Jon

It's an existing rule, unfortunately. But it's not like the NCAA cares about the Sugar Bowl. They get a lousy $12,000 from it, attendance/ratings wouldn't really be affected either way, and there's no permanent damage. Even if ratings did take a bit of a dip, I don't think it affects how the Sugar Bowl and ESPN can negotiate sponsorships and ad time in any significant way. By the way, this happened 13 months ago. The reason for the 5th game on the suspension is believe the players never reported it even after the "learned" the rules. Honestly, I'd probably rather they miss 5 games next year instead of the bowl game this year and then 4 next year. It's probably more damaging to their careers.

Then you'd still be in a situation where some schools have a huge recruiting advantage because even 4th string offensive linemen are getting a maximum amount for their memorabilia while very few if any kids could sell their things at most schools. There is no way to do it without making recruiting a straight cash grab. Tip of my hat to Antonio Pittman for coming out on Twitter and saying that they've been receiving free tattoos for years. What an idiot.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players. Like what? Would players start selling cigarettes out of the back of trucks or something? Game merchandise is valuable because there is a very finite supply of it. All schools would have to do is line up people unaffiliated with the program to buy jerseys for hundreds of thousands of dollars and make that promise to kids during the recruiting process. There's no reason they couldn't sell their memorabilia for far more than its actually worth. Regulation, even if it was theoretically possible, would be quite impractical. I don't really consider that selling merchandise. That's more like bribing someone with $100,000 and saying 'Oh, this isn't a bribe, I was just paying 100k for this briefcase that's worth more like $300." What you're talking about is really no different than straight up paying players. I don't think selling a conference championship ring for 1 grand or whatever is remotely the same. And how could that possibly be regulated? Telling players they can do something that's within the rules couldn't be construed as bribery. What if they sold the ring for 2 grand? Or 5 grand? Or 10 grand? Or 50 grand? And add to that a situation in which every recruit knows that going to that school means you can sell your stuff for large amounts of money. There's no in between in the rule. It's either you strictly forbid it or it's uncontrollable.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players. Like what? Would players start selling cigarettes out of the back of trucks or something? Game merchandise is valuable because there is a very finite supply of it. All schools would have to do is line up people unaffiliated with the program to buy jerseys for hundreds of thousands of dollars and make that promise to kids during the recruiting process. There's no reason they couldn't sell their memorabilia for far more than its actually worth. Regulation, even if it was theoretically possible, would be quite impractical.

Does it necessarily mean there was not? If they want to play the pity card and try and convince the public that it was to help their families, then the burden of proof for that is on them. It's used every time. And "help their families" is entirely relative. Any amount given to their parents regardless of how well off they are is helping their families. How is the burden of proof on them? They broke a rule and received punishment. But all they did was sell their own property. You can go ahead and keep acting like a lunatic who thinks this is a travesty, but that reflects more on your own problems than theirs. Wow. I call [expletive] on them playing the same pity card for all 5 guys that everyone caught uses and somehow it devolves into some strange debate about something that has nothing to do with anything I actually posted about. I'm shocked!

Because Ohio State convinced them that the players weren't properly educated about the rules. According to NCAA rules, if the players were found to have been knowingly committing the infractions, then they would have missed the bowl game.

Does it necessarily mean there was not? If they want to play the pity card and try and convince the public that it was to help their families, then the burden of proof for that is on them. It's used every time. And "help their families" is entirely relative. Any amount given to their parents regardless of how well off they are is helping their families.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players.

Why is that an expletive? It's not like they went out and stole stuff or were dealing drugs. They sold their own possessions. That could very easily be because they and their families had no money. It's a blatantly obvious violation but not some horrible action. It's always the "right intent" according to the violators and the schools and that they were just unaware of the rules. Every single student athlete knows the rules. The bottom line is they did something damaging to their program, their own careers, and professional prospects for some cash. And they didn't even do it in a wise manner. They sold their own property. And that necessarily means there was a righteous intent behind it?

Why is that an expletive? It's not like they went out and stole stuff or were dealing drugs. They sold their own possessions. That could very easily be because they and their families had no money. It's a blatantly obvious violation but not some horrible action. It's always the "right intent" according to the violators and the schools and that they were just unaware of the rules. Every single student athlete knows the rules. I have no idea how Ohio State as able to convince the NCAA otherwise. The bottom line is they did something damaging to their program, their own careers, and professional prospects for some cash. They didn't even do it in a wise manner. And on top of all of that, they continued to break the rules for some stupid discounted tattoos.

According to Tressel, "one or two" players in question may have filled out NFL paperwork.

I'd love to know that, as well. I'd be a bit surprised if they all returned next year. Michigan State fans must be licking their chops right now. Ohio State is going to appeal and the appeals process starts next week. Still piecing things together, but I believe the tattoo shop was under investigation for something unrelated when they found the items signed by Ohio State players. According to Adam Rittenberg, the US Attorney contacted Ohio State on December 7th after they seized the items and the athletic department was informed the next day. Gene Smith: "These young men went into these decisions with the right intent, to help their families." Yeah, that's [expletive].

Pryor must repay $2,500 for his 2008 Big Ten title ring, 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award, and 2008 Gold Pants (which were apparently awarded for beating Michigan). Dan Herron has to repay $1,150 for selling his jersey, pants, and shoes for $1,000 and "receiving discounted services worth $150." I assume that's the tattoo. It sounds like the suspension would have been 4 games if not for the fact that they didn't immediately disclose the sales. It also appears that they'll be allowed to play in the bowl game because they weren't aware they were committing a violation. The NCAA blamed Ohio State for inadequate rules education. Ridiculous.

Holy crap: @kgordonosu First 5 games next year are Akron, Toledo, @ Miami, Colorado, and Michigan State.

Big Ten and SEC bowl participants and how they stack up in regards to oversigning:

The center position was a big of a liability as you can reasonably imagine at the college level. It was the kind of performance where you question whether either of them had seen a basketball before. Terrible with the ball, failed to collapse on defense, and just stood there on rebounds until St. John's had already pulled away at the end. Combine that with missing Thompson for almost 10 minutes in the 1st half due to foul trouble and Crawford looking as bad in the 2nd half as he looked good the night before (4 2nd half turnovers) and you've got an ugly display. It would be nice if it counted as a road loss instead of a neutral site.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that nothing of any substance will come from this. One of the Ohio State beat writers reported the compliance meetings took place, but now Ohio State is saying it never happened. Michigan still has 5,500 unsold tickets to the sold out Gator Bowl and Nebraska has 3,900 unsold tickets to the Holiday Bowl. That's going to hurt both schools in future Big Ten bowl selections.

There are reports that some Ohio State players are talking with compliance officials today, rumored to be regarding improper benefits.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/ap/2c/fullj.28d49ef28533db04d3ed0546f46995c3/ap-d15d6058421f44f2ac5e1e955e8de10f.jpg

COREY!

A common theme:

Best news all day.

Here's a pretty good read on how different universities handle positive drug tests: http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12/20/fanhouse-report-bcs-football-program-drug-policies-revealed/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Not awkward at all: