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

[Bleed S & G]

Was the vote unanimous?

Let it go... it doesn't matter. What matters is that the team has spoken.

No disrespect Shetuck, but I think it does matter. If 50% of the players aren't happy that they are playing, I think it could become a problem.

With that said, I would bet an overwhelming majority voted for them to play.. I still think they should sit, IMO. They knew the rule. They weren't helping their family with money (I should qualify this by saying, I don't think all of them were..). I rather get our asses kicked by the SEC than win with these guys in the game.

Now, that's a diehard fan talking who believes selling the gold pants/rings is sacrilegious.

If I were a senior on the team, I'm sure I would feel differently. Especially after pouring my heart & soul into the program for 4/5 years and my last game around the corner.

All in all, these guys have put their teammates, their coaches, the fans, and the program in a [censored]ty position. It is what it is.. it's stupid all the way around.

 

[Nicknam4]

I still don't see what they did wrong. The items were their items, not borrowed or owned by anyone else. It is up to them on what they want to do with them. It is no different then receiving a giftcard from a someone as a gift and using it to by an item for someone else. This isn't "receiving an improper benefit" at all. It is selling items that belonged to them. Who cares what they do with them. And a 5 game suspension for it? That's rediculous. I don't believe this is right.

Rules are rules, and they knowingly broke them. That's what they did wrong.

 

[shetuck]

No disrespect Shetuck...

None taken... it's just a debate.

If 50% of the players aren't happy that they are playing, I think it could become a problem.

You're assuming that the team operates like a democracy.

Part of the privilege that comes with the responsibility of getting called out on the carpet when the team isn't stepping up is getting a bigger vote when it comes to team decisions. I'm assuming that's how it works. I could be wrong. But, in my experience, the bottom line is that the team has to stand (or fall) together. That's kinda what it all comes down to. It's no different in any team-oriented enterprise. The captains / leaders can choose to take votes, but ultimately there is only one outcome and everybody has to fall in line behind it.

We're not dealing with Congress or the Supreme Court here wanting to see if there's a dissenting opinion or a loyal opposition. The team takes the field together and once they decide on a direction, everybody needs to just fall in line behind that. If they don't, then they don't get to walk through the tunnel.

 

[3074326]

I still don't see what they did wrong. The items were their items, not borrowed or owned by anyone else. It is up to them on what they want to do with them. It is no different then receiving a giftcard from a someone as a gift and using it to by an item for someone else. This isn't "receiving an improper benefit" at all. It is selling items that belonged to them. Who cares what they do with them. And a 5 game suspension for it? That's rediculous. I don't believe this is right.

I own a car, but I can't speed with it unless I want to run the risk of being caught and punished. Rules are rules, even if you disagree.

 

[MaxBuck]

... Gene Smith and Jim Tressel are dancing around the ethical issues involved.

Pray tell us what "ethical issues" are involved. Because honestly I fail to see any. NCAA set the punishment, and Ohio State plans to appeal between now and September 2011. What's unethical about any of this?

 

[ScriptOhio]

There seems to be this inability to step back and take a look at the big picture here. This wasn't a DUI, or 5 guys caught with drugs or stealing laptops, but a situation where these kids thought they were selling items that belonged to them. There was no violation of team rules or 0.00 GPA. The furor from many seems to come from the fact that they sold their gold pants and championship rings. If it was anything other than that I think many would look at this differently. In my mind the only thing they did was not come forward when they knew for sure that it was a violation. How many kids would do that?
Do they deserve to be suspended? Absolutely. Rules were broken and there are always consequences to that. These kids didn't take $100 handshakes or money from an agent, they sold some stuff that they thought was theirs...just look at it from that perspective versus the emotionally charged version involving gold pants and rings.

I'll go on record and say they should play in the Sugar Bowl. I feel that the the penalty should fit the crime and and a five game suspension the NCAA gave them is way too excessive for what they did. The school has to be as fair as possible to the kids and having them sit out the Sugar Bowl which would amount to a ridiculously absurd 6 game suspension for the given offense. As BuckNut65 points out: This wasn't a DUI, no drugs were involved, no stealing of laptops, nobody got a $100 handshake from a booster, or money from an agent, but a situation where these kids thought they were selling items that belonged to them. There was no violation of team rules or 0.00 GPA, etc. Ideally, I believe that the penalty that fits the crime is a 2 game suspension (i.e. the Sugar Bowl and the first game next year); however, obviously the NCAA doesn't agree with me.

 

[scarletngray]

How convenient. If the player's peers vote to play, then the adults don't have to make an unpopular ethical decision.

