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

[bassbuckeye07]

When the Tat5 news was reported, I commented on a couple websites that OSU should forfeit the Sugar Bowl Exhibition. While the victory was sweet; the current mess would likely have been avoided.

It has always been obvious that the program either covered up the players noncompliance, or the coaches and administration were negligent with teaching and monitoring the rules.

There is guilt. The infractions seem to be minor, but the cover-up may end up costing the team for years with lost scholarships and bowl bans.

.... With Tressel's suspension, perhaps OSU could bring in Mike Leach as guest Offensive Coordinator.

GO BUCKS

Great Idea....Ohio State should bring in a guest OC every week. I think Mike Ditka would be a great novelty for a game. Maybe they should have a free taco day too.... It will at least sell tickets which will be tough from the years of bowl bans and lost schollies (eyes rolling)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

When the Tat5 news was reported, I commented on a couple websites that OSU should forfeit the Sugar Bowl Exhibition. While the victory was sweet; the current mess would likely have been avoided.

Yeah... I'm sure the Sugar Bowl would have just gone out and grabbed some other school to play in the 2011 bowl game. Sorry, dude, but forfeiting the Sugar Bowl Exhibition was never an option, and it wasn't Ohio State's call either. The Sugar Bowl folks are in business to make money, not have their games canceled due to moral superiority.

It has always been obvious that the program either covered up the players noncompliance, or the coaches and administration were negligent with teaching and monitoring the rules.

You must have one hell of a crystal ball. Tressel's email correspondence certainly wasn't obvious to me when the TAT5 thing broke. Maybe I'm willfully blind.

There is guilt. The infractions seem to be minor, but the cover-up may end up costing the team for years with lost scholarships and bowl bans.

Uh huh... And I could get run over by a semi truck if I leave my house today.... but I'll take my chances.

 

[808 Buck]

Uh huh... And I could get run over by a semi truck if I leave my house today.... but I'll take my chances.

You willing to v-bet on that?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You willing to v-bet on that?

You giving odds?

 

[Saw31]

I want a fitted hat day!

"Now I GOTTA FIGURE OUT THE HAT SIZES OF 105,000 DIFFERENT PEOPLE!! WHAT IF A PINHEAD SHOWS UP. I GOTTA BE ON TOP OF THAT."

 

[79Redmen]

My point is, that OSU should have acknowledged some of the obvious lax control in December. The recent evidence that Tressel did not pursue the violations last Spring would be somewhat of a moot point. By falling on the sword by forfeiting the game -- the long lasting penalties may have been avoided.

Some of the Seniors would have been hurt by missing the game; but on the other hand - Heyward and Chikwa's NFL draft rankings were actually compromised by injuries suffered in the Sugar Bowl exhibition. And, winning the Sugar Bowl -- which may be wiped out of the record book anyway -- did not earn OSU any better National Ranking.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

My point is, that OSU should have acknowledged some of the obvious lax control in December. The recent evidence that Tressel did not pursue the violations last Spring would be somewhat of a moot point. By falling on the sword by forfeiting the game -- the long lasting penalties may have been avoided.

Some of the Seniors would have been hurt by missing the game; but on the other hand - Heyward and Chikwa's NFL draft rankings were actually compromised by injuries suffered in the Sugar Bowl exhibition. And, winning the Sugar Bowl -- which may be wiped out of the record book anyway -- did not earn OSU any better National Ranking.

And my point is forfeiting the Sugar Bowl was never an option because of the money involved (and I don't mean Ohio State's cut). The idea is patently ludicrous.

 

[BB73]

My point is, that OSU should have acknowledged some of the obvious lax control in December. The recent evidence that Tressel did not pursue the violations last Spring would be somewhat of a moot point. By falling on the sword by forfeiting the game -- the long lasting penalties may have been avoided.

Some of the Seniors would have been hurt by missing the game; but on the other hand - Heyward and Chikwa's NFL draft rankings were actually compromised by injuries suffered in the Sugar Bowl exhibition. And, winning the Sugar Bowl -- which may be wiped out of the record book anyway -- did not earn OSU any better National Ranking.

Well, not in the eyes of Fowler and Herbstriet, anyway.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

Bringing me to my second point... How many e-mails do you think any college coach gets in a day, week, month, year? How many of those e-mails are written by whack jobs? I mean, look at our rumor mill for shit's sake...

+1

Just imagine how out of hand things could easily get if a few 'concerned' people started to contact the head coach and AD of other programs about their kids' goings ons...

For example: [email protected]

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

That said - McMullen was clearly a better QB than Krenzel. :p

I still want to see what Austin Moherman has to offer! Bellisari to safety.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I still want to see what Austin Moherman has to offer! Bellisari to safety.

Great Post. I agree.

 

[BeanCounter]

Until proven wrong I will give JT the benefit of the doubt. This stuff was going to come out at some point and he knew it. The Feds had the facts in this and there was no way to prevent it from coming out. What exactly did he have to gain by trying to cover up information that was going to come out either way?

People that liked JT before this will continue to do so and people that don't will call for his head.

Personally I think he was trying to protect his players from legal or even physical harm. I can respect that. He could have handled it differently and he definitely made some mistakes but I don't question his motives or intentions.

I am a fan so my bias might be clouding my thought process here but I take a little comfort from that fact that unlike ESPIN and others I am willing to admit my bias.

 

[ysubuck]

My point is, that OSU should have acknowledged some of the obvious lax control in December. The recent evidence that Tressel did not pursue the violations last Spring would be somewhat of a moot point. By falling on the sword by forfeiting the game -- the long lasting penalties may have been avoided.

Some of the Seniors would have been hurt by missing the game; but on the other hand - Heyward and Chikwa's NFL draft rankings were actually compromised by injuries suffered in the Sugar Bowl exhibition. And, winning the Sugar Bowl -- which may be wiped out of the record book anyway -- did not earn OSU any better National Ranking.

This could get weird, but the NCAA declared the 5 ELIGIBLE for the Sugar Bowl. So if they decide to have the victories from this past season vacated (due to ineligible players), would they also expunge the Sugar?

 

[jwinslow]

This could get weird, but the NCAA declared the 5 ELIGIBLE for the Sugar Bowl. So if they decide to have the victories from this past season vacated (due to ineligible players), would they also expunge the Sugar?

Perhaps they could declare themselves ineligible and get replaced by a group with credibility, consistency and accountability that would actually force people to follow the rules rather than only doing so inconsistently when someone else forces their hand.

 

[79Redmen]

And my point is forfeiting the Sugar Bowl was never an option because of the money involved (and I don't mean Ohio State's cut). The idea is patently ludicrous.

It is absurd to state that circumstances could not prevent a 'BCS selected' College from fielding a team for a bowl game -- because of money. If tOSU had made a formal request to not participate in the Sugar Bowl 3 plus weeks before the game, there would have been time to choose a replacement team (Boise?). There would have been turmoil in the BCS; and the game ratings and attendance would have plummeted.

The media denounced tOSU's decision to abide by the NCAA ruling which allowed the tat5 to play. The alternative to forfeit - holding out the tat5 would not have addressed tOSU's responsibilty for not educating and controlling the players in regard to NCAA rules. And, holding out these players would have 'penalized' the innocent players, and fans.

Even without a crystal ball -- the university's explanation that there was a rules training issue, did not pass the smell test. The program is required to educate and document the NCAA rules training of the players. There was a lack of control, or blatantly unacceptable rules training.