When it comes to the NCAA, Ohio State and the Sugar Bowl, the hypocrisy seems almost endless.
Talkin' to myself about Ohio State, the NCAA and selling championship rings . . .
Question: Who comes off the worst in the NCAA's punishment of six Ohio State football players?
Four of the Ohio State players who will be suspended for five games next year after playing in Tuesday's Sugar Bowl: From left, DeVier Posey, Mike Adams, Boom Herron and Terrelle Pryor.Answer: It's not even close, it's the NCAA. The more the organization tries to explain how it can keep six Buckeye players eligible for the Sugar Bowl, but not for the first five regular-season games -- well, the higher the pile of hypocrisy. That's especially true since Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan admits pressuring the NCAA to let Terrelle Pryor, Dan Herron and the others play against Arkansas.
Q: What is the rationale of allowing them to play in the bowl game, but miss the first five games of next season?
A: It's about having a good show on television in the Sugar Bowl, period. If the offense was so serious, then they should miss the bowl game. But the Sugar Bowl CEO talked about allowing those guys to play to ensure the "integrity" of the game.
Q: Isn't a statement like that embarrassing?
A: Of course.
Q: Why can't the players sell their Big Ten Championship rings and gold pants they received for winning the Michigan game?
A: In the past, players sold tickets, jerseys and other items for outrageous sums to "friends of the program." The NCAA doesn't want someone paying Pryor $100,000 for his ring -- because that would be like paying the guy to play. Pryor received a total of $2,500 for his 2008 Big Ten title ring, his 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship trophy and his 2008 gold pants for beating Michigan. Solomon Thomas was paid $1,350 for his ring and gold pants and DeVier Posey pocketed $1,350. It seems like all of these guys could have made more if they put the items on eBay.
Q: Do you believe the players didn't know this was against the rules?
A: Ohio State has seven compliance officers to tell coaches and players about the rules. It's doubtful they had no idea something was wrong -- or maybe they would have put the stuff on eBay or somewhere else where the items would have brought a better price rather than sell it to a guy who runs a tattoo parlor in a backroom deal.
Q: Does it bother you they sold this stuff?
A: A friend named Amanda told me, "I'd never sell a ring like that." A guy named Jim came up to me, shook his head, and asked how you could sell the gold pants from beating Michigan. Jim told me, "You wish these things would mean more to the players."
Q: Why doesn't it?
A: One reason is big-time college football is viewed as a way to get to the NFL, not a special moment in their lives. Another is because they are young and want what they want now, be it a tattoo or something else. My guess is that years from now they will wish they had kept the stuff.
Q: Didn't some OSU officials say they sold the stuff because they come from poor families?
A: Yes, they did. They also said the school should have done a better job educating the players. Both explanations sounded more like lame excuses.
Q: Isn't a scholarship all that the players receive?
A: Let's not turn this into a debate about if players should be paid. But let's also not dismiss what free tuition, books, room and board would mean to most families. But there is something else available to some players.
Q: What?
A: If a player comes from a low-income family, he can qualify for a Pell Grant -- it's about $5,500 a year. I talked to one Division I athletic director who said "several" of his football players receive Pell Grants. A Division I basketball coach at another school told me "at least six" of his scholarship players also receive Pell Grants. It's not a path to luxury, but it is about $100 a week.
Q: Do we know if the Buckeye players were receiving Pell Grants?
A: We don't. We also don't know if the money they received from selling their Buckeye stuff went to pay the light bill for mom back home. The fact the money came through a tattoo parlor makes it seem this was about tattoos.
Q: Aren't you coming down hard on the athletes?
A: In the big NCAA picture, what they did should be considered minor. It should be a game or two that they sit out. But the NCAA committed the mortal sin of wanting these guys to play in the Sugar Bowl, but wanting to appear tough. So they came up with the first five games of 2011. What the players did was sort of dumb and self-serving. What the NCAA did is yet another reason so many people have good reason to hate the NCAA.
Q: Do you believe the players when they told Jim Tressel they would not turn pro and return for 2011?
A: Tressel said that's why he decided to play them in the Sugar Bowl. I believe that's what they told the coach at the end of 2010. I would be shocked if all six of them feel the same way as the NFL draft approaches.
Q: Do you think the NCAA imposed the five-game penalty for next season because it thought some of the players would turn pro in the spring?
A: Given how cynical their ruling is concerning the Sugar Bowl and bowing to pressure, what do you think?