Player Suspensions

As I am writing this following the Sugar Bowl game, I think that we can all agree that Arkansas fans would definitely prefer that Ohio State's players would have been suspended. And, by way of that, I'm sure most all the SEC fans who can't hold 9-0 over Ohio State will also agree that they should have been suspended. But that's not how it happened.

Depending upon how Auburn does in the national title game, I don't doubt that Oregon fans will all agree that Cameron Newton should be suspended for the bowl game as well. But he's not, barring something very surprising happening in the next 3 days.

The Cam Newton Situation

It was clear that Cameron Newton's father was shenaniganning, but the fact that Cam Newton ended up at Auburn rather than Mississippi State puts everything into a weird situation. From what I understand, it seems that Cam Newton's case fell into a gap in the system: Dad Newton asked for money, which a recruit or player cannot do. But because they can't find any actual money changing hands, and it was the parent of the recruit and not the actual recruit himself asking for money, there is technically no NCAA violation. If I am properly understanding the case here, I'm surprised nobody has accused Dad Newton of deliberately exploiting a loophole in the NCAA bylaws.... yet.

I would also like to say that Dad Newton may well have kept his son in the dark as to his attempts to get some dough out of Mississippi State. He may have used Cam's preference for Mississippi State as an excuse to ask for money for something that was expected to happen regardless. Cam says that he left his father in charge of his college decision, so maybe Dad just wanted Cam to go to Auburn. As bad as things look right now, I'll attempt to withhold judgment on the situation at present.

Anyway, until or unless the NCAA can find actual money (they only found Ohio State's because of a federal investigation and subsequent raid of a tattoo parlor whose owner bought the memorabilia and kept it at said tattoo parlor), their hands are tied. This is not a law enforcement agency with subpoena and search and seizure power. They are an agency that is inherently limited in its ability to investigate the players they are charged with policing. It makes them frustratingly impotent in the face of violations that are often obviously and painfully clear to everybody. But I quite feel better knowing that they can't go raiding dorms and apartments every time they hear a rumor that somebody might have given a lacrosse player a free soda.

The Ohio State Situation Explained

I do understand the issue with the Ohio State players: they claimed that they were not informed by the compliance department that they could not sell their memorabilia. Many people have said that it is their stuff and they should be able to sell it. Except that it was against NCAA rules, which means that they could not sell their stuff. Which means that they did something that was against the rules. And if I am guessing correctly, Ohio State argued that they didn't specifically tell their players that they couldn't sell their stuff, they only told them that they couldn't accept gifts or make money off of their images. This is important when we get into the explanations later.

However, I will point out that this issue came to the fore some while ago when some players (I think from Georgia, but don't quote me on that) tried to sell their conference championship rings on eBay. This produced an outcry heard across the country and either caused the NCAA to either make a rule outlawing such practices, or caused the NCAA to crack down on them. Judging by the "We didn't tell them" defense given by Ohio State, it seems that the NCAA is interpreting an existing rule about not taking money as an equal admonition against making money by selling stuff that is supposed to be personal memorabilia.

Were I the wagering sort, I would bet that such memorabilia sales were pretty common throughout college football and it was only the attempted sale on eBay that shone a light on the practice. Yes, selling the stuff is wrong on some level that cuts down below the level of rationalizing justification. But these are college students we are talking about: they are perpetually broke and have discovered the useful art of creating a full intellectual and moral justification of whatever course of action they preferred in the first place. It helps them do things like drink beers when they are underage, skip class, act like assholes, and generally do all the things that make college a whole heck of a lot of fun.

Anyway, because Ohio State successfully argued that they did not properly inform their players that they could not sell their memorabilia, the NCAA postponed the players' suspensions until next season and allowed them to play in the bowl game. This all hinged vitally on the argument that the Ohio State compliance department told the players all the NCAA rules, but did not tell them specifically that they could not sell their merchandise. It is a bit of a dicey defense, but I think the NCAA's willingness to accept it was based largely on a desire to have one complete package of suspension during one season, rather than one that stretches over the end of one season and the start of the next. However, the fact that it was a standard bowl game (i.e. not the national title game) made that decision easier for the NCAA.

