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

[Roundabout]

Thoughts

If the Bowl game was let to stand, down the road when Auburn finally gets there's wouldn't they be able to argue that The NCAA had said that there cheating QB was ruled eligible to play?

If I look at it in a vacuum I think there is no question the bowl win should stand, but from a setting a future standard for the Auburn hammer to come... I think the game has to be lost from the record books.... Nobody is going to forget who won the game on the field though.

I don't understand the "retirement" bit of the whole thing though? Doesn't that hurt for the penalty phase?

 

[Jaxbuck]

I know that you'll correct me if I am wrong, but don't I recollect that the initial revelation before the Sugar Bowl did not include the fact that Coach Tressel knew all along about the tats-for-trinkets deal.

Didn't the revelation that he knew about all that all along come out after the Sugar Bowl?

In regards to using ineligible players;

As per the standard set by the UGA kid, gear for money should have been a 4-5 game suspension.

If Tress fesses up when he found out the players are out the first 4-5 games of 2010.

Yes I think OSU wins those games anyway.

They would have been eligible again for the beat down on scUM and the Sugar Bowl.

Honest question, am I missing something? This seems so easy a scUM fan could follow it.

 

[Taosman]

And so the scUM and so called "media" outcry's begin! Oh! The humanity!

 

[Jaxbuck]

And so the scUM and so called "media" outcry's begin! Oh! The humanity!

anything that gets the maize and blue thongs bunched can't be all bad.

 

[SmoovP]

I was confident I remembered that little bit of information.

As such, that is why the Sugar Bowl is being vacated and is one of the more significant of the self-imposed wounds in this whole deal.

In the Mandel article, Stuart says:

Until then -- if "then" even happens -- none of that other noise bears any relevance on the proceedings. The only charge of import is Tressel's lie, for which he will likely be given a healthy show-cause penalty.

Theoretically, the Committee can still tack on extra charges (two scholarship reductions for each ineligible player used seems within the realm of possibility).

But without a broader charge against the institution, Ohio State may very well escape the massive sanctions everyone seems to think are inevitable.

I believe he's probably pretty close to what OSU is facing, but I'd probably put it at 6 scholarships instead of 12. I don't think y'all are facing a post-season ban.

 

[sepia5]

In regards to using ineligible players;

As per the standard set by the UGA kid, gear for money should have been a 4-5 game suspension.

If Tress fesses up when he found out the players are out the first 4-5 games of 2010.

Yes I think OSU wins those games anyway.

They would have been eligible again for the beat down on scUM and the Sugar Bowl.

Honest question, am I missing something? This seems so easy a scUM fan could follow it.

I think the argument would be that, if Tressel knew about the violation and didn't report it, the players remained ineligible until they served their penalty and were declared eligible again. Of course, by allowing the players to participate in the Bowl game with full knowledge of their violations, the NCAA didn't exactly help the cause of anyone who would endorse this line of reasoning.

 

[jwinslow]

And so the scUM and so called "media" outcry's begin! Oh! The humanity!

Desmond never misses an opportunity to embarrass himself or the English language:

DesmondHoward Desmond Howard



This OSU self-imposed penalties is laughable...it's like #CaseyAnthony putting herself on house arrest for 2 years.#smh

Meanwhile he is vouching for Mike Tyson being a good guy and wrongly convicted.

 

[Gatorubet]

Perhaps so, but I view it thus. In December the NCAA knew the precise nature of the violation the players had committed and when it was committed. The NCAA did not at that time recommend vacated wins. They said play in the bowl and sit 5 games next year. That penalty will still be enforced.

What was been learned since is nothing new regarding what the players did or what their eligibility should have been at that time. What has been learned is that the coach (and by extension the school) knew about it before he said he did. We are now being penalized for this deception by vacating 11 wins.

Whether that punishment should be greater or not can be debated - but I don't see the tie to eligibility status when that was already known and ruled upon. The new penalty is for the deception only IMO.

