-
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!
- Thread starter OSU_Buckguy
- Start date
stkoran
All-American
Thank you HineyBuck for reinforcing that these players were 18/19 year old college freshmen when they made this (albeit poor) decision. I know that they were of course technically young men when they made their decisions, but how many 18/19 year olds make some poor choices. I'd say all. I'm not saying this to excuse their behavior, but to put it in perspective. I'm just having a lot of trouble understanding the outcry to really drop the hammer on these five, as compared to the sentiment when we find out players grades are in the dumps/got caught using drugs/fight/DUI/etc. which is usually "So and So really needs to get his head on straight. Hope he learns from this."
Also, I'd like to clarify my "morally blameworthy" comment from earlier. I meant this in terms of society's general view on selling your own property, which is no one thinks twice about it. They are, of course, to blame for violating an NCAA rule (whether they were aware of it or not), no matter how arcane that rule may be, and if they knowingly violated it, they are certainly to blame for letting the team and University down. If they, however, were truly unaware of the rule (and to believe otherwise is to call our AD's statements into question), I don't think their act was "selfish." It was of course "selfish" in they all hoped to benefit individually from the sale of these items, but I highly doubt they thought "screw the rules, screw the team, I'm getting paid."
I also disagree that OSU should suspend them from the Sugar Bowl, based on the hand they were dealt by the NCAA. My thinking is that this activity merits a one and possibly two game suspension, as compared to other OSU and recent suspensions (Belissari: two games/DUI; Smith two games/$500 payment from booster; Dareus: two games/$2000 comped trip from an agent; AJ Green: four games/sold jersey to agent for $1000). The suspensions should start immediately, meaning no Sugar Bowl, and potentially miss the first game next year. OSU did actually suspend the players immediately, but the NCAA said no, they can play in the Sugar Bowl, but are out for five games next year. Why should the University add on to an already excessive, but odd, NCAA punishment?
Also, I'd like to clarify my "morally blameworthy" comment from earlier. I meant this in terms of society's general view on selling your own property, which is no one thinks twice about it. They are, of course, to blame for violating an NCAA rule (whether they were aware of it or not), no matter how arcane that rule may be, and if they knowingly violated it, they are certainly to blame for letting the team and University down. If they, however, were truly unaware of the rule (and to believe otherwise is to call our AD's statements into question), I don't think their act was "selfish." It was of course "selfish" in they all hoped to benefit individually from the sale of these items, but I highly doubt they thought "screw the rules, screw the team, I'm getting paid."
I also disagree that OSU should suspend them from the Sugar Bowl, based on the hand they were dealt by the NCAA. My thinking is that this activity merits a one and possibly two game suspension, as compared to other OSU and recent suspensions (Belissari: two games/DUI; Smith two games/$500 payment from booster; Dareus: two games/$2000 comped trip from an agent; AJ Green: four games/sold jersey to agent for $1000). The suspensions should start immediately, meaning no Sugar Bowl, and potentially miss the first game next year. OSU did actually suspend the players immediately, but the NCAA said no, they can play in the Sugar Bowl, but are out for five games next year. Why should the University add on to an already excessive, but odd, NCAA punishment?
Upvote
0
3074326
Assistant to the Head Coach
HineyBuck;1840159; said:
19 is still plenty old enough for my point to remain the same.. I hate when people act like 19 is too young for people to make reasonable decisions by using common sense. Being a freshman in college is hardly an excuse for someone to make such a stupid decision that not only affects their future, but others as well.
Upvote
0
Gatorubet;1840201; said:
I'm pretty sure that came out in the press conference on Thursday...I'm still trying to find a link...
Upvote
0
Buckeye513
Stable Genius
http://www.the-ozone.net/football/2010/SugarBowl/NCAAtimeline.htmGatorubet;1840201; said:
OSU declared them ineligible, NCAA reinstated them solely for the Sugar Bowl. I'll go out on a limb and say the NCAA wants them to play.
Upvote
0
OHSportsFan
Fan of Ohio Sports in Indy
November 2009 is when this all happened, right?
That makes them Sophomores. Boom a redshirt Sophomore at that.
That is all.
Upvote
0
3074326
Assistant to the Head Coach
OHSportsFan9;1840219; said:
I'm fairly certain you're agreeing with my point, but I can't stand when people treat college students like they're children. Call them kids, fine, but their age should not be used as an excuse..
I got in trouble when I was 18. I didn't get a slap on the wrist and nobody used my age as an excuse. Why didn't the courts just say what I did was because I was still a child and let me go? And heck, I just got busted for underage consumption.
Upvote
0
OHSportsFan
Fan of Ohio Sports in Indy
Just wanted to clarify things really. The whole "freshman" thing was starting to take steam. Being in the program for a full year at that point was more than enough for the players to know what they were doing was wrong (in the eyes of the NCAA).
So in other words- yes, I agree.
Upvote
0
matcar
Mostly banned
Buckeye513;1840197; said:
No, the point is that the NCAA gave them 5 games next year. Skip knows what OSU proposed and is suggesting that they should be suspended for the bowl game regardless of NCAA sanctions. ...which is something many on this board are asking for as well.
Upvote
0
HineyBuck
Old newb
3074326;1840212; said:
Nobody is saying they should be excused scott-free. My question: have you seen any growth in maturity and judgment in any of these young men since their freshman year? If you haven't, you haven't been paying attention. I think that counts for something; at least a second chance.
:osu:
Upvote
0
mattynokes
Heisman
In all of this I don't see why it matters what exactly was sold. So they sold gold pants or a championship ring. Does it take away beating scUM? How about the Big Ten championship? Would it make me a champion because I buy these? Materialistic things don't equal their on-field performances. If you want the money, what's gonna sell for more, a championship ring or apparel/uniforms?
Upvote
0
akronbuck
Legend
So i take it as receiving money from a pawn shop is against NCAA rules. if so then, a lot of x-players broke it.My brother in law/ex-player told me, so many players did that and one's father had first rights to buy them back then and still today. They could have dealt with him and probably would have got more money.
Upvote
0
