You're Gene Smith in 2011; do you self-impose a bowl ban?

11 October 2012
39 Comments

Comments

4dorr on 11 Oct 2012 - 7:48am #

Last season was gross!

Tomorrow

andyb on 11 Oct 2012 - 8:31am #

For those that said yes....why? He had what he believed at the time to be good information and precedence saying they would not receive any further punishment. knowing that at the time why would you self impose a bowl ban?

If we are answering this question on hindsight alone then of course I would...but knowing what he knew then I wouldn't.

Really curious to see why most of you would. Maybe I'm missing something?

GABuckeye on 11 Oct 2012 - 8:59am #

I agree. Hindsight is always 20/20. With the information he had, Ohio State wasn't going to receive a bowl ban.

In addition, if they had self-imposed a ban, who's to say that the NCAA wouldn't have given them another year on top of it.

Poison nuts on 11 Oct 2012 - 11:40pm #

My bad I meant to up vote this but accidentally down voted - I'm on a tablet - the buttons are small...can someone take that off please?? Hopefully so - sorry GA.

The world is full of kings & queens who'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams - it's heaven & hell - Ronnie James Dio.

unknownmusketeer on 11 Oct 2012 - 12:01pm #

My main reasons for voting "yes" are:
(1) Punish players involved in creating the problem
(2) Know a new coaching staff is going to be in place next year
(3) Spend more time on recruiting
(4) The team is 6-6
(5) Shows NCAA we are taking allegations very seriously
Only reasons not to in my opinion:
(1) Extra practices for preparing for the bowl game - not sure if it helped since the old coaching staff was in place
(2) Seniors not involved - Brewster, Shugarts, Homan, Ebner, etc - showcasing for NFL

I do understand the logic of the other side - NCAA wanting to set an example, but we would have had a case for the NCAA overstepping their authority with a 2-year bowl ban.

Phoenix824 on 11 Oct 2012 - 2:45pm #

I agree with all the reasons to take the bowl ban last year. When the team was 6 and 6 who cares about a bowl. Personally I don't think 6 and 6 teams should play a bowl. I don't know if we would have been given this year as a bowl ban if we had self imposed but why not take a chance and ban the 6 and 6 team.

buckeye76BHop on 11 Oct 2012 - 12:39pm #

Mainly because "business" or "financial" decisions are absolutely dumb reasons for having a 6-6 team play in a bowl game. OSU pulls in multi-millions of dollars during the season for football. I'm not understanding why people need to think they're right either way. No one knows for sure, but overall, OSU didn't deserve a bowl game with a 6-6 record. Please try to defend how a majority of the Tat-gate guys got a bowl game and these seniors this year don't...think about that. All this is...is speculations...I personally don't think OSU's lawyer(s) knew whether they were going to get a bowl game ban either way based on their "knowledge" of the NCAA decision making. I don't feel this is factual...administrators don't like being wrong...especially in the eyes of the public...just saying.

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."
"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."
Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987

buckeye76BHop on 11 Oct 2012 - 6:00pm #

Looks like 70+% of people feel that yes may be a good choice;-)

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."
"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."
Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987

Ethos on 11 Oct 2012 - 8:33am #

I voted No. As mentioned in the skully, there is no reason to believe the NCAA couldn't of imposed the ban last year. They chose this year for a reason, because it hurt more. If we would of self-imposed the NCAA would of seen that it almost made no difference that year, and I see them imposing this year anyways just to make a point.

"What do you need water for, Sunshine?!" - Coach Coombs, if you don't love this man, you have no soul.

Alhan on 11 Oct 2012 - 9:01am #

I haven't read the info in the Skully yet, but I thought OSU was late in getting all of the required info to the NCAA which is why the ruling was delayed.

Anyone else remember that or was it just a crazed fever dream on my part?

You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy

tampa buckeye on 11 Oct 2012 - 8:47am #

I voted yes but If you self impose those pricks at the NCAA would just tack on an extra year to it. F the NCAA.

xtremebuckeye on 11 Oct 2012 - 8:51am #

No, because I beleive the NCAA was going to flex their muscle and make an example of the Buckeyes regaurdless

O H I O is the Buckeye State

Alhan on 11 Oct 2012 - 8:58am #

I don't know if it would have saved us this year or not, but I remember thinking halfway through last year that we should have, so I'm sticking with that answer.

You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy

MAVBuck on 11 Oct 2012 - 9:16am #

I agree. I voted NO. Even Meyer said he was shocked when the NCAA imposed the sanction. No one couldve absolutely known the NCAA would do this in 2012 and if OSU wouldve done it themselves in 2011 who knows what other punishments they wouldve imposed. As much crap as Gene Smith takes (from myself included) he has to run this as a business and taking away a bowl game with no real proof it would happen in the future (or knowledge we could be looking at a BCS game) would not have been a good business move!

andyb on 11 Oct 2012 - 9:22am #

"he has to run this as a business and taking away a bowl game with no real proof it would happen in the future (or knowledge we could be looking at a BCS game) would not have been a good business move!"

Love this explanation...absolutely!

hodge on 11 Oct 2012 - 9:47am #

The benefit of hindsight is a powerful thing.

Adambob on 11 Oct 2012 - 9:57am #

If Smith self imposed a bowl ban at the beginning of the season last year he'd be even more hated than he is now.

joel121270 on 11 Oct 2012 - 10:01am #

I said YES and said it last season, why not? We ran the risk of going 6-7 (accomplished that) and a team that looked absolutely atrocious. That being said, my counter to that last season was what if the NCAA hits us with an additional year....you never know. No use in crying over it now, just win out and piss everyone off. I'm really starting to see the comparison that we are the New York Yankees of college football. While I cringed initially I am starting to embrace it...GO BUCKS.

Grayskullsession on 11 Oct 2012 - 10:03am #

Thinking about this still makes my brain hurt.

"if irony were made of strawberries, we' d all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now."

BoFuquel on 11 Oct 2012 - 10:03am #

Not if you want to keep your job.He dose not do anything he's not told to do by his boss.Come on people he's a lowly department head,he don't make decissions of that magnitude.Come into the real world.GO BUCKS!

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

Oben_Where on 11 Oct 2012 - 5:51pm #

Ding! Ding! Ding! Even though I don't believe for a second that Smith had no input, it's probably not his call to make at the end of the day.

ArTbkward on 11 Oct 2012 - 10:17am #

At the beginning of last season, I could be wrong but I don't remember anyone saying we should self-impose. As the season went into a downward spiral those comments began to creep up more but not overwhelmingly so. Of course now we all wish we hadn't had to watch last year's Gator Bowl but at the beginning of last season most of us were hopeful. I remember reading an 11W article after the Akron game titled "The Return of Good-Throw Joe" and feeling exited about the season.

As others said, this question benefits from hindsight.

We should strive to keep thy name, of fair repute and spotless fame...
(Also, I'm not a dude)

45OH4IO on 11 Oct 2012 - 12:05pm #

The timing aspect of a self-imposed ban is a really good point. I bet the NCAA would give more credit to a bowl ban self-imposed early in the year more than one imposed as your team is ~.500 and not looking too great.

I wanted a self-imposed ban about halfway through last year as it became a frustrating washout. No one knows what the NCAA would have done either way, but last year was like a REALLY bad chapter to read in a book, and you know what? I preferred that the chapter would have ended a few pages sooner so I could move on to the next one.

Instead, we had that wet fart of a January to smell. Weak sauce.

Hogan1 on 11 Oct 2012 - 10:18am #

Taking a self imposed bowl ban in 2011 does not automatically mean the ncaa wouldn't have banned us this year.

Bucksfan on 11 Oct 2012 - 10:22am #

I also voted "no" for the same reason many others did: the NCAA was probably going to implement their own bowl ban regardless. If Ohio State withdrew its name from bowl contention in 2011, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Yahoo, and a bunch of other national news organizations would certainly criticize the move since our team was flirting with ineligibility anyway just based on record. You would have had Mark May saying it's an empty gesture, and Chris Fowler likely would have laughed and scoffed at the move while sitting on an SEC campus. But that doesn't negate the fact that a bowl ban was an absurd penalty to begin with.

