What's new

What do you think of the NCAA allowing the Ohio State player who were suspended to play?

What should the NCAA have done?

  • 6 game suspensions for next season seem appropriate. Good job NCAA

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They shouldn't have been in the Sugar Bowl. NCAA showed preferential treatment to Ohio State.

    Votes: 7 100.0%

  • Total voters
    7

Chad Feldheimer

Well-Known Member
Two weeks ago five Ohio State players, who were suspended five games for NCAA violations, were allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl and serve the entire suspension at the start of next season. The players, including star QB Terelle Pryor, sold memorabilia and/or received discounted rates for tattoos in 2009.
 
Had it been Kellen Moore or Andy Dalton, I wonder if there would have been such a weak penalty.
 
Had it been Kellen Moore or Andy Dalton, I wonder if there would have been such a weak penalty.

I seriously doubt it especially in the case of Dalton playing in a BCS game. This just shows how crooked the NCAA really is. They are in the back pocket of the BCS and ESPN and this is pretty much the proof in the pudding. The Cam Newton deal is another case of questionable decisions made to the benefit of big name programs.
 
This thought crossed my mind:
The NCAA contacted Ohio State and said, we'll suspend them x number of weeks if you let them play in the Sugar Bowl. If you suspend them for the Sugar Bowl, our suspension doubles.
 
Back
Top