I know that most people seem to be in the "suspend them for the bowl" camp, a position with which I agree in general. However, based on the NCAA ruling, I firmly believe that OSU should not suspend them for the bowl in addition to the five games next year.
To me, part of what makes determining the timing of the suspensions so awkward is that the violations presumably occurred prior to the 2009 season, not immediately preceding the upcoming game. Typically, a suspension is imposed immediately following the act. Here, though, the transgressions didn't come to light until two seasons later. Had these sales been discovered a month later, we wouldn't be having this debate. Heck, perhaps OSU could have even slowed down their investigation and released their findings in mid-January and there would be no issue (though I give them credit for not doing so).
The fact that they were discovered now is actually much more detrimental to OSU than had they immediately come to light. The five games would have been imposed at the beginning of last season - those games being Navy, USC, Toledo, Illinois and Indiana. We went 4-1 in those games, and the results likely would have been the same even without those players (maybe not Navy).
Anyway, just one reason why I don't feel the need for immediacy in these suspensions, despite the fact that I do still believe immediate suspension is the logical path.
That is the biggest crock of shit I have ever read anywhere, internet, books, magazines, ANYWHERE