• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
FTM charge is not good...damn.


What is is this about Smith and Gee wanting to speed up the hearing process or just avoid the Dec. 10 hearing together by having a conference call after the Michigan game? That would be great IMO, but is the NCAA gonna jive with it?

I guess we should obviously see how that goes, but right now if OSU was slammed with FTM charges, cutting 5 scholarships over 3 years isn't going to cut it, IMO. So (and it sounds like I'm not alone on this) I think we should just go ahead and ban ourselves from going bowling this. Sucks and I really think this time has a shot to win out and make it to the B1G Conference Championship game, but thinking to the future I would definitely rather take the bowl ban this year opposed to next year when we should have legitimate BCS hopes.
 
Upvote 0
SPONG;2033809; said:
Would it be possible that FtM with the repeat offender distinction could lead to such a severe penalty?
Click to expand...

Only if they decided that LOIC was now in play.

Self reported minor NCAA violations, and DiGeronimo led to the FTM. It would take something pretty big, and probably in another sport to get hit with the 2 year ban.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye513;2033800; said:
USC got two years after their LOIC charge. There's no plausible reason for the NCAA to give Ohio State two years also for a lesser charge.

Therefore, I agree with Tanner.
Click to expand...

I would agree, except for the fact that the NCAA has admitted that they don't use past cases as precedents. They don't use past cases as presidents, either, but that's more because it doesn't make sense. Everything is a case-by-case issue, and they get into trouble in the public opinion for being "unfair". I agree that it isn't fair. This rule should carry this penalty, and this rule should carry this penalty. But they don't see it that way. I'm still investigating ESPN's presence.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;2033822; said:
I would agree, except for the fact that the NCAA has admitted that they don't use past cases as precedents. They don't use past cases as presidents, either, but that's more because it doesn't make sense. Everything is a case-by-case issue, and they get into trouble in the public opinion for being "unfair". I agree that it isn't fair. This rule should carry this penalty, and this rule should carry this penalty. But they don't see it that way. I'm still investigating ESPN's presence.
Click to expand...

You rang?
 
Upvote 0
Don't have a clue on the penalty..the NCAA makes things up as they go along..as for GS just look at the transcript from the Dec. PC..something about we have fully investigated this incident and invite any one to find anything more..What an idiot..Why didn't they investigate JT's e mail's then?
 
Upvote 0
bucks93;2033798; said:
FTM charge is not good...damn.


What is is this about Smith and Gee wanting to speed up the hearing process or just avoid the Dec. 10 hearing together by having a conference call after the Michigan game? That would be great IMO, but is the NCAA gonna jive with it?

I guess we should obviously see how that goes, but right now if OSU was slammed with FTM charges, cutting 5 scholarships over 3 years isn't going to cut it, IMO. So (and it sounds like I'm not alone on this) I think we should just go ahead and ban ourselves from going bowling this. Sucks and I really think this time has a shot to win out and make it to the B1G Conference Championship game, but thinking to the future I would definitely rather take the bowl ban this year opposed to next year when we should have legitimate BCS hopes.
Click to expand...

What OSU is hoping for is a Summary Disposition on the remaining penalties from the NCAA. That means the NCAA would accept the penalties OSU has self imposed and close the case. If they did this would mean that the Dec 10 meeting would be canceled. I think OSU thought is based on precedences that the scholarship reductions should be enough. But if the NCAA wants to get tougher, OSU will know in advance of the Dec 10 meeting. At that time they will consider adding a 1 year bowl ban that would be served this year. Just my take however.
 
Upvote 0
BlufftonBuckeye;2033811; said:
Only if they decided that LOIC was now in play.

Self reported minor NCAA violations, and DiGeronimo led to the FTM. It would take something pretty big, and probably in another sport to get hit with the 2 year ban.
Click to expand...
Second or third time I've seen this. USC also got a 30 scholarship reduction. That's has a lot more impact on the program than the 2 year bowl ban. I'll take a two year bowl ban if that means no more scholarship reductions.

With that said I think the NCAA will tack on a post season ban for next year, put the football program on probation for a few years and call it a day.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top