Killer Nuts Tailgating

I need it. I want it. And tonight, I’m going to get it.

I’ve heard plenty more discussion — more than I wanted to, anyway — about the suspensions today. There seem to be a couple points people are making, both of which deflect at least some of the blame away from the players and the athletics department. Both points are worth taking a look at:

The NCAA’s rulebook is a mess. Well, yeah, I can’t argue with that. The rules are numbingly complex and enforcement is infuriatingly uneven. The NCAA had an explanation about why the suspensions weren’t starting with the Sugar Bowl, but that explanation is a beautiful example of what exactly the underlying problem is:

The decision from the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff does not include a withholding condition for the Allstate Sugar Bowl. The withholding condition was suspended and the student-athletes will be eligible to play in the bowl game Jan. 4 based on several factors.

These include the acknowledgment the student-athletes did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred, (NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs Kevin) Lennon said.

NCAA policy allows suspending withholding penalties for a championship or bowl game if it was reasonable at the time the student-athletes were not aware they were committing violations, along with considering the specific circumstances of each situation. In addition, there must not be any competitive advantage related to the violations, and the student-athletes must have eligibility remaining.

The policy for suspending withholding conditions for bowl games or NCAA championship competition recognizes the unique opportunity these events provide at the end of a season, and they are evaluated differently from a withholding perspective. In this instance, the facts are consistent with the established policy, Lennon said.

Uh, yeah. That is technically an explanation, but I’m not sure it’s one that going to make the questions — the ones about television ratings and postseason money — go away.

The rules put scholarship athletes at a financial disadvantage. I don’t remember whether I’ve said this here or at Uncle Crappy, but the system that forbids players from holding jobs while their university makes bucketloads of money selling everything from tickets to jerseys with those players numbers is ridiculous.

In my mind, the solution is pretty simple — pay them. Give them a stipend. It doesn’t have to be much, but it should be enough that it helps remove some of the temptation to, I don’t know, sell championship rings or Gold Pants for pizza money.

There’s a whole sociology dissertation behind this question; it encompasses race, social and economic status, idol worship and a host of other factors. A stipend wouldn’t solve all those problems, but it would ease the disparity between the athletes and the institutions that are making all that money.

Those are both legitimate problems and without a doubt, they both contributed to the suspensions. However, I’m still having a hard time getting past the university’s admission that it did not do enough to make sure its student-athletes had a thorough understanding of NCAA compliance rules. As I said, those rules are baffling and, in many cases, stupid — but they are still the rules. And if Ohio State wasn’t doing everything in its power to provide its scholarship athletes know those rules, that’s the first place we have to point the finger.

The first half of the 2011 season ain’t going to be pretty.

That’s because five boneheads thought they could cash in on Gold Pants, championship rings and game-used jerseys and shoes. And more importantly, because Ohio State’s athletics department apparently didn’t do enough to let those boneheads know about the ins and outs of improper benefits.

AD Gene Smith is going over the NCAA’s findings at a news conference right now, but the release from the NCAA pretty much says all I need to hear. The facts:

• Terrelle Pryor, Boom Herron, Mike Adams, Devier Posey and Solomon Thomas all must sit out the first five games of the season, for selling Gold Pants — the gold charms team members receive from the university when the team beats Michigan — Big Ten championship rings, and stuff they wore during games.
• A sixth player, linebacker Jordan Whiting, must miss one game.
• All six players have to make financial restitution, ranging from $150 to $2,500, to an NCAA-approved charity.

Let’s recap: Pryor. Posey. Herron. Adams. What do you think the offense is going to look like through September of next year? Sure, as Jim Tressel will say, we’ve got some guys, but those four are all-conference performers with all-American potential. The first two games of that stretch are Akron and Toledo; the last three are at Miami — and not the one in Oxford, Ohio, boys and girls — and against Colorado and a Michigan State team that very badly will want to prove this year was not a fluke.

Anyone else cringing at the thought of a 3-2 start? And if Colorado is better, howsabout 2-3?

Bottom line No. 1: The players should know better. Yes, many of these guys were in junior high school when Troy Smith had to sit out a couple games for taking improper benefits in 2005, but that’s still a shining definition of “improper benefits” and what the consequences should be. And it happened just five years ago.

Bottom line No. 2: Check this quote from AD Smith:

“We were not as explicit with our student-athlete education as we should have been in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years regarding the sale of apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department,” Smith said. “We began to significantly improve our education in November of 2009 to address these issues. After going through this experience, we will further enhance our education for all our student-athletes as we move forward.”

I have questions, Gene.

• Why wasn’t the athletics department doing comprehensive compliance education in 2007, 2008 or 2009? That’s just one season removed from Troy Smith’s suspension; it seems to me there would have been a need.
• Is there not a class on what student-athletes can and cannot do? I would think that’s something that every scholarship athlete should have to sit through the minute he or she first sets foot on campus — and then again every single fall.
• Why the change in November 2009? Did something else happen? Should we be waiting for worse news?

I don’t want to leave Tressel out of this either. It’s unrealistic to expect a coaching staff to know the comings and goings of 100-plus football players. It’s not, however, unrealistic to expect that a coach like Tressel — who is know for meticulous, thorough preparation — would make sure his players know the specifics of what is acceptable under the NCAA rules and what is not.

The suspensions don’t take place during the upcoming Sugar Bowl — and I’m not sure I give a shit. I wrote on Uncle Crappy a couple days ago — half-jokingly — about the conflict I’m feeling about the Winter Classic hockey game in Pittsburgh on New Year’s Day and the Sugar Bowl.

I was excited about both, and my superstitious side has been growing uncomfortable with mixing mojo as the games approach. This could change, but if you were to ask me right now, I’d say watching the Sugar Bowl doesn’t seem especially exciting.