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

[NFBuck]

Again, please tell me you people aren't serious about backing out of the Gator Bowl. Isn't possible and won't happen.

For real. Also, yeah, the bowl ban sucks, but one year is hardly the end of the world. I really didn't expect to be in the run for a major bowl next year anyway. Like I said, come out next year, perfect the new system, get some experience, practice for scUM like it's the bowl game, then come out in 2013 with a MAJOR chip on your shoulder and make a NC run...

I'm just glad it's finally over and we can move on.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, let me understand this...

If, say, Mike Adams had gone out on Les Wexner's yacht for party after party, and physically took cash from Wexner, Ohio State could have suspended him for one game and the NCAA would have been good with it.

Contrast that with

Adams getting free tattoos from someone who is not in any way associated with the program, but is instead under federal investigation into drug dealing and he winds up sitting 5 games....

....

Makes perfect sense to me.

Or, I suppose we could look at it institutionally -

Let's pretend there was a QB who ended up getting kicked out of one school for various misdeeds. In looking for the next school to attend, his father (already defined by the NCAA's bylaws as a representative of the student) solicits $180,000.00. Not only does this QB never sit for even a single down... but... the school he ends up with has a network of actual felons running the show and the NCAA isn't able to find a damn thing wrong?

Contrast that with a school which learns of 5 kids selling their trinkets for tattoos, self reports, learns there's a lot more to the story, self reports that too... fires its coach, suspends the players for 5 games each, forfeits over $350,000.00, self reports a second problem regarding a booster who paid for gas to get to some charity event for a player, that player sits 2 games, etc. and the NCAA says "Not enough. We're going to punish the class of 2012, and then we're going to punish 9 unknown kids who are currently in High School, who may have ended up at Ohio State on football scholarship over the course of the next 3 years.

Yep... perfect sense.

Fuck the NCAA.

 

[Coqui]

The specific bowl ban is for the 2012 season (wording is that the season will end after the last regularly scheduled game in 2012).

The specific scholarship reductions start with the 2012-2013 season.

So we were under the scholarship lmiit to begin with right? How many will we have next year including the incoming class?

 

[jlb1705]

On the bright side, when the Buckeyes run the table next year they won't be forced to play any stupid, artificial rematches.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

My only question is how the scholarship cuts will affect recruiting, especially in light of the heated recruiting wars with the fatty Up North. Will this give him a "schematic advantage"?

 

[wadc45]

My only question is how the scholarship cuts will affect recruiting, especially in light of the heated recruiting wars with the fatty Up North. Will this give him a "schematic advantage"?

It doesn't affect recruiting against another school. OSU just reduces the number of scholarship players from 85 to 82. If anything, it puts an even greater premium on a coveted OSU offer for many kids.

Next year's recruits (2013) won't feel the effects of the bowl ban.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

My only question is how the scholarship cuts will affect recruiting, especially in light of the heated recruiting wars with the fatty Up North. Will this give him a "schematic advantage"?

Fred will need a lot more than 85 players to Ohio State's 82 to end up being able to sell that bridge.

 

[buxfan4life]

Gene and his little buddy Doug need to go now.

I was a little surprised by the bowl ban, but I figured the NCAA was going to try and look tough against Ohio State due to the "Repeat Offender" thing and the public drubbing they have been getting in the media over the likes of Cam, Oregon, and the 7 year wait for USC.

Fuck it, time to move forward.

 

[NFBuck]

My only question is how the scholarship cuts will affect recruiting, especially in light of the heated recruiting wars with the fatty Up North. Will this give him a "schematic advantage"?

None whatsoever. The only class that this theoretically impacts (bowl wise) is this class...2012. Spence, Dunn, and Pittman, have already affirmed their commitments. That class is currently scout's #5 class.

2013 and the two classes following, they have 9 less scholarships, total. What it means is likely less scholarships awarded to walk-ons, and less projects. They just have to be smarter with the offers and who they accept. Other 'ships will open with natural attrition and injury waivers. It's really not a big deal.

 

[Oh8ch]

My only question is how the scholarship cuts will affect recruiting, especially in light of the heated recruiting wars with the fatty Up North. Will this give him a "schematic advantage"?

I am very concerned about recruiting. From all indications Meyer did not see this coming and apparently was telling kids it was not coming. If any of the kids who have come on board the past few weeks want to change their minds I would not fault them. Not just because of the lost bowl, but a coach who (regardless of what he believed) didn't give it to me straight.

I am sure Meyer will be on the phone all night.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It doesn't affect recruiting against another school. OSU just reduces the number of scholarship players from 85 to 82. If anything, it puts an even greater premium on a coveted OSU offer for many kids.

Next year's recruits (2013) won't feel the effects of the bowl ban.

I am not sure Urban would do this, but considering how Schollies are actually only valid for one year, I wonder if there may be some kids who are informed that their scholarship won't be renewed.

Not really articulating that all that well - what I mean to say is - there are ways, are there not, to signing 25 kids, and still reducing your scholarships, no? Another way might be - if you know Taylor Graham is transferring, you just don't fill his spot. Or... if you have some running back who's not thrilled with the depth chart and bails, ya don't fill the scholarship but it doesn't mean you can't offer the 25 to prospective incoming recruits, right?

Did any of that make sense (I'm not asking you, Bucky!)

 

[Zander42]

On the bright side, when the Buckeyes run the table next year they won't be forced to play any stupid, artificial rematches.

That is kind of a bright side. scUM is a favorite in their division. When we beat them at home next year, they will not have a chance for redemption.

Eh, silver lining I suppose.

 

[NFBuck]

I am very concerned about recruiting. From all indications Meyer did not see this coming and apparently was telling kids it was not coming. If any of the kids who have come on board the past few weeks want to change their minds I would not fault them. Not just because of the lost bowl, but a coach who (regardless of what he believed) didn't give it to me straight.

I am sure Meyer will be on the phone all night.

Dunn, Pittman, and Spence have all affirmed their commitments since the announcement according to Bill Greene. I really don't think it's a big deal. I'm sure Urban left himself an out by saying "we're hearing" or something to that effect...

 

[AJHawkfan]

I am not sure Urban would do this, but considering how Schollies are actually only valid for one year, I wonder if there may be some kids who are informed that their scholarship won't be renewed.

Not really articulating that all that well - what I mean to say is - there are ways, are there not, to signing 25 kids, and still reducing your scholarships, no? Another way might be - if you know Taylor Graham is transferring, you just don't fill his spot. Or... if you have some running back who's not thrilled with the depth chart and bails, ya don't fill the scholarship but it doesn't mean you can't offer the 25 to prospective incoming recruits, right?

Did any of that make sense (I'm not asking you, Bucky!)

Attrition comes in many forms......

 

[wadc45]

I am not sure Urban would do this, but considering how Schollies are actually only valid for one year, I wonder if there may be some kids who are informed that their scholarship won't be renewed.

Not really articulating that all that well - what I mean to say is - there are ways, are there not, to signing 25 kids, and still reducing your scholarships, no? Another way might be - if you know Taylor Graham is transferring, you just don't fill his spot. Or... if you have some running back who's not thrilled with the depth chart and bails, ya don't fill the scholarship but it doesn't mean you can't offer the 25 to prospective incoming recruits, right?

Did any of that make sense (I'm not asking you, Bucky!)

I understand what you meant and I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that Urban may be looking at the roster at some point and will have to make some tough decision considering some kids that were offered under the old regime. I don't expect a Dantonio-esque house cleaning but a few scholarships not being renewed would not be shocking.