You explained that very well, and the description of the two separate violations with two separate - penalty phases, if you will - is a valid template to describe the situation. But I also think it is fair to say that the NCAA is at least marginally concerned about public perception. To allow them to play when the tone poem was "the kids were in the wrong, but needed money, and they were in part victims of an inefficient tOSU compliance system that did not properly advise them" - is vastly different when those same kids are seen as "tools of a program intentionally using them in games when it was known they were ineligible".

The perception is completely different. And while one can say that "the penalty will be enforced", enforcement won't be for TP. Had they known what Tress did, the chance of Tress being around after a 10.1 violation is pretty damn slim. If Tress is gone, do you really think that anyone was going to buy the fact that they came back to serve the punishment? You had to have Tress as coach in 2011 to make that happen.

You really make a good point in the way that you separate the two events. But I do not see them as totally distinguishable in light of the substantive differences in public perception and the chance of all five coming back if Tress was a goner. And once it came out, Tress was a goner.

 

[gnepmatt]

So last year never happend.. correct? So last years seniors 'Sanzenbacher' who were never drafted are now seniors again, and this years Seniors are now juniors again! Yay:P otherwise, last year had to have happened.

 

[Gothmog8]

Damn flipping timeout crap! I was in the middle of typing a long post with all the secrets about OSU program and how I think they are getting a raw deal but Nooo I hit post and it says"login" to post . Shit

Glad I was in a media blacked out meeting for 5 hours today and thus spared myself 5 more hours of being less than happy about a " vacation" for once :(

Feel sorry for the kids not involved. Do the stats remain, or are they gone too?

 

[Gatorubet]

Especially in a bowl season where two out of the five BCS games (Fiesta and Orange) were flaming turds, and nobody knew if people would tune in to TCU v. Wisconsin, since nobody watched TCU the year before.

Now, Ironbuck, that is a hell of a good point in favor of an NCAA blind eye no matter the disclosure. I'll grant you that there was great pressure on them to have that game with those players. No question. I guess where I differ is in the certainty that they would have given a TV ratings eligibility gift in light of a 10.1.

Hell, anything's possible.

 

[SmoovP]

In regards to using ineligible players;

As per the standard set by the UGA kid, gear for money should have been a 4-5 game suspension.

If Tress fesses up when he found out the players are out the first 4-5 games of 2010.

Yes I think OSU wins those games anyway.

They would have been eligible again for the beat down on scUM and the Sugar Bowl.

Honest question, am I missing something? This seems so easy a scUM fan could follow it.

Say the Tat-5 didn't play vs. Miami - and the miraculous happens and Miami somehow manages to find a way to win... crazy talk, I know.

But who is to say that if Miami wins that game, that it gives them some confidence and is the key to them going on a run and having a really great year?

We'll never know because Jim Tressel chose to knowingly play ineligible players.

There are an awful lot of variables and hypotheticals for anyone to ever know for sure, and that's exactly why this is such a shitty deal for everyone involved.

 

[Coqui]

Desmond never misses an opportunity to embarrass himself or the English language:

Meanwhile he is vouching for Mike Tyson being a good guy and wrongly convicted.

Following his logic, then that means we over punished ourselves.

She was found not guilty of everything but lying.

So by his response, we should fire Tressel, and prevent him from coaching for 2 more weeks since there was already a sentence carried out (5 game suspension)

 

[Coqui]

Say the Tat-5 didn't play vs. Miami - and the miraculous happens and Miami somehow manages to find a way to win... crazy talk, I know.

But who is to say that if Miami wins that game, that it gives them some confidence and is the key to them going on a run and having a really great year?

We'll never know because Jim Tressel chose to knowingly play ineligible players.

There are an awful lot of variables and hypotheticals for anyone to ever know for sure, and that's exactly why this is such a [Mark May]ty deal for everyone involved.

Who's to say Tressel didn't coach the Sugar bowl and Fickel decides not to play conservative? Then the game isn't as close as it was. :tongue2:

 

[Mike80]

Whatever....scUM still hasn't defeated Ohio State in over 2900 days.

As for the rest of it, take your medicine and get on with it already.