I read some comments from a couple of geniuses in my Sporting News last night.
Matt Hayes in his "First and 10" feature: "I'm not sure I've ever been more excited about the Big Ten. New team, new divisional alignment, new motivation. And no more Ohio State at the top of the pack."
This guy must have some insight into the future that no one else has. No doubt losing the dearly departed is tough, but the last time I checked, OSU has the best recruits every year, always reloads on defense, and has had at least a share of the conference title the last 6 years. This is either wishful thinking or Matt thinks OSU will not be eligible for the title.
In "One-Two Punch" David Whitley makes a ton of curious statements that seem to belie the known facts of the OSU situation. He contends that OSU could learn lessons from Dr. Phillips' High in Orlando who went 14-1 last year, losing only in the 4A championship. They vacated all of their wins when they found an ineligible player was on their roster.
Whitley says, "If it had been handled the Ohio State Way, Dr. Phillips would still be 14-1 and the ineligible kid would be driving a Nissan 350Z." Didn't OSU vacate 12 wins, and didn't it turn out that the 350Z complied with NCAA rules?
"Maybe we'll finally hear Tressel explain why he let Pryor and four teammates play despite knowing they'd sold memorabilia and gotten free tattoos." Seems like I read what Tressel said to the NCAA about why he did what he did. Evidently, Whitley missed that.
"It will also be interesting to see if his Ohio State enablers admit they should have been more vigilant. Or at least not let Pryor and his ink-stained friends play in the Sugar Bowl." Didn't the NCAA find that the efforts and cooperation of the compliance department warrented no failure to monitor charge? And wasn't it the NCAA itself who sanctioned those owner of illegitimate ink to play in the Sugar Bowl?
Look, I can understand a reasoned and informed opinion. What I have little tolerance for is writers who combine ignorance with laziness.