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

[SmoovP]

Really? I'm asking. I mean we've sat here as a fanbase and been lambasted from all angles from more soapboxes than I care to count...that includes the visitors of this site who have been given tons of leeway to express opinions.

I asked a very simple question in the course of your discussion. There is a good chance the NCAA does not add anything to the self-imposed punishment. There is a chance they add very little. There is a chance they rename Columbus Hiroshima.

Yet, you respond with "Good Grief"?

Am I supposed to resume the expected tOSU fan-fetal position now or would you actually care to acknowledge a valid question outside of your own opinion?

My "Good Grief" response was to this:

Oh hush...you can have the dang trophy. Sorry we ruined your BCS party.

I don't know what else to say to that.

And being that I have clearly over-stepped my bounds on what is acceptable for an outsider to say, I'll hush.

 

[Dryden]

Honestly, its catastrophic. As fans we may never see another guy like him the way things change. It took 30 years after Woody to find a guy that took us to the promise land. You never really know, it may be at least that long again. :(

Good point. I'm sure a lot of people thought the machine would just roll on after Woody.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I think he was referring to the question of why punish the rest of the people for the acts of two guys? Obviously, because if you could skate for using ineligible players intentionally by just changing coaches and the dolts that got caught, there would be no disincentive to not use ineligible players intentionally, as the program would never be punished - only the individuals.

JFC, we gave up the whole fucking season. Not just a game, not just conference games, but every fucking game we won, which is one game short of every game we played...oh yeah, that includes the bowl game in which the NCAA themselves allowed those very same "ineligble" players to play. I'd say vacating 12 wins is pretty much a fucking disincentive.

 

[Gatorubet]

JFC, we gave up the whole [censored]ing season. Not just a game, not just conference games, but every [censored]ing game we won, which is one game short of every game we played...oh yeah, that includes the bowl game in which the NCAA themselves allowed those very same "ineligble" players to play.

You "gave up" games that were gone no matter what. They are gone not because of your AD's spirit of contrition, but because the tOSU powers that be knew there was no way in hell that the NCAA would allow you to keep them when the smoke cleared.

As far as the bowl game, we discussed that - and after some great posts/points made by several folks here I have swung over to your side to the point where I can see it is very legitimately debatable that the Sugar Bowl should stand.

I'd say vacating 12 wins is pretty much a [censored]ing disincentive.

But Mili, the fact that at the start of today's thread plenty of "I/we know who won that game though" posts were made should tell you what a non-crippling punishment vacating those games really is to many Buckeye fans. (and you can add the numerous "fill in how many days since you lost to whomever" posts to support that). Look Mili, I'm NOT saying that to vacate the season is a nothing....because of course it is a big deal. But the real issue is: how big a hit it is when viewed in light of the similar penalties for infractions that give on the field advantage? If y'all still get to brag how team Y has not beaten you in X days, that just does not "feel" like an atom bomb negative when you are caught breaking rules that afford you an on-field advantage in those wins. The fact that you would have won most of them anyway if the guys rode the pine is maddening as hell, but that can be laid at the feet of the coach and the players who set that up - not on the folks who think the rules require greater punishment for it.

All I can do is relay how the thing looks to the outsiders who see you still having lots of good stuff that arose from the infraction. I don't see y'all giving up Big-10 Co-Championship because you used ineligible players. And even though you vacate the bowl game, you still retain the reputation of a BCS bowl win (and keep the actual extra $$$ you got from being there).

FWI, I hope you do not have to deal with scholarship losses, and I hope that Gene has cut the deal already. Waiving the $250,000.00 penalty you assessed Tress was not the best way to show contrition on the day you respond and give what the rest of the country thinks is a light self-penalty. But I guess you dance with the girl what brung you - and that is Gene's strategy.

 

[DaveyBoy]

no offense, but outsiders have a large interest in seeing OHio STate not only get destroyed but also occupy all the headlines.

While I see your point, I can't help but think that the NCAA will also see the point that:

1. OSU voluntarily asked for JT to step down
2. OSU voluntarily asked to have the entire 2010 season wins vacated

the NCAA will at most impose a bowl ban for 2011....case closed

in a way, that might be interesting because the BigTen would be forced to have to act and exclude OSU from the BT Championship game.

