The monkey is gone

[Greg Farra]

Well, Ohio State finally beat an SEC team. Good try, Hogs. :smilies0262::smilies0262::smilies0262::smilies026 2:

[Kevin Rector]

It was a great game, I was on the edge of my seat the entire second half. The first half was really disappointing, that wasn't the Razorbacks that I'd been watching all year. With all due respect to the Ohio State defense, which played well, Arkansas beat themselves in the first half. I've never seen so many dropped passes that should have been caught. I think the boys were really nervous in the first half. Unlike Ohio State, it was the first big bowl game for any of the Razorbacks.

Having said that, Ohio State did a good job of keeping the pressure on Mallett. Cameron Heyward was the player of the game in my opinion. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if not for Cameron Heyward, Arkansas would have won the game. He didn't get credit for them all, but without him I'm not sure that any of the 4 sacks would have happened. He was just all over the place.

Another observation (after watching this game and two other Ohio State games this year), comparisons in the media notwithstanding, Pryor is no Cam Newton. Newton is faster, more likely to run, and a much better passer.

[Greg Farra]

The dropped passes killed Arkansas. I have to give them credit, they could have rolled over at halftime. And what was with that safety? I thought that was a bad call.

[Ryan Scott]

Ohio State beat the only team in the BCS to out-Ohio State them. Fitting.

[David Morris]

Ohio State got some major contributions from 5 players who should have been suspended this game.

[Alisa Stoll]

Ohio State got some major contributions from 5 players who should have been suspended this game.

I heard something interesting yesterday - OSU self reported the infraction before the bowl game when many teams would have waited until after the game or until the NCAA figured out the infraction themselves. That may be why they delayed the suspension - or from a cynical standpoint, the money.

If you want to get into the "if only" game, OSU would have done much better in the second half if there hadn't been so many injuries to the defense. Glad that was the last game of the season.

Alisa

[David Morris]

I heard something interesting yesterday - OSU self reported the infraction before the bowl game when many teams would have waited until after the game or until the NCAA figured out the infraction themselves. That may be why they delayed the suspension - or from a cynical standpoint, the money.

If you want to get into the "if only" game, OSU would have done much better in the second half if there hadn't been so many injuries to the defense. Glad that was the last game of the season.

Alisa

There is nothing cynical knowing this is all about the money.

[Ryan Scott]

Ohio State got some major contributions from 5 players who should have been suspended this game.

If the NCAA doesn't care if they play, why should Ohio State? It's not like they got in trouble for drugs or steroids; they got in trouble for capitalizing on their soon to be waining fame. The NCAA might not like it, but it's hardly something the school cares about.

I know it's all about the money - that's why the NCAA punishment comes down next year and not for the bowl game, but still, let the players play in a game they earned... oh wait, Ohio State got chosen simply because they're appearance would bring in more money for the BCS? Oops.

[David Morris]

If the NCAA doesn't care if they play, why should Ohio State? It's not like they got in trouble for drugs or steroids; they got in trouble for capitalizing on their soon to be waining fame. The NCAA might not like it, but it's hardly something the school cares about.

I know it's all about the money - that's why the NCAA punishment comes down next year and not for the bowl game, but still, let the players play in a game they earned... oh wait, Ohio State got chosen simply because they're appearance would bring in more money for the BCS? Oops.

Ryan, I am having a hard time understanding your post. Your first statements sounds like you think it isn't a big deal that they play, and your second statement makes it sound like the NCAA is money hungry....or maybe its both. Could you please clarify?

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, I am having a hard time understanding your post. Your first statements sounds like you think it isn't a big deal that they play, and your second statement makes it sound like the NCAA is money hungry....or maybe its both. Could you please clarify?

It's both. Of course it's all about money. Half these guys wouldn't even be in college were it not for the money they can make the University. At the same time, given that system, this particular offense is rather unoffensive.

I suppose it would be more clear if I understood whether you think the NCAA should have suspended them for the Sugar Bowl or if Ohio State should have suspended them. If it's the former, I agree - it wreaks of inconsistency; if it's the latter, I disagree.

[David Morris]

It's both. Of course it's all about money. Half these guys wouldn't even be in college were it not for the money they can make the University. At the same time, given that system, this particular offense is rather unoffensive.

I suppose it would be more clear if I understood whether you think the NCAA should have suspended them for the Sugar Bowl or if Ohio State should have suspended them. If it's the former, I agree - it wreaks of inconsistency; if it's the latter, I disagree.

If the NCAA is the governing body, then I believe it is their responsibility to implement punishment when NCAA rules are broken. If it was simply a team rule that was broken, then it would Ohio State's job to take care of that in house.

So I believe it was the NCAA's responsibility to suspend the players. They instead turned to a "withholding" clause that allows them to delay the punishment because "a unique opportunity arose," that is, getting to play in a BCS bowl game. While I do agree that is a unique opportunity, I don't know that the Ohio St. players look at it that way. They wouldn't have sold their awards and jewelry if that were the case.

[Ryan Scott]

Honestly, I don't know why the NCAA did let them play. Sure, this was going to be a big game in Ohio and Arkansas, and they were going to fill a bunch of seats, but the national attention just wasn't on this game. If you suspend a starting QB and five other key players, then you get a week of media attention and buildup and the ratings are much higher. You also look like you're enforcing your own rules. What's more, they could have made the five game suspension start with the bowl game and all the players would be back for the Big-10(12) opener against Michigan State in the fall.