• 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)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
LordJeffBuck;1840369; said:
Players don't even need to be in school, much less in good standing with the NCAA, in order to be eligible for the draft. The NFL is never going to make draft eligibility contingent on the dictates of the NCAA.
Click to expand...


Then the punishment should be mandatory to serve this season...game 1 would be the Sugar Bowl + 4 games IF they return.. Not 5 games IF they return.. although I would think sitting the Bowl game +2 would be enough IF the chose to return..
 
Upvote 0
TS10HTW;1840370; said:
Never is a long time.
Click to expand...
I don't care how long "never" is, the NFL is never going to make draft eligibility contingent on the dictates of the NCAA ... for this reason:

greyscarlet;1840371; said:
The NFL should hand down significant power to decentralized entities, or an entity many are claiming broken, which will limit the quality of product it can provide? I think they'll pass.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
HawgFan;1840372; said:
Then the punishment should be mandatory to serve this season...game 1 would be the Sugar Bowl + 4 games IF they return.. Not 5 games IF they return.. although I would think sitting the Bowl game +2 would be enough IF the chose to return..
Click to expand...
Ohio State suspended the players for the Sugar Bowl ... the NCAA promptly reinstated them, giving some bullshit excuse about the bowl game being a special opportunity blah blah blah ... then the NCAA suspended them for five game next season. The NCAA determines to which games the suspensions apply, not Ohio State, and the NCAA has said that they players are eligible for the Sugar Bowl and ineligible for the first five games of next season. Ohio State has no reason or incentive to suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl because the NCAA (rightly or wrongly) has declared that they are eligible to play in that game.
 
Upvote 0
HawgFan;1840372; said:
Then the punishment should be mandatory to serve this season...game 1 would be the Sugar Bowl + 4 games IF they return.. Not 5 games IF they return.. although I would think sitting the Bowl game +2 would be enough IF the chose to return..
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll get much disagreement from those on this board....but as already said the NCAA is about the money.
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1840375; said:
...Ohio State has no reason or incentive to suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl because the NCAA (rightly or wrongly) has declared that they are eligible to play in that game.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with that.

The reason would be that tOSU would retain some level of control over their own program. The incentive would be some measure of deterence - to avoid a slippery slope with other student-athletes in the future.

If what the players did is violation of team rules (which is presumably the case), JT has the final say when it comes to who will / will not play or travel. His authority is conferred by the Univeristy, not the NCAA. I doubt he would let the NCAA dictate the punishment if he thought that a harsher consequence is called for.

Maybe I'm missing some context here...
 
Upvote 0
I think you may be underestimating Roger Goodell and his willingness to make his league better by requiring potential draftees to be in "good standing" before the NFL will accept them. Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. Could it happen? Absolutely.

After the Vick turnaround he obviously is a second chance guy...but there is no way anyone can say the NFL will NEVER do something...no matter how unlikely it may be.

Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Furthermore, I would imagine that sitting these players (possibly not even dressing them) for the Bowl would help our standing on the appeal. We appear to have more institutional control, and I would think any negative reaction from the NCAA on choosing to sit them for the Bowl would make their less than altruistic reasons for reinstating the players even more obvious.
 
Upvote 0
Sit the players and shove it directly up the ass of the NCAA, ESPN and all of the sponsors who believe their interests are more important. Next player up. There is plenty of time to prepare the next player in and adapt the game plan accordingly. Treat as 5 players who suffered season ending injuries and move on.
 
Upvote 0
Been wondering about this, would there be any violation if the players had given the goods to a friend/family member as gifts and then that person had sold them? I assume not since the player would not have received cash directly for the goods. The friend/family member could then give money to the player as a gift and claim it was unrelated. Seems like this is a possible loophole which could have been used to avoid this whole mess.
 
Upvote 0
HawgFan;1840372; said:
Then the punishment should be mandatory to serve this season...game 1 would be the Sugar Bowl + 4 games IF they return.. Not 5 games IF they return.. although I would think sitting the Bowl game +2 would be enough IF the chose to return..
Click to expand...

How many fucking times has it been posted already that tOSU initially made the five ineligible for the bowl game only to have the NCAA turn around and say they can play but have to sit out the first five games of next year?
 
Upvote 0
itownbuckeye;1840383; said:
Been wondering about this, would there be any violation if the players had given the goods to a friend/family member as gifts and then that person had sold them? I assume not since the player would not have received cash directly for the goods. The friend/family member could then give money to the player as a gift and claim it was unrelated. Seems like this is a possible loophole which could have been used to avoid this whole mess.
Click to expand...


I think in the light of the $cam Newton thing, this is clearly what they should have done. Probably nothing the NCAA could have done in that situation.
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod;1840381; said:
Sit the players and shove it directly up the ass of the NCAA, ESPN and all of the sponsors who believe their interests are more important. Next player up. There is plenty of time to prepare the next player in and adapt the game plan accordingly. Treat as 5 players who suffered season ending injuries and move on.
Click to expand...

bingo
 
Upvote 0
TS10HTW;1840378; said:
I think you may be underestimating Roger Goodell and his willingness to make his league better by requiring potential draftees to be in "good standing" before the NFL will accept them. Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. Could it happen? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Let's say that you want a job. You find an employer who wants to hire you. You meet all of the employer's requirements. Do you want some third party barging in and telling your potential employer that he can't hire you because you broke one of the third party's rules? Especially a rule that would have absolutely no effect on your ability to work for your potential employer? Especially a third party whose jurisdiction over you ended the minute you left college? I doubt it ... and the NFLPA feels the exact same way. By the way, Roger Goodell has no say in the matter, as the CBA is the governing document, and the language on draft eligibility is clear and grants no discretion to the Commissioner.

shetuck;1840377; said:
The reason would be that tOSU would retain some level of control over their own program. The incentive would be some measure of deterence - to avoid a slippery slope with other student-athletes in the future.

If what the players did is violation of team rules (which is presumably the case), JT has the final say when it comes to who will / will not play or travel. His authority is conferred by the Univeristy, not the NCAA. I doubt he would let the NCAA dictate the punishment if he thought that a harsher consequence is called for.

Maybe I'm missing some context here...
Click to expand...

LightningRod;1840381; said:
Sit the players and shove it directly up the ass of the NCAA, ESPN and all of the sponsors who believe their interests are more important. Next player up. There is plenty of time to prepare the next player in and adapt the game plan accordingly. Treat as 5 players who suffered season ending injuries and move on.
Click to expand...
I usually agree with both of you, but consider this ... for the sake of the team, JT has to be seen as the players' advocate, not their adversary, and it would be difficult for him to do so if he imposes a punishment that is more strict than that imposed by the NCAA. I believe that it would also make it difficult for the school to appeal the five-game suspensions as being too harsh.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1840388; said:
I usually agree with both of you, but consider this ... for the sake of the team, JT has to be seen as the players' advocate, not their adversary, and it would be difficult for him to do so if he imposes a punishment that is more strict than that imposed by the NCAA. I believe that it would also make it difficult for the school to appeal the five-game suspensions as being too harsh.
Click to expand...

Also consider the recruiting ramifications. Right now this is an issue of some players doing something against the rules. That makes this a recruiting neutral situation, nothing bad, nothing good. If the school is seen as being extra harsh on the players, that could form a negative that hurts us for a while.

I think the best thing could be to use the Sugarbowl as a bargaining chip with the NCAA in the appeal.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top