PonyFans.com

I'd prefer some established precedent for past situation but apparently NCAA position is that Ohio St decision is based on established policy.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... +decisions

It is based on the established policy of favoring big state AQ schools.

I find it incredible the players get a 5 game suspension NEXT year but get to play in a bowl game immediately after the incident. Either they are suspended them for the next 5 games or let it go. This looks like a follow the money issue.

Guess those players should have just said their dads sold that stuff and they didn't know it. That seems to work with no problem.

GO PONIES!!!

I find it incredible the players get a 5 game suspension NEXT year but get to play in a bowl game immediately after the incident. Either they are suspended them for the next 5 games or let it go. This looks like a follow the money issue.

You're spot on. "Sugar Bowl lobbied for suspended Ohio State players to play"

http://www.nola.com/sugarbowl/index.ssf ... spend.html

THE Ohio State University is in "Good Hands."

And the wallet wins yet again.

And the Sugar Bowl is controlled by the BCS. The NCAA only gets a pittance of around 12K from the Sugar Bowl. The BCS and it's financial backers (aka ESPN) don't want to have an Ohio State team without its stars playing.

docabel wrote:And the Sugar Bowl is controlled by the BCS. The NCAA only gets a pittance of around 12K from the Sugar Bowl. The BCS and it's financial backers (aka ESPN) don't want to have an Ohio State team without its stars playing.

we keep hearing that argument, but the BCS could not survive without the NCAA. the better the product on the field, the better the overall payoff for everyone involved. this goes a lot further than $12K.

Two thoughts

1) I cannot believe that the NCAA even felt they needed to comment on this. Their statement feels thin. It would have been better not to do anything than just publish a simple press release on your web page. It is like they just don't even want to make the effort of convincing us this is true.

2) This whole situation makes it appear that a school actually benefits from not teaching their players what the NCAA rules are. Ohio State didn't teach their players the rules and still has a shot at winning the bowl game, they wouldn't without these 5 players. Winning the bowl game brings more prestige to the program and more money to the University. Ironoic Ohio State benefits by not teaching kids.

stc9 wrote:Two thoughts

1) I cannot believe that the NCAA even felt they needed to comment on this. Their statement feels thin. It would have been better not to do anything than just publish a simple press release on your web page. It is like they just don't even want to make the effort of convincing us this is true.

2) This whole situation makes it appear that a school actually benefits from not teaching their players what the NCAA rules are. Ohio State didn't teach their players the rules and still has a shot at winning the bowl game, they wouldn't without these 5 players. Winning the bowl game brings more prestige to the program and more money to the University. Ironoic Ohio State benefits by not teaching kids.

This is as incisive a view on the NCAA action as I've seen. If the University hasn't told their players what's permissible, if the Dad hasn't told his son he's trying to sell him....hey, everything is OK. What a difference from a few years ago.