buckeyeintn
Legend
Gator: Was AJ's dealing with a booster? If so, could/should that impact the punishment?Gatorubet;1853469; said:6, 5, and even 4, all seem harsh for what it was...even if it tracks AJ's deal somewhat.
Upvote
0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gator: Was AJ's dealing with a booster? If so, could/should that impact the punishment?Gatorubet;1853469; said:6, 5, and even 4, all seem harsh for what it was...even if it tracks AJ's deal somewhat.
buckeyeintn;1853483; said:Gator: Was AJ's dealing with a booster? If so, could/should that impact the punishment?
I've heard this attempt to raise a distinction between AJ Green and tOSU's 5 before. I don't think it has any real merit.buckeyeintn;1853483; said:Gator: Was AJ's dealing with a booster? If so, could/should that impact the punishment?
sandgk;1853490; said:I've heard this attempt to raise a distinction between AJ Green and tOSU's 5 before. I don't think it has any real merit.
The second that someone engages in the kind of horse-trading involved in tOSU's case (discounted services that the general public would not receive, autographs, cash for Big Ten bling, gold pants, team emblems) then they also effectively become a booster.
Or, in terse lingo - point is moot.
If we were dealing in the real world I would agree the point is moot. However, the NCAA has definitions of a booster and of an agent which sets them apart from the public at large.sandgk;1853490; said:I've heard this attempt to raise a distinction between AJ Green and tOSU's 5 before. I don't think it has any real merit.
The second that someone engages in the kind of horse-trading involved in tOSU's case (discounted services that the general public would not receive, autographs, cash for Big Ten bling, gold pants, team emblems) then they also effectively become a booster.
Or, in terse lingo - point is moot.
MaxBuck;1853491; said:As I understand it, the pledges by the players involved were made to Coach Tressel and/or the team. The Coach and/or the team can reasonably release any or all of these players from their pledges, at their sole option IMO.
The pledges were NOT made to us fans, nor to the public at large.
If one or more of these guys elects to go pro, with the blessing of Coach Tressel and/or the team, it's none of our business. And it's certainly none of the business of the public at large.
The public has a right to whatever opinion they have - even when they're full of [Mark May]. :tongue2:Gatorubet;1853503; said:If you mean that it is none of the public at large's business to have an opinion about the matter, I don't know what to say.
No, they were allowed by the NCAA to play in the BCS game because the NCAA decided to push the penalties into the 2011 season. Tressel simply told them that this was not acceptable to him unless they were to return and take the penalties, and put them on their honor to do so. Their honor, not his. His is already satisfied not only ensuring the violations were reported, but going beyond the imposed penalties via the agreement made with the players.Gatorubet;1853503; said:Max....you have to be joking man! They violated NCAA rules, no matter how silly or how much we disagree with them. They were allowed by tOSU to play in a BCS game (tOSU's win only assured in the last minute by the significant participation of several of the athlete violators) because their suspensions were put off until the 2011 season.
If they go pro they skate any responsibility for their actions, and tOSU and Tress look bad. Yeah, they look bad too, but to the sporting world it will look like tOSU scammed the system, pure and simple, and it will look like they scammed the system solely to allow their participation in the game to get that first bowl win versus the SEC and/or another BCS bowl.
If you mean "none of their business" to be the decision making process, you are right. If you mean that it is none of the public at large's business to have an opinion about the matter, I don't know what to say.
Deety;1853518; said:No, they were allowed by the NCAA to play in the BCS game because the NCAA decided to push the penalties into the 2011 season. Tressel simply told them that this was not acceptable to him unless they were to return and take the penalties, and put them on their honor to do so. Their honor, not his. His is already satisfied not only ensuring the violations were reported, but going beyond the imposed penalties via the agreement made with the players.
kentuckbuck;1853449; said:I would like to think that my alma mater is a step above other universities in how they operate. They leave and I look at the entire pledge as a dog and pony show just to allow them to play in a bowl game. I agree it's in Boom's best interest to go pro. However I also believe violating the NCAA rules requires punishment and he's pretty much avoiding that punishment if he goes pro. Yeah the NCAA reinstated him, Sugar Bowl wanted them to play, etc. but this is THE OSU and would like my University to be shown in the best light as possible given the situation.
I'm probably more bitter about the situation as have many friends that are alumni of the SEC and they have loved every bit of this...from the Gene Smith press conferences to their comments after the game. January 15th can't get here fast enough....
:osu: