• 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!

Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Re: The potential vacating of wins...

How can the ncaa justify taking away regular season wins, but say that they were eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl and let that win stand? That just seems silly to me. Either leave them all or take them all. Being that you said they were eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl, it should stand to reason that the other wins stand. Unless they throw out and arbitrary number of games they "would have" been ineligible.

Just thinking out loud here. The ncaa has shown no consistency and seems to have no rhyme or reason to how it operates...
 
Upvote 0
stowfan;1911716; said:
This may all be old news so forgive me. Jim Donavan the Chanel 3 sports anchor reported the following this evening @6:00 PM.

tOSU received a thirteen (13) page letter from the NCAA today.
Click to expand...
True
NCAA claims the Buckeyes played an entire 2010 season with ineligible players
Click to expand...
NCAA let those same players play in the Sugar Bowl. Laughable.
tOSU was going to be treated as a repeated offender
Click to expand...
I understood it to be "Could treat" not "will treat"
Donavan said the language was brutal concerning JT, referring to him as dishonest
Click to expand...
What else were they supposed to say? "We think JT made a mistake, but his heart was in the right place? What says YOU, Ohio State?"
 
Upvote 0
NFBuck;1911720; said:
Re: The potential vacating of wins...

How can the ncaa justify taking away regular season wins, but say that they were eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl and let that win stand? That just seems silly to me. Either leave them all or take them all. Being that you said they were eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl, it should stand to reason that the other wins stand. Unless they throw out and arbitrary number of games they "would have" been ineligible.

Just thinking out loud here. The ncaa has shown no consistency and seems to have no rhyme or reason to how it operates...
Click to expand...
Your last sentence hits the nail on the head...

Frankly, if the NCAA felt this way (ineligible for 2010), they should have said so when they dealt with THAT matter.... which... they already did..

In any case, I hope our next coach recruits a player who's father demands 180,000. THat's a much easier thing to deal with, apparently.
 
Upvote 0
stowfan;1911733; said:
Donavan was very clear, "will treat as repeated offender".:(
Click to expand...
That is not in the report. "Could be" is...they got it wrong. The issue seems to stem from the Troy Smith handshake deal...if I understand the ncaa rules correctly, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, there is a 5 year window to be treated as a "repeat offender". That window is between the time of the offenses, not the time of the reporting/ruling on said offenses. The Troy issue was in late 2003 (IIRC), this tat-gate crap was supposedly in 2009. But who the hell knows...
 
Upvote 0
NFBuck;1911736; said:
That is not in the report. "Could be" is...they got it wrong. The issue seems to stem from the Troy Smith handshake deal...if I understand the ncaa rules correctly, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, there is a 5 year window to be treated as a "repeat offender". That window is between the time of the offenses, not the time of the reporting/ruling on said offenses. The Troy issue was in late 2003 (IIRC), this tat-gate crap was supposedly in 2009. But who the hell knows...
Click to expand...

Those who actually read the NCAA Bylaws know. :wink2:

In this case, it's 19.5.3.2, which deals with 'repeat offenders'.

If a 'major violation' occurs within 5 years of the start of the penalty for the previous major violation, the 'repeat offender' provision comes into play.

An institution shall be considered a 'repeat' violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. For this provision to apply, at least one major violation must have occurred within five years after the starting date of the penalties in the previous case. It shall not be necessary that the Committee on Infractions' hearing be conducted or its report issued within the five-year period.
Click to expand...
So it doesn't matter if the actual violations were more than 5 years apart, it's the effective date of the last major penalties (March 10, 2006 in tOSU's case, per the recent NCAA Cover Letter), that is the start of the 5-year clock. The wording in the cover letter said: "your institution is subject to the penalties set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.3."

That doesn't mean that tOSU will be creamed because of this fact - it just means that the timing allows for that possibility.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
NFBuck;1911736; said:
That is not in the report. "Could be" is...they got it wrong. The issue seems to stem from the Troy Smith handshake deal...if I understand the ncaa rules correctly, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, there is a 5 year window to be treated as a "repeat offender". That window is between the time of the offenses, not the time of the reporting/ruling on said offenses. The Troy issue was in late 2003 (IIRC), this tat-gate crap was supposedly in 2009. But who the hell knows...
Click to expand...
From google searching, the Troy Smith incident occurred in the Spring of 2004.

Tattoogate was late 2009.
 
Upvote 0
stowfan;1911716; said:
This may all be old news so forgive me. Jim Donavan the Chanel 3 sports anchor reported the following this evening @6:00 PM.

tOSU received a thirteen (13) page letter from the NCAA today.

NCAA claims the Buckeyes played an entire 2010 season with ineligible players

tOSU was going to be treated as a repeated offender

Donavan said the language was brutal concerning JT, referring to him as dishonest
Click to expand...
IMO, the best way to make a clear understanding for one's self in all of this is to refrain from listening to sports news casts on the topic. Read the Ohio State self report. Read the NOA. See how they compare and contrast. I believe that they are substantially similar. The NOA does not allege any additional kinds of violations (though it appears that there was another player involved; name redacted) like recruiting violations or any other types of impermissible benefits. IMO it is very encouraging that no accusation of "lack of institutional control" or "failure to monitor" the program was made in the NOA. That JT was alleged to have been dishonest is not news. Many
understandably believe that JT kept silent so to simply maintain these players' eligibility. IMO, such would fly in the face of JT's established track record as evidenced by the suspension of Steve Belisari, Maurice Clarret, and Troy Smith. Interestingly, (at least to me) the NCAA in its NOA asked Ohio State for its reason for playing these student-athletes. If JT's motives are so seemingly cut and dried, why ask? I still think Ohio State is going to present a case which might mitigate further penalty. I still think there is much to be learned here. Lastly, I believe that the penalty of 5 games for the players and 5 games for JT amounts to us "being hammered".
 
Upvote 0
OH10;1911704; said:
Why all of the "fire Tressel" opinions now? Did some new material information come out today that we didn't know about before?

Its like Ohio State has lost so much credibility, no one believed us when we told them a month ago about these NCAA violations.

If we stood by him a month ago, we should stand by him now. Absent a show cause order, [censored] what everyone else thinks.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

It's just the cliff-jumpers (not that anyone here is truly doing it like they are on Hineygate) having a chance to act outraged again.

Give it two weeks once the emotional reaction to the non-news has been digested a bit.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top