Ohio St. Players busted...

**Tre4ISU** · 12-23-2010, 12:24 PM

Also, OSU has about 270 self reported secondary violations in the past few years. It's just interesting.

**ISUFan22** · 12-23-2010, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by yaman3

I don't really have a problem with them doing the tattoo thing. It's not a big eal to me at all. I don't even think it deserves 5 games. Having said that, you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise things like this will get out of control.

I don't disagree completely. However, the current rules state these things are allowed. The NCAA is consistently, inconsistent in their rule enforcement. It's pathetic. 2 things need to happen...

1. Rules (on and off the field) modifications that are both fair to the athletes and the spirit of college sports/academics
2. Consistent and fair enforcement of said rules

**Tre4ISU** · 12-23-2010, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

I don't disagree completely. However, the current rules state these things are allowed. The NCAA is consistently, inconsistent in their rule enforcement. It's pathetic. 2 things need to happen...

1. Rules (on and off the field) modifications that are both fair to the athletes and the spirit of college sports/academics
2. Consistent and fair enforcement of said rules

How are you going to make them consistent when the violations aren't all the same? To me this is very consistent with what Green got in similar situations.

**Cyclonestate78** · 12-23-2010, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Frankly, the NCAA can suck it. One of the more biased and inconsistent organizations - ever. And I'm not saying this from an ISU rose colored glasses perspective. It's just a damn fact.

Guys like Lucca and Jiri can look at this as a crock.

For a me, a person with a right to be most ****** is Dez Bryant. Got suspended for nearly a full season for in reality - doing nothing technically wrong. He was just dishonest with the NCAA because he didn't understand the rules.

He should have received some sort of pass for that - but he didn't. Instead he didn't get to finish his college career and I think it's fairly safe to say it impacted his draft status (not that I am personally disappointed because I'm delighted he's with Dallas).

Dear NCAA,

**** your mother!

Signed,

Me

How about this right here. A guy like Gilstrap who is trying to make something of himself and get a shot at the NBA asks for a medical hardship pass to get another year so he can have a better shot at making the NBA and making money after he uses his eligibility. He has a daughter he is trying to support and wanted to do the right thing rather then breaking the rules and going the Cam Newton or Reggie Bush route and the NCAA tells him to go **** himself? Really? A good kid like Gilstrap gets hosed while the NCAA greases the doors so they can keep a kid like Cam Newton eligible when he obviously violated all kinds of NCAA rules? This is what the NCAA stands for? At what point will the University presidents put their heads together and tell the NCAA that they are no longer needed? They are a total joke.

**Cyclonestate78** · 12-23-2010, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

I don't disagree completely. However, the current rules state these things are allowed. The NCAA is consistently, inconsistent in their rule enforcement. It's pathetic. 2 things need to happen...

1. Rules (on and off the field) modifications that are both fair to the athletes and the spirit of college sports/academics
2. Consistent and fair enforcement of said rules

#1 is an easy fix. #2 is going to be damn near impossible.

Hell... pretty sure the president of the NCAA just said a few weeks ago that they are going to rewrite the rules in regards to the whole Cam Newton scandal. My question is.... Why even have rules if you refuse to enforce them? The parents are the kid and the kid is the parents. They are one in the same <cough,cough> unless the star QB for a national championship contender gets caught red handed and the NCAA takes a pass on doing anything about it. Then it is just easier to say the rules need to be changed. The NCAA dropped a huge steaming pile of ********* on this one.

**mt85** · 12-23-2010, 12:58 PM

There should be no doubt what the NCAA is all about. They will protect the profit producing members of their association at the expense of integrity and credibility.

Reinstating Cam Newton and allowing these players to participate in the bowl game will do little to deter cheaters. What a pathetic decision and organization.

**dbronco7sc** · 12-23-2010, 01:05 PM

Thing is... these guys can sell the stuff after they graduate or leave the school and it's not a problem. Autographs... I can understand why that's a problem. Recruits could sell their autographs at way overvalued prices as a means to get money... yeah... I agree that that should be a violation.

However, awards that they have earned such as bowl rings and such... no recruit is guaranteed to get those and have prior knowledge that they will be able to sell them for a value, and thus schools can't use that to help them recruit.

Just like a student athlete getting a TV from his parents for Christmas. He should be able to sell it for money if he likes... yes there should be investigations if the athlete is getting more money than it's value... but fair price should be just fine.

If the student earned/won something... and they can sell it for its value... then they should be able to. If it's a violation for them to sell it while in college, then it should be a violation for them to sell it after college too (that said I disagree with it being a violation in the first place).

Getting a bowl ring is like getting a savings bond. "Here's $1000, only stipulation is you can't cash it in until you leave this school."

Then again... the NCAA never really makes sense with their rules anyway.

