Choose your scenario: OSU Sugar Bowl

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Choose your scenario: OSU Sugar Bowl
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 24, 2010 2:34 PM
"False. The AD's job is to make sure people that work in the compliance office have adequately educated these young men."

Fair enough, I agree. But if they didn't do it, they should be fired. If he didn't instruct them properly, he should be fired. The head of any organization is ultimately responsible for the organization - you aren't just a leader for accepting responsibility, you have to own up to the consequences.
Dec 24, 2010 2:34pm
Pick6's avatar

Pick6

A USA American

14,946 posts
Dec 24, 2010 6:17 PM
fan_from_texas;612739 wrote:I agree with all of this. I hope Tress forces them to sit out and shows that Ohio State is better than that.

Am I the only one who thinks the 5 game next season is far worse than them being suspended for the Sugar Bowl? I mean shit..suspend them for the Sugar Bowl and we might lose a BCS game. With the 5 game suspension next season, we risk losing some of our best players to the draft early, a good chance we lose 2 games (heck we might even be upset by Colorado), lose national title hopes, and pretty much lose bcs and big ten championship hopes. I'd take them being suspended for the sugar bowl anyday over that.
Dec 24, 2010 6:17pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Dec 25, 2010 1:14 AM
Pick6;612838 wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the 5 game next season is far worse than them being suspended for the Sugar Bowl? I mean shit..suspend them for the Sugar Bowl and we might lose a BCS game. With the 5 game suspension next season, we risk losing some of our best players to the draft early, a good chance we lose 2 games (heck we might even be upset by Colorado), lose national title hopes, and pretty much lose bcs and big ten championship hopes. I'd take them being suspended for the sugar bowl anyday over that.

Maybe it's just the pessimist in me, but I don't think we will be in the national title game next season even with these guys returning.
Dec 25, 2010 1:14am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Dec 25, 2010 4:33 PM
Like I said on another thread, leave it up to the Seniors. I'd be willing to bet they would vote unanimously to leave 'em in Columbus. Then TOSU regains some credibility and, should they beat the Razorbacks, become the story of the bowl season for all the RIGHT reasons.
Dec 25, 2010 4:33pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Dec 25, 2010 9:30 PM
Wouldn't mind letting the seniors decide if those guys should play, but if not, then if I'm the coach I let em play.

Under one condition- if any of those guys (Pryor, Herron, Posey) make a big play or score a TD, there better not be even the tiniest hint of a "Look at me" moment. They better be the humblest guys out there, and if not, one of the seniors needs to grab them by the facemask and put them in their place. But I'd still let them play.
Dec 25, 2010 9:30pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
Dec 27, 2010 1:00 AM
I kind of like leaving it up to the seniors; but I gotta tell you, something tells me that vote would be as close to a split one as you could get. I really don't think it would be as unanimous as everyone feels it would be
Dec 27, 2010 1:00am
C

captvern

Senior Member

833 posts
Dec 27, 2010 1:09 AM
The one thing that i find funny that i havent seen brought up is that these players got in trouble for selling gifts, however the NCAA always them to go participate in the sugar bowl where they will recieve about a few hundred dollars in gifts. Ironic
Dec 27, 2010 1:09am
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Dec 27, 2010 12:18 PM
captvern;614356 wrote:The one thing that i find funny that i havent seen brought up is that these players got in trouble for selling gifts, however the NCAA always them to go participate in the sugar bowl where they will recieve about a few hundred dollars in gifts. Ironic

That's so NCAA of them.
Dec 27, 2010 12:18pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 27, 2010 2:39 PM
captvern;614356 wrote:The one thing that i find funny that i havent seen brought up is that these players got in trouble for selling gifts, however the NCAA always them to go participate in the sugar bowl where they will recieve about a few hundred dollars in gifts. Ironic

There isn't anything ironic about it. Getting gifts for going to the SB is no different than getting equipment, clothing, etc. from the athletic department that is theirs to keep. In either case you can't sell it for profit and expect to keep full eligibility. And gifts from the SB can't exceed in $500 in nominal value, which IMO should be at that amount given that playing in a bowl game expands their commitment to the program and provides a lot of economic value to the hosts. That doesn't mean they should be able to turn around and sell a SB game worn jersey to a booster for $"X amount".
Dec 27, 2010 2:39pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Dec 27, 2010 4:10 PM
So $500 of US Federal Reserve Notes is worth more than $500 of gifts from a BCS Bowl?