Smith didn't really make a bad decision. The NCAA did.

klfeck on 11 Oct 2012 - 11:01am #

Yes, would have been a calculated risk used to prove to the NCAA that we took the issue seriously and the loss of revenue or recruiting from missing the Gator bowl would have been minimal.

Kevin
OH!!!!!
Proud parent of a Senior at The Ohio State University

toad1204 on 11 Oct 2012 - 11:14am #

Hindsight is 20-20... I voted Yes. Did we really deserve to go to a bowl game? IMHO No. Even if the NCAA wanted to flex their muscle and add on another bowl ban we're exactly where we are now. The best thing that could have happened is they accepted our self punishment and we're now no 8 in the AP and 8 in the coaches poll with a legit shot to play in a high profile BCS bowl.

Nothing like dancing on the field in 02...

dsbgobux on 11 Oct 2012 - 12:07pm #

I voted No because the NCAA was going to get its pound of flesh no matter what. This incident happened at the wrong time with the NCAA looking to show that they really are in charge. You have to take into account previous rulings. Since Gene Smith served on the committee before he knew past practices. I am still waiting to see what happens to 'the U" considering how our case and PSU went.

Buckeye in PA purgatory

Buckeyevstheworld on 11 Oct 2012 - 12:20pm #

People say yes because Ohio State was 6-6. Had they won the games against MSU, Nebraska, Purdue, and Michigan, you'd be saying no.

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

buckeye76BHop on 11 Oct 2012 - 12:26pm #

If OSU goes undefeated, then we'd be in the National Title game...however...that's not what's going to happen. Defend his dumbass all you want and Gee too. They both messed up...watch Miami U not get much because of them doing that in 2011 with an identical record of 6-6 (unless that recruiting oopsie gets them). Personally, OSU's not worthy of playing in a bowl game with a 6-6 record anyway IMO and I'm sure others feel the same way too.

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."
"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."
Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987

NoVA Buckeye on 11 Oct 2012 - 1:08pm #

We aren't the Yankees of College Football. Alabama is (but Saban doesn't want you to tell anyone. He thinks its unfair that other teams should have the same benefits as Alabama. Shhhh...).

/Duff'd It

WyoBuckeye on 11 Oct 2012 - 1:19pm #

Yes. But only because I now have beenfit of hindsight. I think Gene gambled and lost on that one.

heir2air on 11 Oct 2012 - 3:30pm #

I dont think gene had any idea we would recieve a bowl ban, therefore im going to be honest and say no

dbit on 11 Oct 2012 - 5:41pm #

I don't believe for a second that 70% of us would have imposed a ban last year.

cajunbuckeye on 11 Oct 2012 - 6:57pm #

6-6 was plenty for me. Michiscum was comparable to being kicked in the groin twice. There was absolutely nothing to gain by going to Jacksonville. It's pretty much a home game for Florida. It was just another opportunity to beat on the program on national TV. Gene should have pulled the plug just for those reasons.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

BuckGnome on 11 Oct 2012 - 7:46pm #

Absolutely we should have self-imposed a ban last season!!! I strongly felt this way last year, even after we beat Wisky. Yeah, at the time, the odds seemed against the NCAA imposing a bowl ban for the given infractions. However, it should be abundantly clear to anyone who has followed the NCAA over the years, only a fool would expect consistancy.

Of course, Geno and crew trot out the line now that the NCAA was going to automatically ban us from a bowl this season regardless if a bowl ban was self imposed for 2011. Now THAT is a view with the benefit of hindsight. Or, just plain old spin. Geno, with egg on his face. Again.

There was so little to risk by imposing a bowl ban, and a lot to lose if we didn't.

Nick on 11 Oct 2012 - 7:50pm #

I voted yes. It's not like it was a good team and they werent playing great the last 4 games of the season. Would have just shut down the heartache and not chance a bowl ban next year and give Urban a fresh start .

Et_Tu_OSU on 11 Oct 2012 - 9:06pm #

This was tough, but once Posey got his second second suspension and all that stuff came out, I would've shut it down -- not doing so made us look very prideful and begged that we be made an example of.

"The revolution will be televised."