for first 5 games of next year for receiving improper benefits...Pryor and Posey are 2 of the 5...

(12-23-2010 02:24 PM)uchoops Wrote:  for first 5 games of next year for receiving improper benefits...Pryor and Posey are 2 of the 5...

Just made my Holiday Season,,

2011 Games to miss:

2011 Ohio State Football Schedule

DATE OPPONENT LOCATION TIME RESULTS TV
Sat. Sept. 3 AKRON Columbus TBA
Sat. Sept. 10 TOLEDO Columbus TBA
Sat. Sept. 17 at Miami, Fla. Miami, Fla. TBA
Sat. Sept. 24 COLORADO Columbus TBA
Sat. Oct. 1 MICHIGAN STATE

love to see them start 3-2,,,then go to Nebraska and gets their
a**ES whipped

Adams must repay $1,000 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring
Herron must repay $1,150 for selling his football jersey, pants and shoes for $1,000 and receiving discounted services worth $150
Posey must repay $1,250 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring for $1,200 and receiving discounted services worth $50
Pryor must repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, a 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 Gold Pants, a gift from the university
Solomon (Thomas) must repay $1,505 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring for $1,000, his 2008 Gold Pants for $350 and receiving discounted services worth $155.

Nice. Wonder if they will get a TAX bill from the IRS????

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/spo...lease.html

And they are allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl? WTF....It's all $$$ with the NCAA.

So, does anyone understand the rationale for allowing them play in the Sugar Bowl, aside from preferential treatment of tO$U?

(12-24-2010 08:42 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  So, does anyone understand the rationale for allowing them play in the Sugar Bowl, aside from preferential treatment of tO$U?

You answered your own question....

Personally I don't know why they are guilty. As I understand it, they sold some momentos (at face value) that were given to them and they thought belonged to them. I don't understand the crime.

(12-24-2010 09:53 AM)ctipton Wrote:  Personally I don't know why they are guilty. As I understand it, they sold some momentos (at face value) that were given to them and they thought belonged to them. I don't understand the crime.

I believe it's because the momentos were gifts from the university, and/or because they were using their personas in order to make money.

(12-24-2010 12:08 PM)CD11 Wrote:  

(12-24-2010 09:53 AM)ctipton Wrote:  Personally I don't know why they are guilty. As I understand it, they sold some momentos (at face value) that were given to them and they thought belonged to them. I don't understand the crime.

I believe it's because the momentos were gifts from the university, and/or because they were using their personas in order to make money.

If they were gifts from the university, then don't those gifts belong to the recipients? They were not using their "personas" to make money. They were sold at the going rate. If they were sold to boosters for $10,000, I could understand that, but these were sold at what is considered the "going rate" for those items.

I have seen instances of UC players selling watches, rings, etc, given by the university or a bowl game, and nothing is said. Where is the difference here?

(12-24-2010 12:37 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(12-24-2010 12:08 PM)CD11 Wrote:  

(12-24-2010 09:53 AM)ctipton Wrote:  Personally I don't know why they are guilty. As I understand it, they sold some momentos (at face value) that were given to them and they thought belonged to them. I don't understand the crime.

I believe it's because the momentos were gifts from the university, and/or because they were using their personas in order to make money.

If they were gifts from the university, then don't those gifts belong to the recipients? They were not using their "personas" to make money. They were sold at the going rate. If they were sold to boosters for $10,000, I could understand that, but these were sold at what is considered the "going rate" for those items.

I have seen instances of UC players selling watches, rings, etc, given by the university or a bowl game, and nothing is said. Where is the difference here?

There is no difference. The UC players should have been suspended as well.

This is a clear NCAA rule that players are made well aware of time and time again from the moment they step on campus.

Players are suspended for this every year. AJ Green missed the first 4 games of this season for UGA because of the exact same thing.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If a gift is a gift, then is the recipient not at ease to do with the gift as he/she pleases? As I said previously, they did not make exorbitant cash but instead what is considered the "going rate" for the golden pants, rings, etc. This was not sold to boosters.

I can certainly understand the players thinking the items were theirs. I do not believe that "This is a clear NCAA rule that players are made well aware of time and time again from the moment they step on campus." There are 1,000,001 NCAA compliance rules and selling what you believe is a gift and is yours is not one of the highly publicized ones.

Can they sell the gifts after their eligibility has expired? Are the gifts then theirs?

I am not an O$U fan, but I think the NCAA has gone so far over the top with this punishment as to be ridiculous.

