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

[strohs]

No, Ohio State is ALREADY TAKING the high ground, as it always has under Gene Smith and Andy Geiger. What it has the opportunity to do here is do something that you prefer.

How is OSU taking the high ground? They players cheated, got caught, and got suspended by the NCAA. All the university has done is throw the compliance department under the bus in order to keep them eligible for the bowl game.

 

[strohs]

Why would suspending them for the Sugar Bowl be "the right thing to do"? I mean, you added "Period" to close off all discussion on the matter, but you conveniently forgot to support your argument in the first place. So, have at it....

Its simple, they broke the rules.
The university, the Big 10, and the NCAA used an obscure rule to keep the players eligible all for the sake of making sure no one lost any $$$.
The suspensions should have started immediately (I don't buy "we didn't know" / the compliance department blew it argument).
And on top of all that, its a huge black mark on tOSU nationally for playing players who were found to have broke the rules.

 

[MaxBuck]

People who are looking for the"right thing to do" ought to be able to support their point of view in some better way than saying, "period."

What would Jesus do?

Honestly, I don't think Jesus gives a shit.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Its simple, they broke the rules.
The university, the Big 10, and the NCAA used an obscure rule to keep the players eligible all for the sake of making sure no one lost any $$$.
The suspensions should have started immediately (I don't buy "we didn't know" / the compliance department blew it argument).
And on top of all that, its a huge black mark on tOSU nationally for playing players who were found to have broke the rules.

Again, you are simply stating conclusions: "They broke the rules ... the suspensions should have started immediately." Why would that be "the right thing to do"? If it were so "simple", then I'd be able to see the merit of your position. I do not.

 

[3074326]

Again, you are simply stating conclusions: "They broke the rules ... the suspensions should have started immediately."

Why isn't this a valid reason, exactly?

 

[JBaney45]

http://cgi.ebay.com/2002-OHIO-STATE...92540?pt=US_NCAA_Fan_Shop&hash=item1e6088bb9c

 

[billmac91]

Again, you are simply stating conclusions: "They broke the rules ... the suspensions should have started immediately." Why would that be "the right thing to do"? If it were so "simple", then I'd be able to see the merit of your position. I do not.

It's embarrassing the NCAA has allowed these kids to play for the betterment of their wallets. Yet they're not allowed to play the first 5 games of next year?

It's stupid. Have some pride. They broke the rules, start the suspension immediately. Just b/c the NCAA wants a better game doesn't mean we can't take the morally high ground. The university has the opportunity to do the right thing and send a strong message that breaking rules won't be tolerated. And I'm still not sold JT is satisfied with what is going on...and I don't think Geiger would have taken this path either.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Why isn't this a valid reason, exactly?

It may be a valid reason, but simply stating a conclusion is hardly the way to win an argument. If I'm going to make an argument, then I'm going to give you some reasons why my point of view is correct. I'm not simply going to say, "I'm right, you're wrong. Period. End of discussion."

Personally, I do not think that the players should be suspended from the Sugar Bowl. Why?

(1) Because the NCAA has ruled (for whatever reason, using whatever logic) that the players are eligible. Like it or not, the NCAA is the final word on eligibility, and if they say that the players are eligible, then they are eligible. Ohio State should abide by the NCAA's ruling in this matter.

(2) Ohio State plans to appeal the five-game suspensions. I feel that suspending the players for the Sugar Bowl could hurt Ohio State's argument on appeal. The NCAA could say, "If you think that five games is too many, then how come you extended the suspension to six?"

(3) As some have mentioned, Ohio State could unilaterally suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl, and then subsequently argue that the Sugar Bowl should count as part of the five-game suspensions. The NCAA would likely respond: "Our suspension was for the first five games of 2011. The players were eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl. If you suspended your players from the Sugar Bowl for violation of team rules, then that's none of our business. They still get five games in 2011."

(4) Of course, Ohio State can still suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl for "violation of team rules". Should Tressel do so? No. Why not? Because in situations like these, Tressel must be seen as the players' advocate and not their adversary. The NCAA is the adversary here, and Tressel must try to protect his players' interests. That is why Ohio State will appeal the five game suspensions. If Tressel suspends them for the Sugar Bowl, then he will be seen as being even more harsh than the NCAA, which will not be good for the team. He will also likely be seen as a lackey for the NCAA.

