• 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
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;2068601; said:
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!)
Click to expand...

That is part of my thinking on it. If anything it will affect that kid who busts their ass for 2 years as a walk-on and then they won't be able to offer that kid a schlorship at the end of his playing career at Ohio State
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;2068600; said:
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.
Click to expand...

According to Ari Wasserman on the old twitter bot- Dunn, Pittman, Spence are not going anywhere. Still waiting to hear from Schutt
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;2068601; said:
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!)
Click to expand...

Only if you want to undermine recruiting indefinitely.
 
Upvote 0
I'm really not pissed at the NCAA. I've got some anger, but it's directed at anyone but the NCAA.

1. The tat-5 and those who took money from the booster for travel expenses and especially for work that wasn't performed deserve the bulk of my consternation. They knew the rules and broke them anyway.

2. Tressel for not reporting what Cicero told him. These weren't little children he was protecting, but grown men. I cannot find an argument that would refute any opinion that Tressel did this to maintain a competitive edge.

3. Bobby DiGeronimo knew what he was doing was wrong. He's a self-absorbed jock-sniffer, and OSU is paying the penalty for it.

4. The OSU compliance department was asleep at the wheel. I'll mostly excuse them for the whole tat-gate stuff, but the Bobby DiGeronimo stuff was totally something they could have caught.

5. Gene Smith bungled everything from a PR perspective, and his assumption that there would be no bowl ban was clearly faulty. At this point, I'm not sure what benefit he actually brought to the table.

Honestly, OSU earned a Failure to Monitor charge and could have gotten a repeat offender label slapped on it (maybe they did - I don't know). The scholarship reduction is totally fair, and regardless of whether the bowl ban was fair, proactively self-levying a bowl ban this year would have been a logical choice given the fact that the NCAA has repeatedly said that they don't use precedents and because, let's face it, it's just the Gator Bowl.
 
Upvote 0
Kids who are good enough to play as freshmen aren't going to take a redshirt just for the sake of another bowl game. Those who can play, will. And as mentioned, the team still has to get down to 82.
 
Upvote 0
wadc45;2068570; said:
The NCAA's report...

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=89166400497e7e46a353aff414ac0d18
Click to expand...

I read that, and I've read Smith's interview in the link below, dated Nov 21, 2011 - Supplemental Case Summary contains a PDF file that includes a lengthy interview between NCAA staff and Gene Smith on October 14th on the OSU campus.

http://www.osu.edu/news/ncaadocs/

tOSU got nailed with the bowl ban because of the Bobby DeGeronimo stuff, which was Failure to Monitor a booster than had known compliance issues in the past. That, along with the repeat violator status, is what did it. The blame for those things falls on Gene Smith and on Doug Archie, and they should both pay the price by losing their jobs. Having the bowl ban affect the 2012 season, instead of 2011, is the clincher for Gene Smith's status.
 
Upvote 0
They can still be the 2012 AP National Champs! :P All in all, I've never really cared about Bowl Games. Regular season games > Bowl Games by FAR. Bowl games are just another way for the NCAA, Athletic Department, and sponsors to pocket more money off of the expense of student athletes, while trying to fool us into thinking that these exhibition games even matter.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top