Just as I would not have Cam Newton play for a sullied NC, I wouldn't have the five Buckeyes given a reprieve. They broke the rules and now the NCAA, Gene Smith and Jim Tressel are dancing around the ethical issues involved.

Wrong! No one is dancing around anything. They are simply challenging the degree of punishment that should be handed out. BIG difference.

:osu:

 

[1926Buckeyes]

I own a car, but I can't speed with it unless I want to run the risk of being caught and punished. Rules are rules, even if you disagree.

Yeah, I think the rules concerning the championship rings. jersies, etc are foolish, but on the other hand they still broke an NCAA rule. There's no getting around that.

I do think that he rulings are terrible though, and if there is any suspension, they need to make it 2 games. Selling something that was given to you is a very minor thing in my mind. If you give it to them, most guys will think its theirs to do whatever with. Not now though, of course. You;d be stupid to sell anything now.

 

[ScriptOhio]

How convenient. If the player's peers vote to play, then the adults don't have to make an unpopular ethical decision.

cincibuck,

I did a similar thing; I referred to the players as "kids" in an earlier post. You separated them from "adults". I didn't notice my error until I saw your post. I think we are both guilty of thinking anybody 40 years younger than us are still kids and/or not an adult. In reality anyone 18 years old (who can enlist in the Army and die for his/her country) should be considered an adult.

 

[matcar]

No disrespect Shetuck, but I think it does matter. If 50% of the players aren't happy that they are playing, I think it could become a problem.

With that said, I would bet an overwhelming majority voted for them to play.. I still think they should sit, IMO. They knew the rule. They weren't helping their family with money (I should qualify this by saying, I don't think all of them were..). I rather get our asses kicked by the SEC than win with these guys in the game.

Now, that's a diehard fan talking who believes selling the gold pants/rings is sacrilegious.

If I were a senior on the team, I'm sure I would feel differently. Especially after pouring my heart & soul into the program for 4/5 years and my last game around the corner.

All in all, these guys have put their teammates, their coaches, the fans, and the program in a [censored]ty position. It is what it is.. it's stupid all the way around.

The reason I asked if it was unanimous was because I'm wondering about team unity at this point. It's possible that no one knows the answer or perhaps they don't need to share, but I feel it would be telling about whether this team can come together or if there is some division.

 

[cincibuck]

Pray tell us what "ethical issues" are involved. Because honestly I fail to see any. NCAA set the punishment, and Ohio State plans to appeal between now and September 2011. What's unethical about any of this?

The rule was in place. Ignorance of the rule is not excusable in any legal system that I'm aware of. It is clear that they had the opportunity to know what the rule was. It has been stated by a member of the team at the time under consideration that the athletic department and the coaches made the rule clear.

Since the story broke we have been told by the AD and the HC that it was something not taught -- clearly trying to CYA for the athletes -- and by the players that it was money spent to help out the family, not for tattoos. We have subsequently discovered that both statements were false.

If this team is, as advertised, a family, then this is a case of 'en loco parentis' and the parents (i.e. the Athletic department, the coaches and the university) have the obligation to make and enforce the punishment, not to push that responsibility down on the oldest siblings.

In essence the actions of a few have a great impact on the lives of many. To allow them to play seems to me to validate a sliding moral code -- yes, that was illegal, but not bowl game illegal behavior. It suggests that we can neatly compartmentalize just how illegal depending on perceived impact in the eyes of several interested parties.

For this, I find fault in the players (thanks Script O), the athletic department, the university, the BCS and the NCAA, All have failed to step up to the matter squarely.

If this is not an ethical issue, then how is the Cam Newton situation any different?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I still don't see what they did wrong. The items were their items, not borrowed or owned by anyone else. It is up to them on what they want to do with them. It is no different then receiving a giftcard from a someone as a gift and using it to by an item for someone else.

It is not the same as "receiving a giftcard from a someone as a gift" because what they received (Big Ten Champions rings, Gold Pants) are not available to the general student population. This point has been made clear several times earlier. Anything that you receive via your actions as a scholarship athlete cannot be sold until you are no longer on scholarship. Once Pryor, Posey, Herron, etc., leave Ohio State, then they can do whatever they want with whatever they had received...

 

[MaxBuck]

The rule was in place. Ignorance of the rule is not excusable in any legal system that I'm aware of. I agree - but I'm not clear how this relates to "ethics." It is clear that they had the opportunity to know what the rule was. It has been stated by a member of the team at the time under consideration that the athletic department and the coaches made the rule clear.

Since the story broke we have been told by the AD and the HC that it was something not taught -- clearly trying to CYA for the athletes. By the players that it was money spent to help out the family, not for tattoos. We have subsequently discovered that both statements were false. I don't believe we've necessarily discovered any such thing - at least, not across the board. Besides which, I draw a distinction between "CYA for the players" and protecting young men, even if I don't think some of that protection is warranted. I don't have a big problem with "white lies" in cases like this.

