7596's picture


Member since 27 June 2011 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 26 | Leaderboard

Voting Record: 0 / 0

Recent Activity

Comment 01 Sep 2013

If only:

The win improved the Buckeyes to 35-0 in season openers since falling to Penn State way back in 1978...

OSU lost in '99 to Miami and in '86 to Bama. Those were Kickoff Classics, so maybe that's why they didn't turn up.

Comment 25 Nov 2011
"I still can't shake the fact Michigan State gutted them for 333 yards on the ground a week after Ohio State held Sparty to 78." MSU had 333 *total* yards against Mich, not rushing.
Comment 17 Jul 2011
Regarding OSU's self-imposed penalties, let's be fair: --Probation means nothing unless you get in trouble again; --Vacating the entire season wasn't magnanimous; it was obligatory (since OSU fielded ineligible players the entire regular season, as the school itself has admitted); --Forcing out Tressel, while painful, was again obligatory (how can anyone employ a head coach who has willfully deceived the NCAA?). The devil's advocate position, basically, is that OSU has yet to accept a truly punitive penalty. Of course a school can't keep wins attained with ineligible players or a head coach who commits a 10.1; that goes without saying. We may not like that point of view or the way some people have presented it, but it's not an unreasonable perspective.
Comment 13 Jul 2011

Hey, Joe--good post, but one thing needs to be cleared up:


Bennett, like Curtis, is also apparently incensed about the university dropping the fine for Tressel, but he goes further by saying that the probation is merely a "slap on the wrist" and claims that Tressel "knowingly used ineligible players all of last season". I wonder if Bennett really believes that, if Tressel had reported the violations on time, the players would have been suspended "all of last season". The suspensions they actually got were only for 5 games and that was after Tressel covered it up for the whole season. Does Bennett think the punishment would have been worse if Tressel had done everything according to the rules?


Tressel did use ineligible players the whole season. OSU acknowledges this in its response. (Page I-9: "(T)he institution recognized that Tressel competed ineligible players for the entire 2010 football season.") It doesn't matter that the suspensions ended up being five games. They were ineligible the whole year because of how the matter was handled.

The way student-athlete eligibility works is this: An ineligible player remains ineligible until he's officially reinstated by the NCAA. The moment the school becomes aware that there's an eligibility issue, the affected player(s) can't play until they're reinstated. Tressel knew there was an issue before the season, but the Tat Five didn't go through reinstatement until December. Therefore, he knowingly used at least one ineligible player (Pryor) the entire regular season. This is why the whole thing* had to be vacated, not just the first five games.

*-The Sugar Bowl is trickier, since the NCAA reinstated the players for that game. But, since Tressel was in the midst of committing a 10.1 violation at that time by not being forthcoming, it's hard to argue that OSU should get to keep the W.

Comment 29 Jun 2011

A top assistant resigning in the middle of June is news because it's surprising.

The school replacing him two weeks later isn't because it's not.