(5) Should Tressel impose some other punishment prior to the suspensions? Absolutely. The suspensions are the players' "public" punishment, and Tressel should not make the public punishment worse by extending the suspensions. However, he can (and probably will) give the players some form of additional "private" punishment, extra gassers or whatever. If Tressel wants to get his message across to the team, then he can do so better by means of a private punishment that stays within the family, not an extension of the public punishment meted out by the NCAA.

 

[Elephant]

It may be a valid reason, but simply stating a conclusion is hardly the way to win an argument. If I'm going to make an argument, then I'm going to give you some reasons why my point of view is correct. I'm not simply going to say, "I'm right, you're wrong. Period. End of discussion."

Personally, I do not think that the players should be suspended from the Sugar Bowl. Why?

(1) Because the NCAA has ruled (for whatever reason, using whatever logic) that the players are eligible. Like it or not, the NCAA is the final word on eligibility, and if they say that the players are eligible, then they are eligible. Ohio State should abide by the NCAA's ruling in this matter.

(2) Ohio State plans to appeal the five-game suspensions. I feel that suspending the players for the Sugar Bowl could hurt Ohio State's argument on appeal. The NCAA could say, "If you think that five games is too many, then how come you extended the suspension to six?"

(3) As some have mentioned, Ohio State could unilaterally suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl, and then subsequently argue that the Sugar Bowl should count as part of the five-game suspensions. The NCAA would likely respond: "Our suspension was for the first five games of 2011. The players were eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl. If you suspended your players from the Sugar Bowl for violation of team rules, then that's none of our business. They still get five games in 2011."

(4) Of course, Ohio State can still suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl for "violation of team rules". Should Tressel do so? No. Why not? Because in situations like these, Tressel must be seen as the players' advocate and not their adversary. The NCAA is the adversary here, and Tressel must try to protect his players' interests. That is why Ohio State will appeal the five game suspensions. If Tressel suspends them for the Sugar Bowl, then he will be seen as being even more harsh than the NCAA, which will not be good for the team. He will also likely be seen as a lackey for the NCAA.

(5) Should Tressel impose some other punishment prior to the suspensions? Absolutely. The suspensions are the players' "public" punishment, and Tressel should not make the public punishment worse by extending the suspensions. However, he can (and probably will) give the players some form of additional "private" punishment, extra gassers or whatever. If Tressel wants to get his message across to the team, then he can do so better by means of a private punishment that stays within the family, not an extension of the public punishment meted out by the NCAA.

Awesome and if chode heads can't understand what he just wrote then STFU

 

[LordJeffBuck]

It's embarrassing the NCAA has allowed these kids to play for the betterment of their wallets. Yet they're not allowed to play the first 5 games of next year?

It's stupid. Have some pride. They broke the rules, start the suspension immediately. Just b/c the NCAA wants a better game doesn't mean we can't take the morally high ground. The university has the opportunity to do the right thing and send a strong message that breaking rules won't be tolerated. And I'm still not sold JT is satisfied with what is going on...and I don't think Geiger would have taken this path either.

Again, you are simply stating conclusions: "It's stupid ... they broke the rules, start the suspension immediately ... blah blah blah."

Do you really think that a five-game suspension is NOT "a strong message that breaking rules won't be tolerated"? If that is truly the way you feel, then why don't you let us know why suspending them for the Sugar Bowl would make the "message" sufficiently strong. And please don't repeat "they broke the rules" because we already know that.

 

[3074326]

Awesome and if chode heads can't understand what he just wrote then STFU

I disagree with some of the stuff written there and just because I don't agree, I'm not shutting the fuck up. I think those who have nothing to say other than telling people to STFU should be the ones not talking, but that's just me..

I respect your opinions and see your POV, LJB. But I do disagree with some of it.

