PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

tO$U scandal (Football)


#1

Who would have thunk it !? ;D

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

Does Pryor now go pro?? I think yes. I KNOW he is a lousy QB but I don’t think that has stopped the NFL in the past from drafting QBs on potential.


#2

So many people lie, cheat, and/or steal. It’s really sad.


#3

I think Pryor was going to go to the NFL after this year no matter what. From what I’ve read over the years, his family needs the money. He probably won’t be drafted as a QB, but he is too good of an athlete (big, fast, quick) to pass up. He could even be a first rounder.


#4

[quote=“Great Santini, post:3, topic:1683”]I think Pryor was going to go to the NFL after this year no matter what. From what I’ve read over the years, his family needs the money. He probably won’t be drafted as a QB, but he is too good of an athlete (big, fast, quick) to pass up. He could even be a first rounder.[/quote] How much do you want to put on that? :wink:


#5
The players are eligible for the bowl game because the NCAA determined they did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred, Lennon said.

We were not as explicit with our student-athlete education as we should have been in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years regarding the sale of apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department,” Smith said in a statement. “We began to significantly improve our education in November of 2009 to address these issues. After going through this experience, we will further enhance our education for all our student-athletes as we move forward.”

Funny how these things are related from one topic to the next.

Remember the post where we discussed the wasted money in Athletic Departments? One of the points made was how Ohio State had a full time 6 person compliance staff.

AND THE PLAYERS DIDN’T KNOW ??!?!?!?!? >:(


#6

Right! And I’m PSU grad from a generation and a half ago and I knew that selling those things constituted an NCAA violation.

What I don’t undersand is for the penalty to start after the next game. Several of those players will be playing on Sunday next year so they will never suffer any suspension. 5 games is significant but it is not going to effect those kids on an equal basis.

I do feel that the Cam Newton/dad situation is a far larger transgression and there is no penalty whatsoever effecting playing time for him, when the rule, (as I understand it) is that if a parent violates NCAA rules it is the same as their son/daughter doing it. Letting the parent violate rules with no subsequent penalty for the athlete creates such a huge loophole that I would think that going forward parents in financially strapped families will use the Cam Newton strategy. “Son, I will extort the money, just remember if it does not go down, you knew nothing about it”.

So between, ignoring the impact blatant rule violations by a parent should have on their athlete, and allowing “suspended players” to play in the big revenue BCS bowl game and start their suspention 9 months later, after half of those athletes opt out for real pay days - I think the NCAA is showing their true colors - money, marketing and more money are the priority and suspensions will take effect at a point in time that is most financially convienient.


#7

[quote=“Duff, post:6, topic:1683”]Right! And I’m PSU grad from a generation and a half ago and I knew that selling those things constituted an NCAA violation.

What I don’t undersand is for the penalty to start after the next game. Several of those players will be playing on Sunday next year so they will never suffer any suspension. 5 games is significant but it is not going to effect those kids on an equal basis.

I do feel that the Cam Newton/dad situation is a far larger transgression and there is no penalty whatsoever effecting playing time for him, when the rule, (as I understand it) is that if a parent violates NCAA rules it is the same as their son/daughter doing it. Letting the parent violate rules with no subsequent penalty for the athlete creates such a huge loophole that I would think that going forward parents in financially strapped families will use the Cam Newton strategy. “Son, I will extort the money, just remember if it does not go down, you knew nothing about it”.

So between, ignoring the impact blatant rule violations by a parent should have on their athlete, and allowing “suspended players” to play in the big revenue BCS bowl game and start their suspention 9 months later, after half of those athletes opt out for real pay days - I think the NCAA is showing their true colors - money, marketing and more money are the priority and suspensions will take effect at a point in time that is most financially convienient.[/quote]

What would be interesting is if all the OSU athletes got together and claimed that they gave the items to their parents, and their parents then sold them.

What would the NCAA do about that?


#8
[quote="Duff, post:6, topic:1683"]Right! And I'm PSU grad from a generation and a half ago and I knew that selling those things constituted an NCAA violation. What I don't undersand is for the penalty to start after the next game. Several of those players will be playing on Sunday next year so they will never suffer any suspension. 5 games is significant but it is not going to effect those kids on an equal basis. [b]I do feel that the Cam Newton/dad situation is a far larger transgression and there is no penalty whatsoever effecting playing time for him, when the rule, (as I understand it) is that if a parent violates NCAA rules it is the same as their son/daughter doing it. Letting the parent violate rules with no subsequent penalty for the athlete creates such a huge loophole that I would think that going forward parents in financially strapped families will use the Cam Newton strategy.[/b] "Son, I will extort the money, just remember if it does not go down, you knew nothing about it". So between, ignoring the impact blatant rule violations by a parent should have on their athlete, and allowing "suspended players" to play in the big revenue BCS bowl game and start their suspention 9 months later, after half of those athletes opt out for real pay days - I think the NCAA is showing their true colors - money, marketing and more money are the priority and suspensions will take effect at a point in time that is most financially convienient.[/quote]

What would be interesting is if all the OSU athletes got together and claimed that they gave the items to their parents, and their parents then sold them.
What would the NCAA do about that?