I get that what they did was wrong, and stupid, but I can think of about 100 other things that would irk me more than selling stuff.
Dec 27, 2010 4:10pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 27, 2010 4:49 PM
It should irk you that they clearly broke the rules. Again the dollar value is a maguffin, one can't profit from being an amateur football player. An athlete isn't allowed to sell anything more than its value even if it wasn't a gift, because the amount of the spread is no different than accepting a similar amount in cash (as an example, if a player arrives at the school with a 1995 Honda Civic that they already own, they can't trade it in straight up for a 2010 5-series BMW). Likewise, any equipment or other "gift" they get as a player is off limits to sell to anyone because their basis in the property is zero - any money they receive is a profit.

If they want to sell it after their eligibility is exhausted....no problem. There isn't any eligibility at risk.
Dec 27, 2010 4:49pm
C

captvern

Senior Member

833 posts
Dec 28, 2010 10:50 AM
MB
you missed my point. i know they cant sell the stuff. They just got in trouble for that and now they get more stuff they could potential sell
Dec 28, 2010 10:50am
Z

zach24oz

Senior Member

598 posts
Dec 28, 2010 12:18 PM
I still don't know if they are going to play some of the game, all of it, or not at all...it's hard to read what is going on with Tressel and what he is going to end up doing. If it were me, I would probably sit them all out of the Bowl...although it would be tough, you still have to think that you still have your very good defense playing still, have Saine, Hall, and Berry able to get more touches to see what they can do with the more PT and plug in Bauserman/Guiton at QB. And you still have Sanz out there still...so I still think it's up in the air what is actually going to happen.
Dec 28, 2010 12:18pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Dec 28, 2010 4:14 PM
Here's another thought: If they can't sell the stuff, then why do they get the stuff in the first place? Why doesn't the NCAA require that all "gifts" be held by the university until a player has either exhausted his eligibility or is no longer a collegiate athlete?

If it's really a gift, then it's the property of the player and they can do whatever they please with it. If they can't sell it, then it's not a gift, it's more like a loan. Just don't let players get their gifts until they're done playing and then there's no temptation and this crap doesn't happen.

Again, not excusing the players for being stupid, it's just that the NCAA isn't very bright either.
Dec 28, 2010 4:14pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 28, 2010 8:19 PM
jhay78;615949 wrote:Here's another thought: If they can't sell the stuff, then why do they get the stuff in the first place? Why doesn't the NCAA require that all "gifts" be held by the university until a player has either exhausted his eligibility or is no longer a collegiate athlete?

If it's really a gift, then it's the property of the player and they can do whatever they please with it. If they can't sell it, then it's not a gift, it's more like a loan. Just don't let players get their gifts until they're done playing and then there's no temptation and this crap doesn't happen.

Again, not excusing the players for being stupid, it's just that the NCAA isn't very bright either.

They get the stuff because they earn it...they just can't profit from it and maintain eligibility. There's nothing that says they can't sell it - but if they do they might forfeit part of their ability to keep playing.

No offense meant, but I've made this point at least two dozen times in the last week and have no idea why people don't get it. If you don't want athletes to get stuff (not even keep their own equipment, no Heisman), fine. One can argue that point. If you want athletes to get paid, fine - one can argue that point. But the system currently makes sense. If athletes were allowed to sell gifts or equipment for profit they would circumvent the rule against being paid to play.

It really is a simple concept.
Dec 28, 2010 8:19pm
Pick6's avatar

Pick6

A USA American

14,946 posts
Dec 28, 2010 8:28 PM
Lou Holtz thinks they shouldnt be suspended for the sugar bowl and thinks the suspension is too much.
Dec 28, 2010 8:28pm