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

[MaxBuck]

I'm sure the Ohio Supreme Court Justices will be very understanding if Attorney Cicero's disciplinary proceeding comes before them.

Cicero has no business practicing law.

 

[BB73]

Tony Gerdeman reviews what has happened in recent NCAA cases, and speculates about how the NCAA will respond.

Summarizing his article, having some scholarship reductions is very possible, but a postseason ban seems unlikely.

Ozone

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Tony Gerdeman reviews what has happened in recent NCAA cases, and speculates about how the NCAA will respond.

Summarizing his article, having some scholarship reductions is very possible, but a postseason ban seems unlikely.

Ozone

Gerd makes me wonder- what good would a scholly reduction do? The B1G, (and Ohio State) doesn't allow for the stockpiling that happens elsewheres via oversigning, and the Buckeyes use those un-filled scholarships for walkons and Adam Griffins.

Would the NCAA really want to punish these types of student athletes?

 

[Buckeye86]

Gerd makes me wonder- what good would a scholly reduction do? The B1G, (and Ohio State) doesn't allow for the stockpiling that happens elsewheres via oversigning, and the Buckeyes use those un-filled scholarships for walkons and Adam Griffins.

Would the NCAA really want to punish these types of student athletes?

Looking for that type of impact takes several levels of cause and affect analysis... presuming the NCAA goes beyond the most basic surface level analysis of their actions (read: how much money is flowing) is giving them entirely too much credit. Perfect example: Sugar Bowl eligibility of Ohio State's players.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

yes. they don't make any money off Adam Griffin.....so why do they care.

 

[jlb1705]

Gerd makes me wonder- what good would a scholly reduction do? The B1G, (and Ohio State) doesn't allow for the stockpiling that happens elsewheres via oversigning, and the Buckeyes use those un-filled scholarships for walkons and Adam Griffins.

Would the NCAA really want to punish these types of student athletes?

The Adam Griffins are a rare exception, and the walk-ons are one-year scholarships that result from attrition or a lost recruit stringing the staff along until the last minute (i.e. Hendersonk). It's not as if Ohio State counts on banking 2-3 scholarships every year to give to walk-ons.

If Ohio State were penalized in that manner, it would be felt in recruiting. There will still be walk-ons that end up with scholarships because those circumstances are mostly independent of the number of spots that are available to be recruited from year to year.

 

[jwinslow]

Gerd makes me wonder- what good would a scholly reduction do? The B1G, (and Ohio State) doesn't allow for the stockpiling that happens elsewheres via oversigning, and the Buckeyes use those un-filled scholarships for walkons and Adam Griffins.

Would the NCAA really want to punish these types of student athletes?

the difference is they take two (or whatever penalty #) less players before waiting on Hendersonk. Now they could adjust their approach to wait on less supers down the stretch, but it would have an impact.

I don't think it would have a major impact on OSU. It could make a big difference to Michigan, with a bigger and more talented pool of subbed ohioans.

 

[colobuck79]

Unibrows can look ok,
If they are shaven every day.

 

[Gatorubet]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...aa-think-that-osu-on-right-track.html?sid=101

But how the NCAA will come down on Ohio State is a "crap shoot"
because the NCAA doesn't have sentencing guidelines as does a court of law,
Karcher said."The NCAA has said in recommendations recently ... that
precedent is not binding and that each case will be determined on its own
set of facts and circumstances," agreed Scott Tompsett, a lawyer in Kansas
City, Mo., who has represented more than two dozen Division I schools and
coaches in major-infraction cases. That makes it difficult to predict the
outcome of any given case, Tompsett said.

Well, [Mark May] - might as well just throw darts at a board.

 

[dlrn64]

I think the thing that could hurt OSU with the NCAA is how they handled this from the very beginning. They lobbied to have the 5 players play in the SB even though they really shouldn't have played in that game (obviously Tressel knew more than Smith, but c'est la vie...he DID represent OSU, after all).

OSU did a pretty quick (or non-existent some would say) "investigation of the matter during that time period as well. It sounds like they did something along the lines of just asking a few questions, like
"What do you know about this, coach?" -Smith
"Nothing," -Tressel
"Ok, then..we're good to go."-Smith

So, knowing that they already got away with playing the entire season and in a BCS bowl game with a huge payout with all their players intact...it just seems to me that the NCAA is less likely to be congenial about these "self imposed" (non) penalties that do nothing to hurt OSU for what they did.

I certainly don't blame Smith and OSU for scrimping on the self penalties. Heck, why punish yourselves harder than what you may ultimately get from the NCAA? They are going to penalize you no matter what your self penalties are in a case like this. It isn't like a "minor" transgression. I'd guess 10 scollies over 2 years with a 2 year bowl ban.

 

[bassbuckeye07]

I think the thing that could hurt OSU with the NCAA is how they handled this from the very beginning. They lobbied to have the 5 players play in the SB even though they really shouldn't have played in that game (obviously Tressel knew more than Smith, but c'est la vie...he DID represent OSU, after all).

