Terrelle Pryor, four teammates suspended first five games of 2011

[slappy4428]

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?

Far be it from me to stick up for the SEC and bash the Big Tenlve, but I thought May had a valid point.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Read a blog post by gggggggggggregg doyel where he argues that the NCAA was protecting the fans who paid out a shirt ton of money for tickets, hotels, and all the other stuff that come with it. Essentially making sure that the fans weren't punished for this. Seemed like a decent point.

Of course, cynically, I'd argue it's the NCAA protecting ratings. Arkansas would be playing a decidedly non-BCS worthy Ohio State team and chances are it would get out of hand quickly. And that's not good for business, err, I mean not-for-profit operations.

 

[slappy4428]

Read a blog post by gggggggggggregg doyel where he argues that the NCAA was protecting the fans who paid out a shirt ton of money for tickets, hotels, and all the other stuff that come with it. Essentially making sure that the fans weren't punished for this. Seemed like a decent point.

Of course, cynically, I'd argue it's the NCAA protecting ratings. Arkansas would be playing a decidedly non-BCS worthy Ohio State team and chances are it would get out of hand quickly. And that's not good for business, err, I mean not-for-profit operations.

It's a fair column, but a bullshirt thing to do by the NCAA.
I keep remembering the Orange Bowl when Granny Holtz suspended three players, including his best two backs. And the Razorpigs went out and won the game. No one said "Oh, let's not do it to protect the fans' investment."
They forking used their athletic status as an advantage and profited. It's against the rules. When they bolt to the NFL next year, there's no penalty.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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.

I've offered a very reasonable idea that allows players to profit, and gets around the whole "what do you do about the gymnasts and the crew team?" question. Simple: Players don't get paid by the school. But they can earn money how ever they want to. Endorsements, selling their trophies, whatever they want. Putting out their services to the highest bidder of a booster, if they want to. If Phil Knight wants to pay a guy a million bucks to come to Oregon, let him.

People rip on the NCAA for their rules because at their heart, their rules are designed for two things: 1. To make money for the NCAA, and 2. Make money for their members. Any other additional rules to benefit an athlete-student has been done when the NCAA has been embarrassed and dragged kicking and screaming.

 

[Quakes]

I'm another Ohio State fan, and I have no problem with the punishment, which is consistent with precedent. (Whether the rule is a good one is a different issue, although I understand the reasons for it.) A.J. Green got four games; these Buckeyes apparently got an extra game for not fessing up once the rule was made clear to them. Fair enough.

The decision to let them play in the Sugar Bowl makes no sense, though. (I think the NCAA's press release said there's some special consideration for end-of-season bowl games and championships. Why? I guess that means if this was the national championship game, the NCAA would have no problem with kids who it knew had broken rules playing, which is idiotic.) But beyond that, why would the NCAA care about the Sugar Bowl (which is what people are suggesting drove the decision to let them play)? It's not an NCAA event -- as a playoff game would be -- so what does it care what the ratings are or how many tickets are sold?

And if I were running Ohio State, I'd want the Sugar Bowl to be the first game of their suspensions. If any of the kids come back, I'd rather have them play in the Big Ten opener against Michigan State next year -- and maybe Colorado and Miami, if the suspensions are reduced -- than in a meaningless bowl game.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Read a blog post by gggggggggggregg doyel where he argues that the NCAA was protecting the fans who paid out a shirt ton of money for tickets, hotels, and all the other stuff that come with it. Essentially making sure that the fans weren't punished for this. Seemed like a decent point.

Of course, cynically, I'd argue it's the NCAA protecting ratings. Arkansas would be playing a decidedly non-BCS worthy Ohio State team and chances are it would get out of hand quickly. And that's not good for business, err, I mean not-for-profit operations.

It's a fair column, but a bullshirt thing to do by the NCAA.
I keep remembering the Orange Bowl when Granny Holtz suspended three players, including his best two backs. And the Razorpigs went out and won the game. No one said "Oh, let's not do it to protect the fans' investment."
They forking used their athletic status as an advantage and profited. It's against the rules. When they bolt to the NFL next year, there's no penalty.

The money involved now is a bit different though, right? I mean, it's still self-serving, but the comparison doesn't work now because of the money involved, in my opinion.

 

[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?

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.

So selling a championship ring and a couple other trinkets = Cost of three years of free housing in Southern California?

Ummm... ok.

 

[slappy4428]

Read a blog post by gggggggggggregg doyel where he argues that the NCAA was protecting the fans who paid out a shirt ton of money for tickets, hotels, and all the other stuff that come with it. Essentially making sure that the fans weren't punished for this. Seemed like a decent point.

Of course, cynically, I'd argue it's the NCAA protecting ratings. Arkansas would be playing a decidedly non-BCS worthy Ohio State team and chances are it would get out of hand quickly. And that's not good for business, err, I mean not-for-profit operations.

It's a fair column, but a bullshirt thing to do by the NCAA.
I keep remembering the Orange Bowl when Granny Holtz suspended three players, including his best two backs. And the Razorpigs went out and won the game. No one said "Oh, let's not do it to protect the fans' investment."
They forking used their athletic status as an advantage and profited. It's against the rules. When they bolt to the NFL next year, there's no penalty.

The money involved now is a bit different though, right? I mean, it's still self-serving, but the comparison doesn't work now because of the money involved, in my opinion.

Bullshirt. It should be no different than the regular season.

 

[Idaho]

Question for those who think it's OK for the players to sell their university-supplied gear, awards, etc.

What if the purchaser pays not $500, but $100,000 for the Sugar Bowl ring with a wink-wink to stay in school another year instead of declare for the NFL draft?

As for the suspensions, IMO, tOSU is hurt more by having those players out of the regular season games than the bowl game. The bowl game, unless it's for the mythical national championship, is meaningless right now. tOSU is there and will cash the same check regardless of winning or losing.

Having five key players miss five games next year will probably have a much more serious impact than it would to sit them for a bowl game

 

[slappy4428]

Question for those who think it's OK for the players to sell their university-supplied gear, awards, etc.

What if the purchaser pays not $500, but $100,000 for the Sugar Bowl ring with a wink-wink to stay in school another year instead of declare for the NFL draft?

As for the suspensions, IMO, tOSU is hurt more by having those players out of the regular season games than the bowl game. The bowl game, unless it's for the mythical national championship, is meaningless right now. tOSU is there and will cash the same check regardless of winning or losing.

Having five key players miss five games next year will probably have a much more serious impact than it would to sit them for a bowl game

Assuming they stick around to play next year. Otherwise, it's an empty penalty.
You don't think this chases Prior to the NFL?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Question for those who think it's OK for the players to sell their university-supplied gear, awards, etc.

What if the purchaser pays not $500, but $100,000 for the Sugar Bowl ring with a wink-wink to stay in school another year instead of declare for the NFL draft?

Fine. Good for the players. They get $100 grand in their pocket.

If the NCAA wants things to be pure amateurism, make everyone, coaches, administrators, officials become volunteers. Until that happens (which of course, it won't), then it's every man for himself.

 

[Point of Order]

Wasn't it former NCAA President Myles Brand who said a couple of years back that college sports is not a business?