**Cyclonestate78** · 12-23-2010, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by dbronco7sc

Thing is... these guys can sell the stuff after they graduate or leave the school and it's not a problem. Autographs... I can understand why that's a problem. Recruits could sell their autographs at way overvalued prices as a means to get money... yeah... I agree that that should be a violation.

However, awards that they have earned such as bowl rings and such... no recruit is guaranteed to get those and have prior knowledge that they will be able to sell them for a value, and thus schools can't use that to help them recruit.

Just like a student athlete getting a TV from his parents for Christmas. He should be able to sell it for money if he likes... yes there should be investigations if the athlete is getting more money than it's value... but fair price should be just fine.

If the student earned/won something... and they can sell it for its value... then they should be able to. If it's a violation for them to sell it while in college, then it should be a violation for them to sell it after college too (that said I disagree with it being a violation in the first place).

Getting a bowl ring is like getting a savings bond. "Here's $1000, only stipulation is you can't cash it in until you leave this school."

Then again... the NCAA never really makes sense with their rules anyway.

How many D-1 athletes are there with all sports combined? Trying to keep track of how much stuff they are selling and how much cash they are receiving would be completely impossible to keep track of. Cam Newton is probably out right now trying to sell his SEC Championship ring for 1.2 million to an Auburn booster as we speak. The NCAA is already protecting him so what on earth does he have to fear?

**dbronco7sc** · 12-23-2010, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

How many D-1 athletes are there with all sports combined? Trying to keep track of how much stuff they are selling and how much cash they are receiving would be completely impossible to keep track of. Cam Newton is probably out right now trying to sell his SEC Championship ring for 1.2 million to an Auburn booster as we speak. The NCAA is already protecting him so what on earth does he have to fear?

I'm talking about when making a ruling. Are they going to go out and monitor every athlete's bank accounts? No. But clearly they found out that Ohio State players sold stuff. So when it gets brought to the NCAA's attention... I think the final ruling should be based on the player selling their item for fair value.

Otherwise... players can sell their pens from class to a booster for $5,000 as a way to get by the rules about receiving benefits.

**cyhiphopp** · 12-23-2010, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by dbronco7sc

Thing is... these guys can sell the stuff after they graduate or leave the school and it's not a problem. Autographs... I can understand why that's a problem. Recruits could sell their autographs at way overvalued prices as a means to get money... yeah... I agree that that should be a violation.

However, awards that they have earned such as bowl rings and such... no recruit is guaranteed to get those and have prior knowledge that they will be able to sell them for a value, and thus schools can't use that to help them recruit.

Just like a student athlete getting a TV from his parents for Christmas. He should be able to sell it for money if he likes... yes there should be investigations if the athlete is getting more money than it's value... but fair price should be just fine.

If the student earned/won something... and they can sell it for its value... then they should be able to. If it's a violation for them to sell it while in college, then it should be a violation for them to sell it after college too (that said I disagree with it being a violation in the first place).

Getting a bowl ring is like getting a savings bond. "Here's $1000, only stipulation is you can't cash it in until you leave this school."

Then again... the NCAA never really makes sense with their rules anyway.

Who decides what is fair price?

If there are 100 Ohio State fans/boosters willing to bid on a Conference Championship ring and the bidding gets up to 100,000 dollars, is that fair? The appraisal of the ring does not include sentimental value and it being one of just a few in existence.

You get into a situation where the kids can sell their jerseys for income and have a Rhett Bomar situation where the kids "work" and get paid for doing nothing.

**erikbj** · 12-23-2010, 02:04 PM

So these kids will just go to the NFL and serve no punishment. Great system!

**Ficklone02** · 12-23-2010, 02:35 PM

Thing that bothers me is that the ncaa is making money hand over fist off these kids. The same kids who, although they get a free education essentially have no money because they aren't allowed to get a job while playing football. Some of these kids come from VERY poor backgrounds. So you're telling me a guy like TP, (hypothetical) who say he needed to sell his ring so he could afford to get home to see his mom for xmas....I know its a slippery slope but there's got to be a better way of treating these kids.

**TxCycloneFan** · 12-23-2010, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by dfwcy

Seems like a pretty harsh punishment to me.

NCAA mus t think it was Iowa State.

**isudoc03** · 12-23-2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ficklone02

Thing that bothers me is that the ncaa is making money hand over fist off these kids. The same kids who, although they get a free education essentially have no money because they aren't allowed to get a job while playing football. Some of these kids come from VERY poor backgrounds. So you're telling me a guy like TP, (hypothetical) who say he needed to sell his ring so he could afford to get home to see his mom for xmas....I know its a slippery slope but there's got to be a better way of treating these kids.

Maybe if he wouldn't have paid for his tatoo like he claims he would have money to go home.

**CyJack13** · 12-23-2010, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by dfwcy

Agreed with the potential record, just wait and see of these kids stick around. TP doesnt seem to me like the kind of person who will stay now and take his punishment.

Where's Pryor going to go? There's not a lot of kids going pro early for the chance to be a 3rd string TE somewhere.