(1) Because the NCAA has ruled (for whatever reason, using whatever logic) that the players are eligible. Like it or not, the NCAA is the final word on eligibility, and if they say that the players are eligible, then they are eligible. Ohio State should abide by the NCAA's ruling in this matter.

I agree with this for the most part. The NCAA has ruled them eligible, and that would be fine if it weren't for the fact that there's a game in between now and the suspensions. I don't agree with picking and choosing which games suspensions should occur. I'd honestly prefer to have them suspended now and have them for the Michigan State game. The school would avoid PR issues and we probably wouldn't be hurt next year in terms of record.

My stance on this changes if the NCAA acts like you say it would later. If the NCAA says the Buckeyes are "extending" the suspension, I would certainly not do this. But I don't know why the NCAA would say this. Could they? Sure, but I think it's unlikely. Keeping them out of one of the biggest games of their careers would more than likely result in reduced suspension next year. I think the appeal will reduce their suspensions anyways, to be honest.

(2) Ohio State plans to appeal the five-game suspensions. I feel that suspending the players for the Sugar Bowl could hurt Ohio State's argument on appeal. The NCAA could say, "If you think that five games is too many, then how come you extended the suspension to six?"

Touched on this in the above part. Do you have any reason to believe they'd say that?

(3) As some have mentioned, Ohio State could unilaterally suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl, and then subsequently argue that the Sugar Bowl should count as part of the five-game suspensions. The NCAA would likely respond: "Our suspension was for the first five games of 2011. The players were eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl. If you suspended your players from the Sugar Bowl for violation of team rules, then that's none of our business. They still get five games in 2011."

Kind of the same thing as above. I don't think they'd do that. Have they before?

And before anyone says something like "it doesn't matter what you THINK," I'd like to point out that these are LJB's opinions just as much as mine are my own. We have no idea what will actually happen.

(4) Of course, Ohio State can still suspend the players for the Sugar Bowl for "violation of team rules". Should Tressel do so? No. Why not? Because in situations like these, Tressel must be seen as the players' advocate and not their adversary. The NCAA is the adversary here, and Tressel must try to protect his players' interests. That is why Ohio State will appeal the five game suspensions. If Tressel suspends them for the Sugar Bowl, then he will be seen as being even more harsh than the NCAA, which will not be good for the team. He will also likely be seen as a lackey for the NCAA.

If the players don't see Tressel as their advocate at this point in their careers, something is seriously wrong. They screwed up. He will be seen as more fair in many peoples' eyes, because I don't think it makes sense that these players are eligible for the Sugar Bowl. I'd be pissed if it were another school, I'm pissed that it's OSU.

And I don't think he'd be seen as a lackey for the NCAA after going against what they clearly want - the players to play in the bowl game.

Kind of a summary of my thoughts.. OSU is going to take a huge PR hit if these guys play in the Sugar Bowl. I don't like seeing OSU's name ran through the mud because of something they had nothing to do with.

LJB, if you have proof that some of the things you've said have happened in the past, my argument will obviously change. My side is based on speculation about what would happen. I'm assuming your side is as well. Might not be. My side is all about the PR. I don't think OSU deserves a lesser reputation because a handful of kids wanted some tattoos. And that's exactly what will happen if they play in the Sugar Bowl, fair or not.

 

[Elephant]

I disagree with some of the stuff written there and just because I don't agree, I'm not shutting the fuck up. I think those who have nothing to say other than telling people to STFU should be the ones not talking, but that's just me..

I respect your opinions and see your POV, LJB. But I do disagree with some of it.



I agree with this for the most part. The NCAA has ruled them eligible, and that would be fine if it weren't for the fact that there's a game in between now and the suspensions. I don't agree with picking and choosing which games suspensions should occur. I'd honestly prefer to have them suspended now and have them for the Michigan State game. The school would avoid PR issues and we probably wouldn't be hurt next year in terms of record.

My stance on this changes if the NCAA acts like you say it would later. If the NCAA says the Buckeyes are "extending" the suspension, I would certainly not do this. But I don't know why the NCAA would say this. Could they? Sure, but I think it's unlikely. Keeping them out of one of the biggest games of their careers would more than likely result in reduced suspension next year. I think the appeal will reduce their suspensions anyways, to be honest.



