FanDuel - WFBC

December 23, 2010

NCAA Suspends Pryor, 4 Others for Selling Memorabilia: The NCAA is suspending five Ohio State University players for the first five games of 2011, including quarterback Terrelle Pryor, running back Daniel Herron and wide receiver Devier Posey, for selling their championship rings, jerseys and other memorabilia. None of the players made more than $2,500, judging by the amount they must reimburse the school. Pryor sold items because "he wanted to help his mother," his high school coach Ray Reitz told ESPN.

posted by rcade to football at 02:37 PM - 16 comments

I love that the NCAA isn't banning them from the Sugar Bowl because they didn't receive enough education from Ohio State on impermissible benefits. So one of the top programs in the country who has one of the biggest football budgets in the sport didn't tell Prior & Co. "No impermissible benefits of any kind. No matter what. Period. If you aren't sure, ask us." Really? I mean, really?

Yeah, they also said that it didn't effect their performance, but couldn't the same thing be said for 99% of suspensions?

I would love for just honesty at this point from the NCAA. That would be a good 1st step.

posted by brainofdtrain at 02:10 PM on December 23

What about the Kansas State basketball players (Pullen & Kelly) guilty of similar violations just two days before? They only got three games. I'm not saying that anyone should be given more or less in terms of punishment, but how about being a little more even handed NCAA?

posted by Tinman at 03:56 PM on December 23

Blows my mind somebody would sell their championship ring for a measly $1,000.

posted by phaedon at 04:21 PM on December 23

Ohio State Suspends Pryor, 4 Others for Selling Memorabilia

Not Ohio State, the NCAA.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:36 PM on December 23

Not Ohio State, the NCAA.

Fixed. I read an earlier story about Ohio State doling out the punishments ahead of the NCAA.

posted by rcade at 04:52 PM on December 23

I had read that OSU suspended all involved for the bowl game, but the NCAA put the kaibosh on that suspension. I'm a huge OSU fan, but that seems strange if it's true.

posted by tahoemoj at 05:02 PM on December 23

7 full time staffers and two interns in the compliance dept at OSU and they didn't give adequate education on impermissible benefits??? Not buying that.

Also not buying that they sold the items to raise money for their families. "I only did it for dear old mama" just doesn't cut it when they could have easily worked around that. Just give mama the ring, and let her hock it. That, and the part about the tattoos makes me not care too much about these guys. (not that they got tattoos, but that they got discounts that they obviously should have known were violations)

posted by dviking at 06:24 PM on December 23

It amuses me that they weren't suspended for the bowl game. NCAA is keeping its priorities in order.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:26 PM on December 23

Selling trinkets supposedly to raise cash to help players' families won't need to happen much longer.

Any day now, Cam Newton's dad will be coming out with his blockbuster series of motivational DVD's that will reverse the equation once and for all.

"Shop Your Son"

Collect the whole set. Do it while supplies last and he'll also send you...

I guess it's too bad that OSU won't be playing the Little Sisters of the Poor the first half of the 2011 season.

posted by beaverboard at 07:57 PM on December 23

No suspension for bowl game? Possibility that one or more of the players will never serve suspension if they turn pro. Why is NCAA's enforcement so haphazard? It's not about a national championship game like Cam Newton. It's not about the money because the Sugar Bowl and network payouts are already decided. So, what could be NCAA reasoning be for no bowl suspension? What is left? GAMBLING. How would a suspension impact the line and the money already bet?

posted by graymatters at 08:52 PM on December 23

Five games seems like an awfully harsh penalty for such small amounts of money. I guess it's the principle, but the principle of athlete amateurism is harder to justify with each new college football TV deal.

posted by rcade at 09:31 PM on December 23

The NCAA's reasoning for not suspending them for the bowl game.

The players did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred.

Something tells me the NCAA is more concerned with keeping the Sugar Bowl competitive than it is in punishing these players.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:48 PM on December 23

I love that the NCAA isn't banning them from the Sugar Bowl because they didn't receive enough education from Ohio State on impermissible benefits. So one of the top programs in the country who has one of the biggest football budgets in the sport didn't tell Prior & Co. "No impermissible benefits of any kind. No matter what. Period. If you aren't sure, ask us." Really? I mean, really?

exactly, braino. All 5 that received the 5-game bust are juniors. They have been in a high visibility NCAA football program for 3 years. I would guess that they might be able to read at at least the 6th grade level, and comprehend what 'impermissible' means. The only player who might be excused for not knowing any better is the freshman Whiting, who received only a 1-game bust, and even he should have been aware of the ban on benefits. When stuff like this happens, I can only believe that the entire program has some element of corruption beneath the surface, and that the coach and athletic director certainly had to be doing more to find and prevent it. This crap only happens when coaches turn their backs and look more at the won-lost numbers than the well-being of their players.

Terrelle Pryor was heavily recruited by Penn State, but chose Ohio State. As a Penn State fan, I am now somewhat happy he's in Columbus, and not in Happy Valley.

posted by Howard_T at 10:52 PM on December 23

This is one way the Ohio State 5 can avoid the NCAA. Not sure I would recommend it to some of those kids, but the NCAA outdid themselves with this ruling.

posted by roberts at 07:04 AM on December 24

Can anyone think of another incident where a player is caught for some violation during a season, only to be punished the next season? Seems to be ground-breaking precident on the NCAA's part....

posted by FonGu at 05:34 AM on December 26

Can anyone think of another incident where a player is caught for some violation during a season, only to be punished the next season?

Well, clearly there is some precedence. Reggie Bush caught and punished several years later. Cam Newton caught and punishment to be determined if at all, but not until the NCAA and BCS and TV have gotten their money. The NCAA is a joke. I'm not saying I would have punished these kids for what they did, but if you are going to have rules enforce them and enforce them equitably.

posted by graymatters at 08:13 PM on December 26

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.