(12-24-2010 04:54 PM)ctipton Wrote:  I'm not sure I agree with that. If a gift is a gift, then is the recipient not at ease to do with the gift as he/she pleases? As I said previously, they did not make exorbitant cash but instead what is considered the "going rate" for the golden pants, rings, etc. This was not sold to boosters.

I can certainly understand the players thinking the items were theirs. I do not believe that "This is a clear NCAA rule that players are made well aware of time and time again from the moment they step on campus." There are 1,000,001 NCAA compliance rules and selling what you believe is a gift and is yours is not one of the highly publicized ones.

Can they sell the gifts after their eligibility has expired? Are the gifts then theirs?

I am not an O$U fan, but I think the NCAA has gone so far over the top with this punishment as to be ridiculous.

I understand debating the rule itself, but its not a grey area. It may not be highly publicized but that doesn't mean compliance offices don't make rules clear to the teams--if they don't its a big failure on their part. The NCAA can't punish or enforce much of anything on a player that has used up his eligibility.

Players really can't legally sell anything they have obtained from being part of the program. This includes complimentary tickets, jerseys, etc.

(12-24-2010 04:54 PM)ctipton Wrote:  As I said previously, they did not make exorbitant cash but instead what is considered the "going rate" for the golden pants, rings, etc.

The "going rate" is higher number because of their athletic ability. Is a small pair of gold football pants really worth $350? Or is it worth $350 because it was owned and earned by a member of the Ohio State football team? That basically means that their ability as a football player increased the value of the item. So they earned money due to their football skills. That is why the NCAA does not allow items like these to be sold by players, because they are getting paid due to their status as an athlete and their skills as an athlete.

"Going rate" is what any normal collector would pay for an object regardless of the source of the object. Golden pants are given to Ohio State football players as a symbol of a victory over the University of Michigan. It matters not if the player, or another collector, sells the article. It is whatever the article is worth to the buyer. It is, without doubt, worth more in Columbus, Ohio, than to someone say in Ann Arbor, MI.

Quote:

"They put their pants on one leg at a time, the same as we do!"
--Francis Schmidt, March 2, 1934

Ohio State's new head coach was asked how the Buckeyes would do against rival Michigan, and that was Schmidt's reply. His teams bought into the philosophy, rattling off the most successful stretch in school history against that team up north. OSU won the next four Michigan matchups by a combined 114-0 margin.

Schmidt founded the "Pants Club", which still exists today as reward for a win over the Wolverines. Since 1934, each player and coach receives a miniature pair of gold pants for each victory over Michigan. The charms contain the recipient's initials as well as the year and score of "The Game".

http://www.coachtressel.com/tradition/gold_pants.php

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/daily-ch...state.html

Heres to hopin its tru...

(12-27-2010 07:56 AM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/daily-ch...state.html

Heres to hopin its tru...

Thanks for posting, this definitely paints the picture at tO$U in my opinion:

Quote:Ohio State has one of the largest compliance departments in the country, yet they have reported 375 violations to the NCAA from 2000-2009, the most in the country.

Questions surrounding OSU's 'Suspended Six'

By Greg Billing, Staff Writer
6:12 PM Monday, December 27, 2010

Like most things with the NCAA, I’m left with more questions than answers about the saga surrounding Ohio State’s Suspended Six.

Here are a few of them:

• So it’s OK for Ohio State and other universities to profit off players by selling game-worn jerseys and equipment, but the players themselves can’t profit by selling awards or rings that actually belong to them? Seems like a double standard to me.

• What kind of message is the NCAA sending by allowing the players to remain eligible for the Sugar Bowl? The NCAA, Sugar Bowl, sponsors and television network want the best game possible, and that means the Suspended Six need to play. But isn’t the NCAA telling the players, ‘We’re going to use you for financial profit and ratings, then you can go away for five games next year.’ Or go away altogether?

• If the players had sent their awards and rings home and their parents sold them, would the players still be in trouble? I’m guessing not, considering how Auburn’s Cam Newton avoided suspension.

• What about the free gifts the bowls are lavishing on the players? This year’s Ohio State players receive a Reactor Meltdown watch, Sleek Audio custom earphones, New Era Cap and a gift suite (a private event where players are given an order form and allowed to select a gift or gifts not to exceed the NCAA limit of $500 per person).

The NCAA has no problem with bowls providing benefits and expensive gifts, but again, the players can’t benefit financially from their work? How about just cutting the players checks to be put into accounts they can pull from next season or take with them if leaving?

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2400, ext. 6991, or gbilling@DaytonDaily
News.com.