Touched on this in the above part. I don't think they'd say that. Obviously they could, but I don't think they would.



Kind of the same thing as above. I don't think they'd do that. Have they before?

And before anyone says something like "it doesn't matter what you THINK," I'd like to point out that these are LJB's opinions just as much as mine are my own. We have no idea what will actually happen.



If the players don't see Tressel as their advocate at this point in their careers, something is seriously wrong. They screwed up. He will be seen as more fair in many peoples' eyes, because I don't think it makes sense that these players are eligible for the Sugar Bowl. I'd be pissed if it were another school, I'm pissed that it's OSU.

And I don't think he'd be seen as a lackey for the NCAA after going against what they clearly want - the players to play in the bowl game.

Kind of a summary of my thoughts.. OSU is going to take a huge PR hit if these guys play in the Sugar Bowl. I don't like seeing OSU's name ran through the mud because of something they had nothing to do with.

LJB, if you have proof that some of the things you've said have happened in the past, my argument will obviously change. My side is based on speculation about what would happen. I'm assuming your side is as well.

Here is the problem I have with guy or gal like yourself. You have been one of the main ones on here beating you head against the wall. You have spent more time crying and calling "foul" on how this unfolded that I can tell it has affected you.

Yes this is a message board and it is here for people to chat civilized and so forth....But at the same time......................You are wasting time on here about something so insignificant in the big picture of things when you could be at church, getting laid by your wife, enjoying the presence of your kids or friends..Just chill out

 

[3074326]

Here is the problem I have with guy or gal like yourself. You have been one of the main ones on here beating you head against the wall. You have spent more time crying and calling "foul" on how this unfolded that I can tell it has affected you.

Yes this is a message board and it is here for people to chat civilized and so forth....But at the same time......................You are wasting time on here about something so insignificant in the big picture of things when you could be at church, getting laid by your wife, enjoying the presence of your kids or friends..Just chill out

Would you say this to LJB? Because we've both been outspoken, just on different sides of the fence. I doubt you would since you agree with him.

It took me about 5 minutes to post what you quoted. Such a huge waste of time, I know. But..

You're wasting time acting like you know me in real life. Trust me, nothing you said is accurate whatsoever. I don't go to church, I don't have a wife (I'm 23!!), I don't have kids, my friends are with their families, my mom is cooking lasagna, my dad is outside messing with something my mom and I got him for one of his cars. I'm waiting for football to start by discussing my favorite football team online. What else should I be doing according to you? After all, you're on BP at the same time I am. Why aren't you with your wife, kids, etc?

Save the lectures, I'm an adult and I'm fully capable of living without your input.

 

[Elephant]

Would you say this to LJB? Because we've both been outspoken, just on different sides of the fence. I doubt you would since you agree with him.

It took me about 5 minutes to post what you quoted. Such a huge waste of time, I know. But..

You're wasting time acting like you know me in real life. Trust me, nothing you said is accurate whatsoever. I don't go to church, I don't have a wife (I'm 23!!), I don't have kids, my friends are with their families, my mom is cooking lasagna, my dad is outside messing with something my mom and I got him for one of his cars. I'm waiting for football to start by discussing my favorite football team online. What else should I be doing according to you? After all, you're on BP at the same time I am. Why aren't you with your wife, kids, etc?

Save the lectures, I'm an adult and I'm fully capable of living without your input.

My daughter is asleep (nap time) and my wife is out shopping and enjoying our first snow on christmas day in over 130 years here in georgia.

First snow in 130 years!! Will probably be the last one I ever see. The older you get you begin to appreciate the little things in life and don't fret over the things you can not control.

 

[3074326]

My daughter is asleep (nap time) and my wife is out shopping and enjoying our first snow on christmas day in over 130 years here in georgia.

First snow in 130 years!! Will probably be the last one I ever see. The older you get you begin to appreciate the little things in life and don't fret over the things you can not control.

I guess I should just ignore OSU football in general since they cause me stress and I can't control them.

Congrats on the snow on Christmas though. Has to be pretty cool if you aren't used to it.