Interesting column from CFT's Pete Fiutak...
Why is Ohio State only getting punished by losing five games of eligibility for Terrelle Pryor and the Tattoo Five, and why did they all get to play in the Sugar Bowl? Was the punishment five games instead of six because the road trip to Nebraska is that sixth game? Where’s the "institutional control" over the Buckeye football program. And more importantly, since it’s not OSU President E. Gordon Gee, who has control over Jim Tressel? Ohio State, at least for the moment, doesn’t appear to be worthy of getting hammered with any major sanctions, but Pryor was outside of any sort of institutional control, just like there was no control over Bush.
Just like with Andy Staples piece it is clear that NCAA leaves itself very little room here. But as we all know the NCAA rule book is written in pencil. Its rules, like ice cream, are easily melted to suit their needs.
That has been the problem with most of the punditry attempting to comment on this...they attempt to use a rational thought process to try and figure the NCAA out.
Members of the media who attended the sham "mock" exercise last month clearly got sucked into the NCAA's PR machine. What few pieces written that called the NCAA were weak at best. I see it as enabling the NCAA who is now trying to be "transparent".
Until the NCAA is hit hard in the wallet and forced to change they will remain unchecked.
I think Fiutak means well with this piece but like Larry Scott he way behind the curve in calling out the NCAA.
Too little, too late...
UPDATE: After the jump.
You have to love the internet...someone always remembers something.
Fiutak wrote THIS after the sanctions were announced last June.
It appears they got away with it.
While it might seem like the two-year postseason ban and the reduction of as many as 20 scholarships for the USC Trojans is a big deal, this isn’t as big a deal as it might seem. We've got to consider USC cares mostly about being in the national title hunt and wouldn’t be for the next two years anyway. The punishment isn’t going to be any sort of a deterrent.[...]
You want to punish USC, NCAA? You want to do something with some teeth that will keep programs from cheating? Force the school to give back its share of 2004 bowl money, TV revenue, and the dough made from merchandise and ticket sales. Force USC to open the 2004 books, and whatever the football team brought in, that’s the fine. If the season didn’t happen and the wins are vacated, then so should the revenue made off of them.
[...]
This wasn’t a death penalty and it wasn’t the mega-hit that the program should’ve taken if all the allegations and violations really are true. The precedent has been set, big-time college football programs. Keep on doing what you’re doing.
I will have to be honest, I do not remeber this piece when it came out. I even searched CC's archives and the story didn't come up. Guess I missed it when the sanctions were announced.
Anyway...
Somebody on one of the boards said Fiutak is the worst writer in all of college football. He is pretty close...right up there with the insufferable Pat Forde.
I would love to hear Fiutak tell us just how bad OSU should be punished like he did above...if USC was so bad last year then how bad is Ohio State now? Anyone with half a brain can see that USC was over punished. The infractions were the foundation of the punishment. USC's real crime was not kissing the NCAA's ring. Something Pat Haden has been trying to do since he got here.
Even with all we know and with new developments popping up practically everyday, OSU's football infractions alone lapped anything that USC was sited for combined.
Looks like Fiutak spoke a little too soon to grab the salacious headline last June...I wonder what he will write when the final results the Ohio State mess come in.
We'll see...