bamawriter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 26,209
- Likes
- 16,429
Are you asking why the players weren't declared retroactively ineligible when this came to light in December? I believe the answer to that question is that all five players have remaining eligibility, so it just makes more sense to suspend them (i.e. render them ineligible to play) for 5 of next season's games. This way the players themselves are actually punished.
And it's a good thing that the players are receiving some punishment. But they could have easily avoided it by declaring for the draft. But hey, it all worked out.
My whole point is that this is the first time that I can recall a team not vacating games that violators played in between the time of the infractions and the time of reinstatement. And I totally believe that the purpose of not declaring them ineligible for those games as for the well-being of the Sugar Bowl. The unintended consequence is the NCAA getting embarassed now that we know that Tressel knew all along.