There you go, huge loophole, would have loved to see how the NCAA would have handled that, and it would have been so easy to creatE that line of response.

#9

Duff,

Like me, you probably know a lot of Auburn folks living around Atlanta. All the level-headed ones, and they do exist, see that exact point that you make as the NCAA creating a major loophole by not taking the correct action in the Newton case. They, of course, like the fact that Cam is still playing, but also know that they got away with one.

Then there are those other Auburn fans…most of them…that didn’t see anything wrong with what Auburn or Cam did and certainly don’t understand the ramifications of the NCAA’s bad decision.

I keep saying that Auburn should have been allowed to keep their wins, since it seems that they didn’t do anything wrong (time will tell), but Cam should have been ineligible for college ball immediately. It would have sent a loud and clear message to anyone trying the same tactic. But as they always do, the NCAA screwed the pooch on this one.

As for O$U, they need to sell tix to this game. Take Pryor out of the mix and this hurts O$U and the NCAA knows that. They are as crooked as crooked gets. I’ll let you decide who “They” is >:(.


#10

NittiniIllini:
My experience is that “level headed” and “Auburn fan” is an oxy-moron. Any Auburn fan I have spoke to see “no problem” with anything that took place. Which is basically how the NCAA handled it, because daddy Newton being distanced from the inner circles of the program is no material penalty at all.
As for who “they” is, like I said in my first post in this thread:
the NCAA is showing their true colors - money, marketing and more money are the priority and suspensions will take effect at a point in time that is most financially convienient.


#11

[quote=“Duff, post:10, topic:1683”]NittiniIllini:
My experience is that “level headed” and “Auburn fan” is an oxy-moron. Any Auburn fan I have spoke to see “no problem” with anything that took place. Which is basically how the NCAA handled it, because daddy Newton being distanced from the inner circles of the program is no material penalty at all.
As for who “they” is, like I said in my first post in this thread:
the NCAA is showing their true colors - money, marketing and more money are the priority and suspensions will take effect at a point in time that is most financially convienient.
[/quote]

I actually work with a couple of Auburn level-headeds…one with season tickets in fact, who totally sees my (and your) point. He for one knows that Auburn is lucky in this matter.

But you are correct…the NCAA sees only green and we’re not talking about the grass on the field.


#12

I think this thing is a joke, if these players are going to be suspended suspend them for the bowl game. To me it makes no sense to suspend them for next season. And like most of you said these players will probably be gone,


#13

I think these violations are weak. Selling rings, etc? C’mon. Should be considered personal property. Getting discount tattoos is in the tattoo owner’s interest. He gets cheap advertising. Big freakin’ deal. Tempest in a teapot, IMO. NCAA is hypocritical and a money grubbing organization. They sell bowl game souvenirs to thousands of fans.


#14

[quote=“NittanyIllini, post:9, topic:1683”]Duff,

Like me, you probably know a lot of Auburn folks living around Atlanta. All the level-headed ones, and they do exist, see that exact point that you make as the NCAA creating a major loophole by not taking the correct action in the Newton case. They, of course, like the fact that Cam is still playing, but also know that they got away with one.

Then there are those other Auburn fans…most of them…that didn’t see anything wrong with what Auburn or Cam did and certainly don’t understand the ramifications of the NCAA’s bad decision.

I keep saying that Auburn should have been allowed to keep their wins, since it seems that they didn’t do anything wrong (time will tell), but Cam should have been ineligible for college ball immediately. It would have sent a loud and clear message to anyone trying the same tactic. But as they always do, the NCAA screwed the pooch on this one.

As for O$U, they need to sell tix to this game. Take Pryor out of the mix and this hurts O$U and the NCAA knows that. They are as crooked as crooked gets. I’ll let you decide who “They” is >:(.[/quote]

Isn’t Auburn the ones who paid the Dad?


#15
[quote="NittanyIllini, post:9, topic:1683"]Duff,

Like me, you probably know a lot of Auburn folks living around Atlanta. All the level-headed ones, and they do exist, see that exact point that you make as the NCAA creating a major loophole by not taking the correct action in the Newton case. They, of course, like the fact that Cam is still playing, but also know that they got away with one.

