Terrelle Pryor, four teammates suspended first five games of 2011

[micropolitan guy]

The Sugar Bowl is a meaningless exhibition.

The next five games of the regular season actually mean something and will have a major impact on whether the 2011 Buckeyes can play for the national title, or make another BCS bowl.

Five games in 2011 is better than the Sugar Bowl and four games in 2011, especially given Ohio State's historically easy nonconference schedule. At least with five games he'll miss conference game.

Of course, the bowl and five games next year would have made the most sense of all.

 

[SockPuppet]

TOSU got screwed because it didn't get the same NCAA investigator who worked the Auburn/Newton case.

 

[Layman]

So USC gets killed because of someone's parents taking benefits. Auburn will likely get nailed a couple of years down the line for the same thing.

But a group of athletes deliberately set out to profit from their status as athletes, breaking basically NCAA Rule 101, and get off scot-free?

The NCAA, what a model of consistency.

Scot free? Really?? Five of the twelve games of their senior year....when they are trying to establish their draft position?? For (essentially) selling their own property? That's scot free??

Again, as the resident Buckeye fanboi, I'm fine with the penalty. I understand (as much as is possible, with the NCAA) the rule & how it was broken. But they're hardly walking away "scot free."

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

So USC gets killed because of someone's parents taking benefits. Auburn will likely get nailed a couple of years down the line for the same thing.

But a group of athletes deliberately set out to profit from their status as athletes, breaking basically NCAA Rule 101, and get off scot-free?

The NCAA, what a model of consistency.

Scot free? Really?? Five of the twelve games of their senior year....when they are trying to establish their draft position?? For (essentially) selling their own property? That's scot free??

Again, as the resident Buckeye fanboi, I'm fine with the penalty. Hardly walking away "scot free. though."

How many of them will be with the team next fall?

Be honest, now.

And they didn't "sell their own property." They sold property they had acquired because of the fact they are Division I varsity athletes. They thus used their status as athletes to enhance their own selves and their wallets. Again, NCAA 101. The punishment isn't harsh enough, frankly.

 

[Layman]

So USC gets killed because of someone's parents taking benefits. Auburn will likely get nailed a couple of years down the line for the same thing.

But a group of athletes deliberately set out to profit from their status as athletes, breaking basically NCAA Rule 101, and get off scot-free?

The NCAA, what a model of consistency.

Scot free? Really?? Five of the twelve games of their senior year....when they are trying to establish their draft position?? For (essentially) selling their own property? That's scot free??

Again, as the resident Buckeye fanboi, I'm fine with the penalty. Hardly walking away "scot free. though."

How many of them will be with the team next fall?

Be honest, now.

Now? Probably one. Without the penalty? Probably four. Unfortunately, none of them are ready for the next level...which is going to cost them a LOT more than they would have made, by sticking around.

Still can't believe that asshat Pryor sold his gold pants (sorry...heading into fanboi meltdown now.....)

 

[Michael_ Gee]

People who defend NCAA rules on money are incomprehensible to me. College football and basketball are rackets that a society with any kind of decent value system would put out of business yesterday. Failing that, I have no problem with athletes figuring out ways to rip off the racket right back. heck, if Pryor stole Gordon Gee's car I'd figure he's entitled.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

People who defend NCAA rules on money are incomprehensible to me. College football and basketball are rackets that a society with any kind of decent value system would put out of business yesterday. Failing that, I have no problem with athletes figuring out ways to rip off the racket right back. heck, if Pryor stole Gordon Gee's car I'd figure he's entitled.

And people who repeatedly post about the virtues of breaking NCAA rules and act like players should get paid - without offering any ideas as to how that would happen - are incomprehensible to me.

This is the system. The NCAA has rules. It enforces them in an inconsistent manner. That does not mean players are "ENTITLED!!!!" to anything. It means the NCAA is an impotent organization.

 

[Armchair_QB]

So USC gets killed because of someone's parents taking benefits. Auburn will likely get nailed a couple of years down the line for the same thing.

But a group of athletes deliberately set out to profit from their status as athletes, breaking basically NCAA Rule 101, and get off scot-free?

The NCAA, what a model of consistency.

Scot free? Really?? Five of the twelve games of their senior year....when they are trying to establish their draft position?? For (essentially) selling their own property? That's scot free??

Again, as the resident Buckeye fanboi, I'm fine with the penalty. Hardly walking away "scot free. though."

How many of them will be with the team next fall?

Be honest, now.

And they didn't "sell their own property." They sold property they had acquired because of the fact they are Division I varsity athletes. They thus used their status as athletes to enhance their own selves and their wallets. Again, NCAA 101. The punishment isn't harsh enough, frankly.

If nearly half a season isn't enough, how much is enough?

 

[Gues#t]

On ESPN--I caught this on the fly, surely I'm wrong--Mark May says that Ohio State got a big break here, that the Big Ten and Pac Ten get special treatment and the SEC always gets hosed.

It's too good to be true--tell me I'm wrong--Mark May knows about Cam Newton, right?

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

So USC gets killed because of someone's parents taking benefits. Auburn will likely get nailed a couple of years down the line for the same thing.

But a group of athletes deliberately set out to profit from their status as athletes, breaking basically NCAA Rule 101, and get off scot-free?

The NCAA, what a model of consistency.

Scot free? Really?? Five of the twelve games of their senior year....when they are trying to establish their draft position?? For (essentially) selling their own property? That's scot free??

Again, as the resident Buckeye fanboi, I'm fine with the penalty. Hardly walking away "scot free. though."

How many of them will be with the team next fall?

Be honest, now.

And they didn't "sell their own property." They sold property they had acquired because of the fact they are Division I varsity athletes. They thus used their status as athletes to enhance their own selves and their wallets. Again, NCAA 101. The punishment isn't harsh enough, frankly.

If nearly half a season isn't enough, how much is enough?

They sold their gear. They used their position for financial gain. Yet they'll be allowed to play the bowl game.

After what happened with Reggie Bush and USC, I thought the NCAA had acquired a taste for applying punishment where it is due. This is not the case.

Telling a group of likely NFL-bound players they won't be able to play half of a season they may not even return for anyway? Toothless.

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

Telling a group of likely NFL-bound players they won't be able to play half of a season they may not even return for anyway? Toothless.

In normal times this would make sense, but the potential lockout changes everything. They could very well take the risk and declare, but in the instance that there is no season they will be in an extremely bad situation. No pay check and no playing time. None of these players are good enough to go a year without playing.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Telling a group of likely NFL-bound players they won't be able to play half of a season they may not even return for anyway? Toothless.

In normal times this would make sense, but the potential lockout changes everything. They could very well take the risk and declare, but in the instance that there is no season they will be in an extremely bad situation. No pay check and no playing time. None of these players are good enough to go a year without playing.

Fair enough. Does anyone really think a possible NFL lockout was considered as part of this ruling?

Oh, and:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5951832