• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

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

ScriptOhio;1839776; said:
Keep in mimd that the "right thing" may be to let them play (I don't know). However, I'm pretty sure that during the recruiting process Tressel made certain promises to the player's family on how he would look out for and treat their kids. And it wasn't to pull their scholarships/kick them off the team after one "relatively minor violation of the rules". He is an "above board" coach and will keep those promises. If the kids say and do the "right things" (i.e. show remorse, etc.) agree to abide by the NCAA penalities, etc. just maybe they should be given a second chance and allowed to play. I'm sure that Tressel will make the correct decision here (i.e. one that is in the best interest of the school, the team, and the kids).

:osu:

Im not saying kick them off the team, but they embarrassed their school. There is no harm in taking away their single digit jerseys (a honor for Ohio State players).
 
Upvote 0
Not sure if this was posted yet. I dont remember this at all but it was apparently a big deal in 2003.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1676582

ATHENS, Ga. -- Even if they earn SEC championship rings this
weekend, nine Georgia players won't automatically get them.
They'll have to buy them this time.
No. 5 Georgia (10-2) will meet third-ranked LSU (11-1) in the
Southeastern Conference championship game Saturday night. If the
Bulldogs win, they'll hand out rings to the players, coaches and
staff.
With one caveat: Nine players who sold their 10-karat gold rings
after winning the title last season would have to pay the school to
get another one.
Coach Mark Richt decided on the punishment during a
clearing-the-air meeting over the summer, but details of the
arrangement didn't come out until Tuesday.
The players would have to pay up to $300 -- the maximum allotted
by NCAA rules -- to receive another championship ring.
"Maybe we'll cherish it a little bit more," said cornerback
Tim Jennings, one of those caught in the ring-selling scandal.
"Now, I know how much it means to me. I want another chance."
The others who sold their rings: receivers Fred Gibson and
Michael Johnson, linebacker Tony Taylor, defensive linemen Kedric
Golston and Darrius Swain, cornerbacks Bruce Thornton and Kenny
Bailey and walk-on Trey Young.
"At the time, I wasn't really thinking," Gibson said. "Once I
sat down and thought about it, I knew I did something wrong."
"Ringgate" came to light after the items showed up for auction
on eBay, tarnishing the school's first SEC championship in 20
years.
Initially, Gibson defended his actions, saying he needed the
money -- $2,000, in his case -- and should be entitled to do whatever
he wanted with the ring.
The school reacted differently. University president Michael
Adams expressed outrage. Athletic director Vince Dooley vowed to
punish those involved. Richt said "it cheapens what we did."
Initially, the nine players were declared ineligible for
violating NCAA rules. The school wanted to recover the rings and
demand reimbursement from the players as a condition for being
reinstated to the team.
As it turned out, the NCAA decided that its rules were unclear
on the sale of championship rings and other memorabilia. The
Georgia players were cleared of any wrongdoing and didn't have to
repay the money they received.
Georgia did manage to recover about half the rings, which are
stored in an athletic department safe, said Amy Chisholm, the
school's director of compliance.
Meanwhile, the NCAA altered its rules, making it crystal clear
that no one can peddle a championship ring.
A June memorandum stated: "A student-athlete shall not sell any
item received for intercollegiate athletics participation or
exchange such item for another item of value."
Jennings said he tried to recover his ring, but it had already
been sold. He regrets his actions now.
"I didn't realize how important the ring was until it was
gone," he said. "I wish I had mine. It hurts the most when you go
out guys who have their rings on and I don't have mine."
Golston also peddled a Sugar Bowl ring and game jersey -- drawing
a winning bid of $3,500 on eBay. While embarrassed by his actions,
he doesn't consider a ring to be the ultimate symbol of Georgia's
championship season.
"The ring is all fine and good," he said. "But it's a
material thing. The memories far outweigh any kind of gift."
Golston was taken aback by all the attention raised by the
ring-selling caper.
"I didn't know it would be that big a deal," he said. "But I
can't sit here and harp on it. What do you want me to do: Cut off
my ring finger?"
If Georgia wins its second straight title, all players receiving
a ring would have to sign a statement acknowledging that it can't
be sold, Chisholm said.
That wouldn't be necessary with Gibson.
I'll tell you one thing: I wouldn't sell it again," Gibson
said. "I'm going to give it to my grandmother."

I know things have changed since 03, but no suspension to 5 games is a huge turnaround.
 
Upvote 0
Sdgobucks;1839777; said:
The NCAA must feel there could be some sort of competitive edge gained by schools who's players sell things for cash, otherwise why would it be against the rules? More simply though, my definition of a cheater is someone who breaks the rules. They cheated the system that the NCAA and student athletes operate under, by violating the rules.

I'm pretty sure the NCAA said they could play in the Sugar Bowl because there was no competitive reason.

...even though we all know that wasn't the real reason.
 
Upvote 0
pharaz1;1839444; said:
my thoughts:

1) these players get suspended for making a profit off of their accomplishments. yet the ncaa makes sure they are eligible for the bowl game so that their profits are not impacted. wow, what a way to make a statement. so essentially the ncaa can make decisions to cover its own interests but will penalize others from doing the same.

