Skip to content

Buckeyes land top OT and TE prospects.

College Football Forum
47 8 2.2k
  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #32

    If I remember correctly, OSU could have self imposed the bowl ban the year before when they went 6-6, but Gene Smith chose not to. I think he thought they were bullet proof.

    It is also hard to praise the transparency of the athletic department when the issue surrounded a coach lying to the NCAA.

  • @mld-woody said:

    The statement that the ban was horseshit was what I was referring to

    Trust me, none of your statements are hard to comprehend. It is very obvious what you're attempting to say or troll

    Who said anything about the ban being horseshit or not. I am simply saying that without the ban, an 12-0 Ohio State team would have to be considered a contender for a national title.

    Is there anything about that you disagree with?

    MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #33

    @the-gipper said:

    Who said anything about the ban being horseshit or not. I am simply saying that without the ban, an 12-0 Ohio State team would have to be considered a contender for a national title.

    Is there anything about that you disagree with?

    My original post in the chain was a response to Cysko's. It sounded like, to me at least, he was describing the bowl ban as horse shit.

    I don't remember all of the teams at the top that year (was that the ND vs Bama year?) but yes, OSU would have been strongly in consideration.

  • At least Vagitron trolls for a good team

    MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #34

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    At least Vagitron trolls for a good team

    I don't think you understand what trolling is

  • @the-cysko-kid said:

    At least Vagitron trolls for a good team

    I don't think you understand what trolling is

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #35

    @mld-woody said:

    I don't think you understand what trolling is

    We have our own definition of trolling: If you are not a Browns fan and you post on this forum.....you are a troll. And we don't give a damn how "nice" you may be.

    For the "College Football Forum" I guess it can be different. This isn't the "Buckeyes Board"....so even though you are a fan/alum of that team up north....you may not be a troll per se.

  • @the-gipper said:

    Who said anything about the ban being horseshit or not. I am simply saying that without the ban, an 12-0 Ohio State team would have to be considered a contender for a national title.

    Is there anything about that you disagree with?

    My original post in the chain was a response to Cysko's. It sounded like, to me at least, he was describing the bowl ban as horse shit.

    I don't remember all of the teams at the top that year (was that the ND vs Bama year?) but yes, OSU would have been strongly in consideration.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #36

    @mld-woody said:

    My original post in the chain was a response to Cysko's. It sounded like, to me at least, he was describing the bowl ban as horse shit.

    Well, the punishment for the whole selling of trinkets.....trinkets which belonged personally to those players....for tattoos or a little bit of cash....is pure pettiness given that we are pretty certain that the SEC throws around hundreds of thousands of dollars under the table for their players. It really warranted nothing more than a slight slap on the wrist. But, yes, the failure to disclose those technical violations is what got the team/coach in trouble.

  • If I remember correctly, OSU could have self imposed the bowl ban the year before when they went 6-6, but Gene Smith chose not to. I think he thought they were bullet proof.

    It is also hard to praise the transparency of the athletic department when the issue surrounded a coach lying to the NCAA.

    tiamat63T tiamat63 wrote on last edited by tiamat63
    #37

    @mld-woody said:

    If I remember correctly, OSU could have self imposed the bowl ban the year before when they went 6-6, but Gene Smith chose not to. I think he thought they were bullet proof.

    It is also hard to praise the transparency of the athletic department when the issue surrounded a coach lying to the NCAA.

    OSU offered to self impose the bowl ban but the NCAA kind went "meh" until they threw down their own little gauntlet.

    One coach lying to the NCAA hardly befits the narrative that the athletic department wasn't "transparent". I'll also give Tressel this credit, once the emails were out there - he fully cooperated. Again, this in stark contrast to what you see/saw at USC and Miami with allegations that make what happened at tOSU look like nothing.

  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #38

    He fully cooperated after he got caught lying? Hard to give Tressel any benefit of the doubt with the track record he had before that.

  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #39

    Gipper, the punishment for the players caught selling stuff was their suspensions. Which got waived for the Biwl Game and some just left without having to sit out.

    I agree though, the SEC does much worse stuff on a daily basis.

  • Gipper, the punishment for the players caught selling stuff was their suspensions. Which got waived for the Biwl Game and some just left without having to sit out.

    I agree though, the SEC does much worse stuff on a daily basis.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #40

    @mld-woody said:

    Gipper, the punishment for the players caught selling stuff was their suspensions. Which got waived for the Biwl Game and some just left without having to sit out.

    I agree though, the SEC does much worse stuff on a daily basis.

    Well, they would have probably had like a one game suspension for that.....which could have been served at some point in the season.

    There would have been no bowl ban for that. Tressel not being forthcoming got the bowl ban.

  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #41

    I understand the bowl ban resulted from Tressel lying.

    I thought the players suspensions were 4 games starting the next season?

  • I understand the bowl ban resulted from Tressel lying.

    I thought the players suspensions were 4 games starting the next season?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #42

    @mld-woody said:

    I understand the bowl ban resulted from Tressel lying.

    I thought the players suspensions were 4 games starting the next season?

    I don't recall what they were....but 4 games would have been absurd. For selling or trading your own property for very little?

  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #43

    The rule is dumb, but rules are rules. I agree with you, they should be able too. But there is no grey area there. And they got to play in the bowl game, so they probably extended it to make up for it

    Didn't Dez Bryant lose an entire season for something even dumber?

  • He fully cooperated after he got caught lying? Hard to give Tressel any benefit of the doubt with the track record he had before that.

    tiamat63T tiamat63 wrote on last edited by
    #44

    @mld-woody said:

    Tressel any benefit of the doubt with the track record he had before that.

    Record before that ?

  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #45

    Start at YSU and go from there

  • Start at YSU and go from there

    Browns149B Browns149 wrote on last edited by
    #46

    @mld-woody said:

    Start at YSU and go from there

    So 5 National Titles and going 9-1 against meatchicken.

  • @mld-woody said:

    Start at YSU and go from there

    So 5 National Titles and going 9-1 against meatchicken.

    MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #47

    @browns149 said:

    So 5 National Titles and going 9-1 against meatchicken.

    @browns149 said:

    So 5 National Titles and going 9-1 against meatchicken.

    Ya... Just that....