You "gave up" games that were gone no matter what. They are gone not because of your AD's spirit of contrition, but because the tOSU powers that be knew there was no way in hell that the NCAA would allow you to keep them when the smoke cleared.

As far as the bowl game, we discussed that - and after some great posts/points made by several folks here I have swung over to your side to the point where I can see it is very legitimately debatable that the Sugar Bowl should stand.

But Mili, the fact that at the start of today's thread plenty of "I/we know who won that game though" posts were made should tell you what a non-crippling punishment vacating those games really is to many Buckeye fans. (and you can add the numerous "fill in how many days since you lost to whomever" posts to support that). Look Mili, I'm NOT saying that to vacate the season is a nothing....because of course it is a big deal. But the real issue is: how big a hit it is when viewed in light of the similar penalties for infractions that give on the field advantage? If y'all still get to brag how team Y has not beaten you in X days, that just does not "feel" like an atom bomb negative when you are caught breaking rules that afford you an on-field advantage in those wins. The fact that you would have won most of them anyway if the guys rode the pine is maddening as hell, but that can be laid at the feet of the coach and the players who set that up - not on the folks who think the rules require greater punishment for it.

All I can do is relay how the thing looks to the outsiders who see you still having lots of good stuff that arose from the infraction. I don't see y'all giving up Big-10 Co-Championship because you used ineligible players. And even though you vacate the bowl game, you still retain the reputation of a BCS bowl win (and keep the actual extra $$$ you got from being there).

FWI, I hope you do not have to deal with scholarship losses, and I hope that Gene has cut the deal already. Waiving the $250,000.00 penalty you assessed Tress was not the best way to show contrition on the day you respond and give what the rest of the country thinks is a light self-penalty. But I guess you dance with the girl what brung you - and that is Gene's strategy.

 

[Mac]

I still blame the Tat-5 before Tressel. There was no excuse for what they did. They knew better, and put the entire program in danger with their selfishness and carelessness.

Tressel still [censored]ed up, and he payed for it. That's one of the only mistakes he's made, though. I'll him give credit for that.

Agree. TP admitted he knew what he was doing was wrong, and kept doing it anyways. Immature, who needed to learn a lesson? Probably, but I still blame the players first. Tress messed up as well, he's just as much fault as the players. But take away the guys who put Tress in this position and we aren't standing here today. (What if?)

As for smoove talking all this "what if" the tat 5 didn't play against Cryami stuff....okay, what, what if, what if Ryan Mallet didn't suck donkey balls in the Sugar Bowl, Arkansas had a better chance of winning? Or if Arkansas didn't have butterfingers on that fumble that Dane recovered for a touchdown?

It's all speculation. "What if's" are a fantasy-land thought, where you think to yourself that it would be a better outcome than what had occurred. Could have Miami won that game if we didn't play the Tat 5? Possibly, but no one knows for sure, because it's all "what if"

 

[Mac]

Oh and did you guys realize that with us relinquishing the 2010 wins, Tress no longer has 100 wins as a OSU head coach? :(

 

[WolverineMike]

my dad said he read in the Dispatch where Smith said he opted for the vacating of wins over a self imposed 3 year bowl ban because he thinks that's what the NCAA is going to tack on. So he was afraid of a 6 year total ban. Is that true? I did not see that in the links posted, and my dad doesn't read that well

 

[Mac]

my dad said he read in the Dispatch where Smith said he opted for the vacating of wins over a self imposed 3 year bowl ban because he thinks that's what the NCAA is going to tack on. So he was afraid of a 6 year total ban. Is that true? I did not see that in the links posted, and my dad doesn't read that well

Wishful thinking Mr. Wolverine :)

 

[bassbuckeye07]

my dad said he read in the Dispatch where Smith said he opted for the vacating of wins over a self imposed 3 year bowl ban because he thinks that's what the NCAA is going to tack on. So he was afraid of a 6 year total ban. Is that true? I did not see that in the links posted, and my dad doesn't read that well

I read the article and no...there is nothing like that. Why would Gene Smith speculate in what he thinks the NCAA is going to do. The Dispatch speculated but not in addition to any bowl ban proposed by Ohio State

 

[bassbuckeye07]

Wonderful. Perhaps he'll accuse them of Buckeye Envy.

