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

[IronBuckI]

Translation:

Be okay with me calling you all ignorant homers, because as we all know, everyone has the tendency to be an ignorant homer (including myself, when it doesn't conflict with a point I'm trying to make). Understand that I'm not going to take what you're saying seriously because I know I'm right, even though it's not my goal to be right, but to simply propagate harmony and understanding. Please don't ACTUALLY respond to my assholery and instead accept my white flag of poor jokes and inane emoticons.

We may not be ignorant, but we are, at least, blind homers.

The only issue that I take with Gator (in this instance) is the eligibilty issue. Gator knows damn well that the NCAA would've found any excuse available to not screw up the competitive balance of the Sugar Bowl, and this is just one of the instances where he's arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[jwinslow]

Those weren't "dropped passes." They were "vacated receptions."

 

[Gatorubet]

ramzyn Ramzy Nasrallah
@InTheBleachers @GAlexander21 CLARIFICATION: Those weren't "dropped passes." They were "vacated receptions."

 

[jwinslow]

I don't see anyone here "outraged" about anything. I'm certainly not. And I don't disagree at all that the NCAA wanted the game played. It just has [Mark May] to do with the fact of the game being vacated. I see the ignoring of the ruling by your institution - and the justifications for why y'all should ignore the game as vacated - as very much like everyone else.

No biggie.

To be clear, I meant the potentially outraged party to be the NCAA. I really wish they had to give press conferences because the verbal gymnastics would be comical to watch (assuming the reporters invited were courageous).

 

[Gatorubet]

We may not be ignorant, but we are, at least, blind homers.

The only issue that I take with Gator (in this instance) is the eligibilty issue. Gator knows damn well that the NCAA would've found any excuse available to not screw up the competitive balance of the Sugar Bowl, and this is just one of the instances where he's arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not that I won't do that - obviously - but that was not my intent here. Had Tress and tOSU told the NCAA that Tress knew since April and that he was knowingly playing ineligible guys all season - instead of suddenly learning about it mid December - I honestly do not think that they would have viewed it in the same light.

I can't see how anyone can assume that with certainty. That is a rather big distinction. And I think for anyone to assume that the NCAA would have been shrugged that off - well, I think that very naive. I'm as big a skeptic as anyone, but that seems a leap to me. But I agree how you look at that determines where you arrive on the issue. If I thought that the NCAA would pair you both up no matter what happened in December than I would tend to see your and Josh's position as much stronger than I do.

 

[Gatorubet]

NOW I'm scared...

 

[CHU]

Man, sometimes I wish Ohio State would walk into a room (w/ the NCAA) and play the little game called "Bribery".

 

[jwinslow]

I can't see how anyone can assume that with certainty. That is a rather big distinction. And I think for anyone to assume that the NCAA would have been shrugged that off - well, I think that very naive. I'm as big a skeptic as anyone, but that seems a leap to me. But I agree how you look at that determines where you arrive on the issue. If I thought that the NCAA would pair you both up no matter what happened in December than I would tend to see your and Josh's position as much stronger than I do.

Had this come out in February, I think you'd be making the same argument about what they would have thought pre-bowl game. The only difference is, we'd probably agree with you.

This season made it pretty easy to argue that they were out for ratings and wins at all costs to their credibility.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

This season made it pretty easy to argue that they were out for ratings and wins at all costs to their credibility.

To Gator, the phrase "easy to argue" is as redundant as saying the same thing twice.

 

[Gatorubet]

Interesting. Because, the players did lie to the NCAA, got caught, and were still allowed to play. The NCAA was going to let Ohio State play at full strength regardless of what was known at the time. If they were playing in the Alamo Bowl, then they wouldn't have.

If you accept that as a given, then the point about the bowl game should not have been vacated has a ton of merit. I just don't see it as the given you do, seeing as one scenario was what it was - and the other non-disclosed one a major violation that got your coach fired and your whole season vacated.

I think it might have changed the NCAA's ruling. We will never know of course.

 

[IronBuckI]

Not that I won't do that - obviously - but that was not my intent here. Had Tress and tOSU told the NCAA that Tress knew since April and that he was knowingly playing ineligible guys all season - instead of suddenly learning about it mid December - I honestly do not think that they would have viewed it in the same light.

I can't see how anyone can assume that with certainty. That is a rather big distinction. And I think for anyone to assume that the NCAA would have been shrugged that off - well, I think that very naive. I'm as big a skeptic as anyone, but that seems a leap to me. But I agree how you look at that determines where you arrive on the issue. If I thought that the NCAA would pair you both up no matter what happened in December than I would tend to see your and Josh's position as much stronger than I do.

Not shrugged it off, but looked for an excuse to delay punishment. Right after Tressel and Co. tried to sell this as lack of education, and that the players probably thought it was ok to sell their stuff, Pryor said that the players were educated, and that he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he still played.

The NCAA would have turned a blind eye to just about anything in order to not piss off the BCS money train. Especially in a bowl season where two out of the five BCS games (Fiesta and Orange) were flaming turds, and nobody knew if people would tune in to TCU v. Wisconsin, since nobody watched TCU the year before.

 

[Oh8ch]

Had Tress and tOSU told the NCAA that Tress knew since April and that he was knowingly playing ineligible guys all season - instead of suddenly learning about it mid December - I honestly do not think that they would have viewed it in the same light.

Perhaps so, but I view it thus. In December the NCAA knew the precise nature of the violation the players had committed and when it was committed. The NCAA did not at that time recommend vacated wins. They said play in the bowl and sit 5 games next year. That penalty will still be enforced.

What was been learned since is nothing new regarding what the players did or what their eligibility should have been at that time. What has been learned is that the coach (and by extension the school) knew about it before he said he did. We are now being penalized for this deception by vacating 11 wins.

Whether that punishment should be greater or not can be debated - but I don't see the tie to eligibility status when that was already known and ruled upon. The new penalty is for the deception only IMO.

 

[Gatorubet]

[strike]Translation:

Be okay with me calling you all ignorant homers, because as we all know, everyone has the tendency to be an ignorant homer (including myself, when it doesn't conflict with a point I'm trying to make). Understand that I'm not going to take what you're saying seriously because I know I'm right, even though it's not my goal to be right, but to simply propagate harmony and understanding. Please don't ACTUALLY respond to my assholery and instead accept my white flag of poor jokes and inane emoticons.[/strike]

[strike]Flame the fans. Fan the flames.[/strike]

[strike]To Gator, the phrase "easy to argue" is as redundant as saying the same thing twice.[/strike]

"I don't know, there's just something about him. Something around the
eyes. Reminds me of... me. Nope, now I'm sure of it. I hate him."

fify

 

[SmoovP]

Exactly. The argument isn't that they should have been eligible, but rather that the NCAA clearly didn't care about compliance as much as the bowl matchup. Being outraged now is comical.

As for the five, Thomas was a backup DE. He wasn't the reason Jacory kept his rich turnover tradition alive.

If they play that game again, history suggests he would not buck that turnover trend, while two TD returns are much less likely.

I know that you'll correct me if I am wrong, but don't I recollect that the initial revelation before the Sugar Bowl did not include the fact that Coach Tressel knew all along about the tats-for-trinkets deal.

Didn't the revelation that he knew about all that all along come out after the Sugar Bowl?

 

[osugrad21]

Didn't the revelation that he knew about all that all along come out after the Sugar Bowl?

Yessir.