I agree with this 100%. The only reason Cam Newton wasn't suspended was because we would have ended up with TCU V Oregon in the NC game, and the BCS couldn't have that. Same thing with our players suspensions. We wouldn't want to start the suspensions before our big pay day bowl game, so lets wait until next year.
 
Upvote 0
Sdgobucks;1839783; said:
I agree with this 100%. The only reason Cam Newton wasn't suspended was because we would have ended up with TCU V Oregon in the NC game, and the BCS couldn't have that. Same thing with our players suspensions. We wouldn't want to start the suspensions before our big pay day bowl game, so lets wait until next year.

The NCAA doesn't make a lot of $$$ off of the bowls but the BCS sure as hell does....
 
Upvote 0
heisman;1839752; said:
Not sure if this has been asked, but what if all five were seniors? No punishment at all?

Seniors would have missed the bowl game. That was mentioned in the press release, that the deferral by the NCAA was only allowed for those with eligibillity remaining for next year.
 
Upvote 0
SloopyHangOn;1839769; said:
After finally listening to some of the ESPN takes on this I got a chance to hear Tressel and Co. talk about how they failed the student-athletes by not giving them enough of an education on what they could and could not do, stating that each of the players definitively stated that they did not know.

This disgusts me even more, seeing as I have to choose to believe that either the players are playing dumb or the coaching staff and those involved with compliance education are inadequate.

Or if neither of those are true, I'm forced to believe that this is what's being shoveled into each of their mouths by the NCAA in order to maintain something, God knows what, and I'm not at all happy with THAT idea either.

It's all [censored]ing bull[censored]. It's unfair to the fans that this game's business aspects have become the forefront rather than the underlying issues. It goes without saying that this applies to everything and not just college football, but it [censored]es me right the [censored] off that the bottom line and the might dollar get in the way of forward progress 99/100 times.

The part that gets me is, how could anyone, anyone, who pays even a little attention to college football not know, that selling that stuff was against the rules, much less the kids who live and breathe it 24/7?

I've never been any closer to a big-time college football program than sitting in the stands, and I know.

I have a hard time believing that they didn't know better.

And what that leads me to believe is that this sort of thing is likely commonplace everywhere, and that 99.999% of the time, it simply doesn't get found out.

How could you not know?
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeMike80;1839785; said:
The NCAA doesn't make a lot of $$$ off of the bowls but the BCS sure as hell does....
They're the governing body. They make a lot of decisions to protect the revenue of their partners (unofficial and official), and the sugar bowl is the 2nd biggest bowl of the season (and arguably the only other truly compelling matchup to a casual fan).
 
Upvote 0
Nicknam4;1839782; said:
I'm pretty sure the NCAA said they could play in the Sugar Bowl because there was no competitive reason.

...even though we all know that wasn't the real reason.

There IS a competitive reason. If players were allowed to sell trophies, rings, and things of that nature it wouldn't be long before a coach figured out that he can "pay" his players by giving them rings and trophies for meaningless accomplishments for them to sell when he has his back turned. The potential is definitely there for abuse IMO.
 
Upvote 0
This is crap. I'm so disappointed. Not so much in the players, but the NCAA. With reason, think about this. If I gave you a ring. And you wanted to buy a necklace for your mother, or for yourself, it really doesn't matter. And you sold it for the money, am I going to raise a stink? No. It's yours, that is why I gave it to you.
I don't understand how they can be penalized for what they do with items under their possession.

Ugh, I sure hope this appeal comes through with some positive side effects.
Well, good news, we'll see more of our new star freshman QB.
Bad news, we might lose Pryor and the others to the draft. I'm sure a kick start into the NFL sounds much more appeasing than sitting out half of the college season.
 
Upvote 0
c-rowbuckeye;1839786; said:
:slappy:fantastic find. Eat your heart out Mark "I guarantee if this had happened at an SEC school they wouldn't be playing the bowl game" May

Georgia's players selling their rings was the first reported incident of something like that happening. I was at UGA at the time and it was my understanding that since there was no specific rule against selling it via electronic means (the players used EBAY), the NCAA couldn't levy a suspension.

They wrote the rule, UGA imposed a 1 game suspension on the players and that was all she wrote.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1839788; said:
The part that gets me is, how could anyone, anyone, who pays even a little attention to college football not know, that selling that stuff was against the rules, much less the kids who live and breathe it 24/7?

I've never been any closer to a big-time college football program than sitting in the stands, and I know.

I have a hard time believing that they didn't know better.

And what that leads me to believe is that this sort of thing is likely commonplace everywhere, and that 99.999% of the time, it simply doesn't get found out.

How could you not know?

The entire presser was a huge embarrassment...from Gene Smith making minor jokes to stating the players didn't know the rules and basically making excuses for them.

Thank God Tressel put the caveat in there that he didn't know how the players wouldn't know the rules although he didn't think they'd be able to recite the rule either. Without that, I'd have lost all faith in the athletic department.

Does anyone think that presser may have looked a little less embarrassing with Geiger in charge?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top