If this team is, as advertised, a family then this is a case en loco parentis and the parents (i.e. the Athletic department, the coaches and the university) have the obligation to make and enforce the punishment, not to push that responsibility down on the oldest siblings. Not clear what you mean by this, nor, again, how it relates to "ethics." When it comes to NCAA violations, neither the university nor the athletics department is empowered to override the NCAA when it comes to sanctions.

In essence the actions of a few have a great impact on the lives of many. To allow them to play seems to me to validate a sliding moral code -- yes, that was illegal, but not bowl game illegal behavior. It suggests that we can neatly compartmentalize just how illegal depending on perceived impact in the eyes of several interested parties.

For this, I find fault in the players (thanks Script O), the athletic department, the university, the BCS and the NCAA, All have failed to step up to the matter squarely. So because you personally would have designed different penalties, all these entities have "failed to step up." That seems like a pretty self-important position.

If this is not an ethical issue, then how is the Cam Newton situation any different?

The ethical issue arises, to me, only in the obligation to acknowledge the violation and accept the consequences (subject to appeal through accepted protocols). "Illegal, but not bowl game illegal?" What on earth does this mean? I have never heard of an ethical code that requires one to volunteer for additional punishment beyond what what the responsible organization levies. And in my opinion, volunteering for additional punishment would itself be unethical, since it would entail subjecting other players on the team to more of a penalty than the NCAA believes to be appropriate.

As I've said ad nauseum, suggesting that Ohio State needs to expand upon or otherwise modify the NCAA-prescribed penalty in order to meet "moral" or "ethical" obligations is IMO absurd. This does NOT mean I excuse the student-athletes, because their selfish acts hurt the team.

 

[BB73]

I think I'm neutral on the issue of whether or not the players should be suspended for the Sugar Bowl. I don't believe that the decision for the NCAA to reinstate them for the Sugar Bowl and have the suspensions delayed until the 2011 regular season was made by the NCAA in a vacuum.

I understand that the Bowl selections were made with the assumption that certain players would participate, and that there are big dollars at stake for the Bowl and its TV ratings. So I understand the NCAA wanting to have the players in the game.

I think the NCAA likely had some communication with Delany's office and/or tOSU, as well as with Sugar Bowl officials, prior to rendering that decision. Whether or not that decision was preferred by the tOSU Athletic Department is something we're unlikely to find out. But I suspect that the NCAA and the league were more interested in delaying the suspensions than tOSU was.

I was uncomfortable watching Gene Smith blame the compliance department moreso than the players - that seemed like spin to me. As an alumnus, I want tOSU to play by the rules, and when any rules are found to be broken to come clean and face the consequences head on. Spinning the improper benefits as something not made clear by the compliance department until after the transgressions occurred didn't appear to be doing that. It seems that it was done for 2 possible reasons: to show to other teammates and future recruits that tOSU supports players, and to justify the delay in the suspensions - a delay which was preferred by the NCAA. I'm not sure whether such 'spin' is a slippery slope, a white lie, or an erosion of ethics.

And personally, I prefer to avoid the use of the term 'illegal' when discussing these activities, in order to separate them from things that show up in the police blotter thread because of violations of state and federal laws. Ironically, things that violate actual laws seem to cost players less game time than NCAA violations. I'm not excusing the violations or saying the suspensions are unfair, it just makes it a tougher pill to swallow for those getting suspended.

 

[stkoran]

Cinci ? Where has it come out that Gene Smith lied and that the compliance instruction actually took place? Just the Thad Gibson comments? And where has it come out the players lied about helping their families and actually just got tats? I thought in the NCAA the money amounts were for cash they received and the services amounts were for the tattoos?

I also continue to fail to understand how there is an ethical decision to made regarding whether to suspend them for the bowl. They players broke an NCAA rule and the NCAA punished them by suspending them for five games next year. Why the University would take the extreme step of suspending them for an extra game when they are already appealing the length of the suspension is beyond me. I can?t recall any team that has ever imposed a stiffer suspension than that imposed by the league or governing body of the sport for a violating of league/governing body rules.

As for Tressel taking the easy road by letting the seniors decide whether they play in the bowl, I completely disagree. I think the decision he made is absolutely appropriate and very smart. This seems to be quite a unique incident, what with the players apparent lack of knowledge of the rule, the fact it took place some time ago, and that an NCAA punishment had already been handed down. Right now it is simply a matter of them having made a decision that caused a distraction and let their teammates down. Who better to decide if they play than those very teammates?