FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

seventiesraider · December 23, 2010, 11:55:53 AM

Well, at least an excuse for them getting their butts kicked

reality check · December 23, 2010, 12:29:04 PM

They got hosed. Cam Newton's dad can pimp his son all he wants but the NCAA cracks down on them selling their rings and awards in exchange for tattoos. I will be honest and say that I had no idea they were forbidden from selling their football awards. This is senseless to me.

I wonder how many will declare for the draft now as opposed to sitting half the season next year.

seventiesraider · December 23, 2010, 12:31:06 PM

Say it ain't so Joe.

jaypeter · December 23, 2010, 12:32:04 PM

My question is why they aren't suspended for the bowl game? Maybe that would have made the punishment too harsh in the eyes of some? They're only suspended one conference game (Mich. St.) and four non-conference which shouldn't really make a difference. Would there have been too many questions about when the players are/are not allowed to be around the team with the suspensions covering two different seasons?

Knightstalker · December 23, 2010, 12:33:04 PM

Quote from: reality check on December 23, 2010, 12:29:04 PM
They got hosed. Cam Newton's dad can pimp his son all he wants but the NCAA cracks down on them selling their rings and awards in exchange for tattoos. I will be honest and say that I had no idea they were forbidden from selling their football awards. This is senseless to me.

I wonder how many will declare for the draft now as opposed to sitting half the season next year.

But meanwhile if they go to a bowl game they get all kinds of free swag, including shopping sprees at Best Buy for one bowl, gift Suites for another. Shouldn't this also be a violation of NCAA rules? Or is this allowed because this is where the $ is coming from?

reality check · December 23, 2010, 12:44:50 PM

jaypeter

ESPN article addressed your question: They were not suspended from the bowl game because it was determined they were not properly educated about the exact nature of their infractions. I read from that the same thing I suggested. They were unaware that selling their personal property attained from playing for the Buckeyes was a violation of rules. So the NCAA (in all its wisdom) decided to punish them later rather than sooner because "they didn't know any better".

jaypeter · December 23, 2010, 01:19:10 PM

Maybe I'm making it too simplistic, but is that the NCAA's way of making the punishment less severe? "The players didn't know they were breaking the rules, so let's not be too hard on them?"

Blutarsky · December 23, 2010, 01:24:41 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5950873

Link to the ESPN article......I having some difficulty understanding why they would do this "for their family". They knew the rules, and still took the chance. Now it's time to pay the piper. Almost EVERY kid who goes to college has money issues. The discussion on Columbus radio is that Herron and Pryor may just go pro and avoid the 5-game suspension. Give me Div-III ANY DAY!!

jaypeter · December 23, 2010, 03:01:25 PM

Quote from: Blutarsky on December 23, 2010, 01:24:41 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5950873

Link to the ESPN article......I having some difficulty understanding why they would do this "for their family". They knew the rules, and still took the chance. Now it's time to pay the piper. Almost EVERY kid who goes to college has money issues. The discussion on Columbus radio is that Herron and Pryor may just go pro and avoid the 5-game suspension. Give me Div-III ANY DAY!!

Great Freudian-slip type on that ESPN article (I added the bold):
"The NCAA said in its news release that its policy for spending players for bowl games or championship events "recognizes the unique opportunity these events provide at the end of a season, and they are evaluated differently from a withholding perspective." Lennon said the ruling in this case is consistent with that policy."

They may fix it before long, but I swear it was there when I read it!

seventiesraider · December 23, 2010, 03:17:12 PM

NC$$

Raider 68 · December 23, 2010, 03:39:58 PM

For the OSU players, if you break the rules you suffer, but I think almost half of the next season is a bit much here. OSU will appeal and maybe the number of games may be reduced. Are there two standards, one for the regular season and one for the bowl games?

SaintsFAN · December 23, 2010, 03:43:07 PM

Quote from: Raider 68 on December 23, 2010, 03:39:58 PM
For the OSU players, if you break the rules you suffer, but I think almost half of the next season is a bit much here. OSU will appeal and maybe the number of games may be reduced. Are there two standards, one for the regular season and one for the bowl games?

they only play one competitive game in those first 5 next year... won't hurt them a bit.

SaintsFAN · December 23, 2010, 03:43:39 PM

Quote from: reality check on December 23, 2010, 12:44:50 PM
jaypeter

ESPN article addressed your question: They were not suspended from the bowl game because it was determined they were not properly educated about the exact nature of their infractions. I read from that the same thing I suggested. They were unaware that selling their personal property attained from playing for the Buckeyes was a violation of rules. So the NCAA (in all its wisdom) decided to punish them later rather than sooner because "they didn't know any better".

Wasn't anyone paying attention to AJ Green having to sit out for Georgia in the 1st part of the year for selling his jersey?

Raider 68 · December 23, 2010, 04:33:16 PM

To all those OAC posters and vistors, I would like to extend a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year. Look forward to all your posts in 2011 or the balance of the year!

joelmama · December 23, 2010, 04:45:47 PM

Many people do not understand that these kids at the D1 level are sold to their schools and they own them. My nephew (at OSU and not suspended) has almost no time to be at home. The total for the year amounts to about 4 weeks per year. Thus they cannot hold a summer job or any job for that matter to make a few bucks for spending moeny. My nephew has parents that can give him a reasonable amount of money to be able to go out to buy gas for his 11 year old car, make repairs on the car, or buy a pizza (or god forbid get a tattoo). A lot (most I would say) do not have a lot of extra cash laying around.

It is weird that they can't sell their own property. What if a kid started a side business selling widgets. If somebody bought the widgets and paid a small premium the NCAA would call this improper benfits I guess no matter that the business was providing a service and maybe a service worth the premium.

Should college kids get paid? probably not but when you are dealing with small amounts give em a break. Suspending them for half a season when Cam Newton was trying to be (and mabe is) a professional at $180 grand doesn't make much sense/ If a kid at Mount needed some cash and was short sighted enough to sell his championship ring shouldn't that be his business?