I know that some posters here would be saying, "Fine. Then we pay that price."
Sure, that sounds great now, but what about a couple of years down the road, when Ohio State teams that qualify for an at-large BCS berth are playing in the Liberty Bowl?
I am of the opinion that Ohio State did everything that it could to enforce an immediate suspension before finally deciding that the price was too high to continue.