We also might need to accept that Ohio State may not have thought to tell their student-athletes to sell their stuff. I don't know anything about compliance departments or their activities, so I can't even begin to guess about the likelihood or unlikelihood of such an oversight. But there was a loophole, Ohio State jumped through it, and the short time in which to make a decision forced the NCAA into a situation where they needed to make a quick judgment. It may have been technically correct, but it is hard to tell if it was the right decision.

To fans, it seems so obvious that athletes would want to keep their trophies and rings and jerseys and such things that a lot of us are shocked that athletes would want to sell off stuff that they worked so hard to earn. It did not even occur to me that they would want to sell their stuff until I heard of such sales. But they do sell their stuff, whether I want to believe it or not. That's why there are rules against it.

The Ohio State Situation Opined

As a college football fan, I go back and forth on the timing of the Ohio State suspensions. There were clearly some shenanigans going on at Ohio State and those players should absolutely be suspended for them. However, as to whether they should be suspended for the Sugar Bowl is not all that clear. But, if you accept the idea that the Sugar Bowl is really just an exhibition game that has no bearing on the national title, then suspending them for the Sugar Bowl would be no punishment at all, as that argument makes the Sugar Bowl into a throwaway game.

From the point of view of an Ohio State fan, I also go back and forth on the suspensions. If the five players begin their suspensions in the Sugar Bowl, then they will be eligible for the entire Big Ten season next year, even if their absence during the non-conference season screws up their national title chances. If they begin their suspensions at the start of next season, they will be out for the entire non-conference season (possibly screwing up their national title chances) and the Big Ten opener against defending Big Ten co-champion Michigan State (possibly screwing up their Big Ten title chances), returning only for a huge game at Nebraska in week 6—when the suspended players will be playing their first game of the year against a powerful Nebraska team that will quite literally be in mid-season form.

Much of the emotional reaction to this situation boils down to one's own ideas on one idea: do you consider college football to be a chase for the national title, or do you consider that there are important championships other than just the one for number one? By the responses of fans across the country, it seems that college football is more than just the chase for the national title.

On the one hand, I was glad they played in the Sugar Bowl, because it would allow them a much better chance of winning than if they hadn't. But I also would have preferred that they be suspended for the Sugar Bowl so that they would get next season's suspensions ended that much sooner, allowing the Buckeyes to maybe put together a run for the Rose Bowl or national championship next year. I was torn on the issue, depending on what I chose to focus on and value at the time.

On the other hand, you could argue that the NCAA should have come down hard on them for whatever your particular motivation might be. You could also argue that the NCAA should butt out and college sports should work on payments and payouts. The first is a fine example of the aforementioned ability to justify one's own personal preference. The latter is not germane to the present situation, though it may also be an example of justifying one's own personal preference.

As for whether their appearance in the Sugar Bowl was right or wrong, I won't even pretend to have an idea. Lenience can be a blessing. Sometimes it can be a guilty pleasure. The punishment itself is not nearly as important as the lesson that the individual players take away from it—and that is an unknowable element that can only be seen in time.

A Side Note

As a coda to the Ohio State situation, I would like to point out a memory of mine that may or may not be entirely correct.

In 1991, UNLV basketball got caught for some violations whose punishments included being held out of the NCAA tournament. Well, they happened to be ranked number 1 in the country that year after winning the previous year's national championship. UNLV asked for the ability to be suspended for the postseason the following season, in order to allow the UNLV basketball team a chance to defend their national championship. A great lot of people were very happy that the NCAA allowed UNLV to defend their title, as there was a lot of excitement surrounding the team and many fans of the game wanted to see them win the title again.

As everyone knows, they got knocked out of the tournament by Duke in a result that has reverberated through the years into a legend. But it should be said that the NCAA understood in that situation that there are some things bigger than throwing the book at teams and players, and they were willing to make some concessions in the name of sport. And, had Duke won the tournament that year without UNLV in it, it would have been said that the tournament victory was meaningless because they didn't play UNLV. The Fates have a funny way of doing things... as does the NCAA.

And One Final Topic: Going Pro?

From a monetary standpoint, Cam Newton should go pro, regardless of the NFL's labor troubles. Another year is not going to improve his draft stock. At present, he is riding as high as he realistically can, and the potential for injury behooves him to take the big contract while it is available. And if his family did take an Auburn payoff, then he has got to get out of college as soon as possible, lest the NCAA find the money. If the family didn't take any money, then if he truly loves playing for and being at Auburn, then he can feel free to put love over money and hang around another year. If they did, then he needs to get out as soon as possible.

Cam Newton's situation is fairly simple. The Ohio State players are in a different situation that is largely the result of their looming suspensions.

I've read a lot of perfectly ridiculous things about what the Ohio State players should do, vis-a-vis going pro. The funny thing about it is that this is exactly where the punishments meted out by the NCAA are so damaging: all of the suspended players could use another year to improve their draft stock. But the players can't improve their draft stock if they are on the bench.

I recently saw an ESPN poll asking whether Terrelle Pryor is going pro. 60% of the country said yes, 40% said no. The funny thing was when you looked at the breakdown by state: Ohio was 59% no, 41% yes. Every single other state said he will go pro after this year. Umm.... why would he want to go pro? His throwing mechanics have improved and he is tossing a better ball than before, but he is still not an NFL quarterback. Unless he wants to spend his pro career returning kicks, he needs another year in college.

However, one other thing I would like to note about Terrelle Pryor: he has not shied away from the heat. He stood there on the podium after the win in the Sugar Bowl and publicly apologized to everyone there and at home for what he did. He knew it was wrong, he didn't try to hide, he didn't try to pretend that it wasn't wrong, he perfectly admitted that he did something wrong, he didn't try to justify it, and has said he is sorry for it. He can come across as pretty cocky, but he has been surprisingly honest since the story broke and amazingly contrite for a guy who could have been evasive, defensive, or combative.

As for Devier Posey and Dan Herron, I see them as somewhere in the neighborhood of 4th round picks, though I've seen some draft valuations that put them somewhere in the 2nd round (which shows how much I know). They are both talented, but neither has truly and fully distinguished himself as a top pick with tons of NFL upside. Both could use another year of football to improve their draft position. But even if the NCAA drops their suspensions to 4 games each, they are still going to be out for about one-third of their payoff seasons. These two have the toughest choices to make, since they could use another year to improve their contracts, but they are losing much of their opportunity to do so if they do return.

But it should also be noted that the CBA issues make the NFL that much less attractive for Posey and Herron. They could get lost in the shuffle if the NFL season is lost and they find themselves without a team to play on and no spotlight to stand in. However, Herron has a lot of young running backs lined up behind him, so he has additional concerns if he decides to stay. Of the two, I think Dan Herron is the more likely to leave, as Posey will definitely still be a featured receiver next year, while Dan Herron may lose carries to younger backs.

Mike Adams could definitely use another year, as he has been good but not dominant at left tackle. He may not improve his stock as much as he could have, but it seems like he could use another year no matter what.

And for those writers saying that Solomon Thomas, a backup defensive lineman, should declare for the NFL, you are retarded. That means you, Andy Staples. You may not be happy with the NCAA's rules on amateurism, but recommending that a kid declare for the NFL before he has any chance of being picked up by a team is like telling someone else to pick a fight with the big guy in the corner because he said something rude to someone else. Being relegated to a league that produces fewer NFL prospects than Ohio State alone would be mind-bogglingly short-sighted. He may not help his draft stock all that much while he is suspended, but falling off the face of the earth is not the way to improve it. He can do a lot more to help his football career in 8-9 games at Ohio State than he can in however-many UFL games are played each year.