OSU did a pretty quick (or non-existent some would say) "investigation of the matter during that time period as well. It sounds like they did something along the lines of just asking a few questions, like
"What do you know about this, coach?" -Smith
"Nothing," -Tressel
"Ok, then..we're good to go."-Smith

So, knowing that they already got away with playing the entire season and in a BCS bowl game with a huge payout with all their players intact...it just seems to me that the NCAA is less likely to be congenial about these "self imposed" (non) penalties that do nothing to hurt OSU for what they did.

I certainly don't blame Smith and OSU for scrimping on the self penalties. Heck, why punish yourselves harder than what you may ultimately get from the NCAA? They are going to penalize you no matter what your self penalties are in a case like this. It isn't like a "minor" transgression. I'd guess 10 scollies over 2 years with a 2 year bowl ban.

This football season you speak of.....i've never heard of it

 

[OH10]

Is there any question? I thought he had a consultation with or actually represented the owner of the tattoo parlor.

Depends on what was confidential and/or whether his client gave him permission to send the email with that information. Cicero could claim he did and it would be his word against the word of a convicted felon.

 

[Mac]

I think they'll give us a 2year TV ban

 

[jlb1705]

I think the thing that could hurt OSU with the NCAA is how they handled this from the very beginning. They lobbied to have the 5 players play in the SB even though they really shouldn't have played in that game (obviously Tressel knew more than Smith, but c'est la vie...he DID represent OSU, after all).

OSU did a pretty quick (or non-existent some would say) "investigation of the matter during that time period as well. It sounds like they did something along the lines of just asking a few questions, like
"What do you know about this, coach?" -Smith
"Nothing," -Tressel
"Ok, then..we're good to go."-Smith

The matter of the violations by the players themselves has already been settled. The fact of the matter is, it has already gotten worse by the way Ohio State, and specifically Jim Tressel handled the situation. That's why there is still a pending case for a violation of Bylaw 10.1. The ruling that's about to come down is not made better or worse by the way Ohio State handled it, because that's what the violation is in and of itself.

Also, as of right now Gene Smith and the administration's handling of the situation does not appear to be on the table. The NOA is for the 10.1 violation by Jim Tressel. There has been no NOA for other charges against the administration or the institution for their action (or inaction) in relation to this matter.

So, knowing that they already got away with playing the entire season and in a BCS bowl game with a huge payout with all their players intact...it just seems to me that the NCAA is less likely to be congenial about these "self imposed" (non) penalties that do nothing to hurt OSU for what they did.

Let's clear this up: Neither Ohio State nor the Big Ten conference saw a windfall by Ohio State being in the Sugar Bowl or having an intact roster. The purse isn't higher for the winner of the game than the loser. BCS bowl payouts are divided equally among conference members and had Ohio State not been in a position to receive the at-large bid it would have likely gone to Michigan State. In that case, the payout to Ohio State and to the Big Ten Conference collectively would have been the same.

The only windfall that was realized at the Sugar Bowl was for the media partners covering the game and for the Sugar Bowl/BCS coalition in its future negotiations with those media partners.

 

[Merih]

Disclaimer: I am an OSU alumnus. Not a homer, but nonetheless a fan.

The fact of it all is that in the NCAA's notice of allegations to Ohio State, the program was NOT cited for "Lack of Institutional Control" nor for "Failure to Monitor of Program." They were called out for failure to monitor the head coach, which typically carries a show-cause penalty at the hearing. OSU headed that off by firing Jim Tressel.

The storylines of TP signing $20k to $40k worth in memorabilia are not in the notice of allegations. Nor is the (now proven fully legal) issues with the car dealership. And you won't find any of the newly uncovered stuff from the SI article in there either.

Why? Because just like in real life, the NCAA can't cite you for things that they can't prove. Does this mean that OSU players weren't involved in any of those claims? No, but luckily for OSU you can just as easily say they weren't involved as you can say they were when there is no evidence present.

In my opinion, OSU is not going to get USC level penalties. Based on what investigations and evidence has proven, they shouldn't either.

If you think OSU's self imposed penalties were soft, think about the fact that USC selfimposed ZERO penalties in the Reggie Bush case. NONE. And that was after they were cited with 31 different statute violations to Ohio State's 5.

Bottom line is that without "Lack of Institutional Control" and "Failure to Monitor" the NCAA is going to be hamstrung in their penalties. There have been nine incidents of the NCAA inflicting bowl bans on schools found in violation of statute 10.1 (the big one that OSU is on the hook for). Of those nine bowl bans, only 1 came WITHOUT the LOIC tag being levied against the school in question, and that was Mississippi State in 2004. Mississippi State got that because they had already violated before and were on their probationary period as repeat offenders. OSU has not been cited as repeat offenders.

I think the NCCA tacks on 10 schollies lost over 2 years, and adds a year onto the probationary period. I say ten schollies because the NCAA usually takes away twice the number of schollies to ineligible players (five for OSU).