No bowl ban and no scholarship losses? Gene Smith is either one clever motherfucker who knows exactly what he's doing, or he's an imbecile of galactic proportions and a lot of students, student-athletes, alumni and others are going to pay for it.

Oh well, I'm sure my worries are utterly baseless, because GS performance has been nothing less than stellar to date.

This is exactly how I feel...or he is very connected and the NCAA has advised him on how to respond so when they give the real punishment they will look like they are doing their job...however I get a feeling of panic thinking that he is the one in controll of a proud and powerful ship that he should not be captaining

 

[sflbuck]

I would like to direct all our Junior NCAA Investigators and Volunteer Committee on Infractions members to the following "case law" involving Southern Indiana University Basketball, a division II institution.

http://www.bgsfirm.com/college-spor...en-university-of-southern-indiana-division-ii

The NCAA found that

1) An assistant coach provided extra benefits directly to a student athlete. Specifically airline tickets to get to and from SIU his first semester.

2) This same assistant committed a 10.1 violation by telling the NCAA that the student athlete paid him back (complete with a phony receipt).

3) The same assistant also committed academic fraud. Specifically he had the head coach's father in law compose a final exam paper for a student athlete.

4) Same assistant committed another 10.1 violation regarding the said academic fraud.

5) Found that the Head Coach failed to maintain a atmosphere of compliance. Said Head Coach, among other things, directed another assistant coach to provide "gas money" to two student athletes, without notifying compliance.

6) Head and Assistant Coaches committed other secondary violations.


For these violation the NCAA handed down the following penalties.

1) Show cause for both the head and assistant coach. (They had already been fired or resigned).

2) One year post season ban. (appears to be self imposed)

3) Vacation of all wins that ineligible athletes competed in.

4) One year of probation.

5) $ 2500 fine to the NCAA.

6) SIU ordered to disassociate themselves from the person that aided in the academic fraud (The Ex Head Coaches Father in Law)

This ruling was handled down February of THIS YEAR.

The only major difference between these penalties and OSU self impose penalties is the 1 year post season ban.

My point is it really that much of a reach to believe that the Gene Smith self imposed penalties for a single 10.1 Violation are going to pass muster with the NCAA when at SIU multiple coaches committed multiple 10.1 violations as well as academic fraud and provided improper benefits directly to student athletes?

 

[BB73]

my dad said he read in the Dispatch where Smith said he opted for the vacating of wins over a self imposed 3 year bowl ban because he thinks that's what the NCAA is going to tack on. So he was afraid of a 6 year total ban. Is that true? I did not see that in the links posted, and my dad doesn't read that well

Now we know why you get some of your ideas. Genetics. :tongue2:

 

[Ryan36_1]

re: potential loss of scholarships being tacked on.

Does anyone think that behind the scenes, tOSU is showing that over the past 5-10 years, we have typically had an average of 4-5 walk-on seniors awarded one-year scholarships.

i.e. "You can take scholarships from us, but it won't be punishing the program - we will still have the same kids on the team either way. The ones who will be punished are the Jimmy's and Johns's who have devoted the past 3-4 years of their lives to tOSU football, busting their asses on the practice squad day-in and day-out. Taking scholarships is only going to take away our opportunity to honor that hard work."


Not that I particularly think the NCAA cares, just a thought.

 

[BB73]

You "gave up" games that were gone no matter what. They are gone not because of your AD's spirit of contrition, but because the tOSU powers that be knew there was no way in hell that the NCAA would allow you to keep them when the smoke cleared.

tOSU also gave up a Big Ten title, ending a nice long streak.

And not only are the games vacated from 2010, but 2011 will also see the team incur the penalties that would have been meted out had the emails come to light a year ago - justice delayed is not justice denied.

Some talking heads want to compare tOSU to USC, since both cases involve benefits to a high profile player, but tOSU has lost Pryor for his senior year, and 5 other guys are losing the number of games they would have lost a year ago, so the vacating of the games isn't the only negative for tOSU.

Also - BP's Buckeye fans try to avoid calling ourselves 'we' when talking about the team, so I'd appreciate it if you stop using 'you' when talking about tOSU. It tends to sound antagonistic and accusatory, and that will only cause problems.