Then there are those other Auburn fans…most of them…that didn’t see anything wrong with what Auburn or Cam did and certainly don’t understand the ramifications of the NCAA’s bad decision.

I keep saying that Auburn should have been allowed to keep their wins, since it seems that they didn’t do anything wrong (time will tell), but Cam should have been ineligible for college ball immediately. It would have sent a loud and clear message to anyone trying the same tactic. But as they always do, the NCAA screwed the pooch on this one.

As for O$U, they need to sell tix to this game. Take Pryor out of the mix and this hurts O$U and the NCAA knows that. They are as crooked as crooked gets. I’ll let you decide who “They” is >:(.[/quote]

Isn’t Auburn the ones who paid the Dad?

No. Nobody knows for sure but Mississippi State not Auburn was the one who reportedly was being pressured to pay the old man. No one yet has actually shown that money exchanged hands and Auburn has steadfastly denied paying anyone.


#16
[quote="NittanyIllini, post:9, topic:1683"]Duff,

Like me, you probably know a lot of Auburn folks living around Atlanta. All the level-headed ones, and they do exist, see that exact point that you make as the NCAA creating a major loophole by not taking the correct action in the Newton case. They, of course, like the fact that Cam is still playing, but also know that they got away with one.

Then there are those other Auburn fans…most of them…that didn’t see anything wrong with what Auburn or Cam did and certainly don’t understand the ramifications of the NCAA’s bad decision.

I keep saying that Auburn should have been allowed to keep their wins, since it seems that they didn’t do anything wrong (time will tell), but Cam should have been ineligible for college ball immediately. It would have sent a loud and clear message to anyone trying the same tactic. But as they always do, the NCAA screwed the pooch on this one.

As for O$U, they need to sell tix to this game. Take Pryor out of the mix and this hurts O$U and the NCAA knows that. They are as crooked as crooked gets. I’ll let you decide who “They” is >:(.[/quote]

Isn’t Auburn the ones who paid the Dad?

No. Nobody knows for sure but Mississippi State not Auburn was the one who reportedly was being pressured to pay the old man. No one yet has actually shown that money exchanged hands and Auburn has steadfastly denied paying anyone.

I thought Cam tearfully told the Miss St staff that he chose Auburn because, “the money was too great”?

Let’s not kid ourselves about whether or not it actually happened !!! :-\


#17

If you look deep at the legal ties between the universities and the NCAA, you’ll see that the NCAA actually has very little REAL power over the schools. Legally, they’re not much different than a promoter. Part of the reason the NCAA cow-tows (is that right phrase?) to the Bowls and forgos the money they COULD make on a playoff is that the bowls themselves have a ton of power, money and influence and would not go quitely if the playoff scenario were to be put in place. Think about it… The NCAA had little power over the NIT before they bought it out… and the bowls are very much like their own little 2-team NITs, except they’re in MUCH better financial state.

Beacuse of the push for a playoff, the bowls are very edgy… the O$U suspension thing is really just the NCAA backing off the bowls and kicking the can down the road. Not becuase they want the $$ (I doubt how much the NCAA itself makes off the bowl game) but because of the fact they don’t want to face the wrath of an angry BCS bowl committee.


#18
[quote="kidcoyote, post:13, topic:1683"]I think these violations are weak. Selling rings, etc? C'mon. Should be considered personal property. Getting discount tattoos is in the tattoo owner's interest. He gets cheap advertising. Big freakin' deal. Tempest in a teapot, IMO. NCAA is hypocritical and a money grubbing organization. They sell bowl game souvenirs to thousands of fans.[/quote]

If you look deep at the legal ties between the universities and the NCAA, you’ll see that the NCAA actually has very little REAL power over the schools. Legally, they’re not much different than a promoter. Part of the reason the NCAA cow-tows (is that right phrase?) to the Bowls and forgos the money they COULD make on a playoff is that the bowls themselves have a ton of power, money and influence and would not go quitely if the playoff scenario were to be put in place. Think about it… The NCAA had little power over the NIT before they bought it out… and the bowls are very much like their own little 2-team NITs, except they’re in MUCH better financial state.

Beacuse of the push for a playoff, the bowls are very edgy… the O$U suspension thing is really just the NCAA backing off the bowls and kicking the can down the road. Not becuase they want the $$ (I doubt how much the NCAA itself makes off the bowl game) but because of the fact they don’t want to face the wrath of an angry BCS bowl committee.

Right phrase - wrong spelling. Kowtow is the proper spelling.