Jason G wrote:Spence wrote:It appears the NCAA has dropped the ball again on this case. No reason to shorten the penalty.
http://sportales.com/football/ncaa-shortens-ohio-state-players-suspensions/
No way they should shorten the penalty, it is already way too short. When Akron's QB found himself in a similar spot in 2009 he never returned to the team. This is because Akron did the correct thing and suspended him indefinitely while allowing him to keep his scholarship for academic reasons. Schools should send the message that playing is a priviledge and the rules must be followed, just because you are the starting QB or star player does not mean you and/or your buddies should be treated differently.
I'm still wondering where the school-imposed suspensions are for these players. A respectable program headed by an honorable coach like Tressel has to take some action themselves as well, don't they?
I agree they shouldn't shorten the penalty. The suspensions by the school were less than the NCAA. I think that five games is probably enough of a penalty for the players. They didn't break the law, they sold their own property - although it was against NCAA rules and I believe the players knew it was against the rules. The only thing I disagree with is that I don't think the players should have played in the Sugar Bowl. I do think the fact that they all are returning to serve their suspensions says something about the players taking responsibility for their actions and also speaks to Tressel's influence over them. I can't say I am as satisfied with the way Gene Smith handled this whole thing. Smith should have told the Sugar Bowl people and Jim Delany that the school will discipline the players with out regard to the financial considerations of the league or the Sugar Bowl.
