Ohio State DE Chase Young suspended indefinitely for potential NCAA violation

Donate To GopherHole
In-House Gopher said:
I doubt they would vacate wins unless there is evidence that OSU knew about it before last week and didn't self report until now (i.e. they intentionally played an ineligible player).
Click to expand...

By no means do I expect the NCAA to be inconsistent, but USC vacated wins all of their wins where they played an ineligible player (R. Bush). There was some discussion about the culture of USC not doing enough to monitor the situation, but the crux of the decision to vacate was simply because they played an ineligible player.

All of that said, I do not think the NCAA will force them to vacate.
 


die hard gopher said:
I'm fine if they are punished to an extent but it should not come in the form of vacated wins. Vacating wins implies they wouldn't have won those games had they not cheated which certainly isn't the case.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. Young is game changer and tore up Wisconsin trying to throw out of the spread. No-one knows what happens if Wisconsin, and other teams going back to last year, would have been able to throw the ball or get the edge running, without getting blown up by Young.

The 2016 D3 champion just got their 2016 and 2017 seasons vacated, including the title, because the coach loaned a kid a 12 year old Subaru. That ineligible player voided the team's wins. I highly doubt the NCAA does that to Ohio State because the $$ impact is too high compared to smaller schools and they've protected blue bloods in the past (UNC basketball), but it happens.
 

I guess a “cheat” is a “cheat”, a violation is a violation, but let’s be honest a lot of these kids came from tough economic family situations and “borrowing” money is a lot less of an offense in my option than let say he doped in enhancement drugs or stole money.
 

Panthadad2 said:
You don't know that. Young is game changer and tore up Wisconsin trying to throw out of the spread. No-one knows what happens if Wisconsin, and other teams going back to last year, would have been able to throw the ball or get the edge running, without getting blown up by Young.

The 2016 D3 champion just got their 2016 and 2017 seasons vacated, including the title, because the coach loaned a kid a 12 year old Subaru. That ineligible player voided the team's wins. I highly doubt the NCAA does that to Ohio State because the $$ impact is too high compared to smaller schools and they've protected blue bloods in the past (UNC basketball), but it happens.
Click to expand...

OSU would have 100% beat Wisconsin without Young.

And you don't know that they would've lost without him. Which is why their wins shouldn't be vacated.
 


Stars are really aligning for the Gophs this year. Too much breaking our way right now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

I wonder who the NCAA will sit on and sanction more harshly for this - Akron, or Kent State?
 

die hard gopher said:
OSU would have 100% beat Wisconsin without Young.

And you don't know that they would've lost without him. Which is why their wins shouldn't be vacated.
Click to expand...

Whether or not OSU would have beaten Wisconsin without Young should have zero impact on any decision to vacate or not vacate OSU wins.

The two things are completely unrelated.

The decision should be based on NCAA rules, the specific violation if any, and precedent.

For that matter, the fact it's OSU should have zero bearing on the decision as well.
 
Last edited:

USAF said:
Whether or not OSU would have beaten Wisconsin without Young should have zero impact on any decision to vacate or not vacate OSU wins.

The two things are completely unrelated.
Click to expand...

That should absolutely 100% be the only consideration as to whether their wins get vacated.

It makes zero sense to vacate wins if the cheating team would have won those games had they not cheated. Vacating wins implies the cheating team wouldn't have accomplished what they did had they not cheated. Otherwise you are simply whitewashing history and saying that something that happened actually didn't.

Now I'm not saying cheating teams shouldn't be punished. If you want to punish a team then there are other, more logical ways to do so. Institute a bowl or post season ban, limit scholarships, fine them, limit the number of assistant coaches they can hire, restrict them from attending high school or AAU events during recruiting seasons, institute a death penalty etc.

Those punishments all make logical sense if a team cheated but it did not affect the final result had they not cheated. Vacating wins does not.
 
Last edited:




die hard gopher said:
That should absolutely 100% be the only consideration as to whether their wins get vacated.

It makes zero sense to vacate wins if the cheating team would have won those games had they not cheated. Vacating wins implies the cheating team wouldn't have accomplished what they did had they not cheated. Otherwise you are simply whitewashing history and saying that something that happened actually didn't.

Now I'm not saying cheating teams shouldn't be punished. If you want to punish a team then there are other, more logical ways to do so. Institute a bowl or post season ban, limit scholarships, fine them, limit the number of assistant coaches they can hire, restrict them from attending high school or AAU events during recruiting seasons, institute a death penalty etc.

Those punishments all make logical sense if a team cheated but it did not affect the final result had they not cheated. Vacating wins does not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I generally agree with this, and don't see the point in trying to change the past when teams cheat.

If a team cheats, you cripple their future in a punitive way. Make it painful to recover as a program if you get caught cheating.
 


die hard gopher said:
That should absolutely 100% be the only consideration as to whether their wins get vacated.

It makes zero sense to vacate wins if the cheating team would have won those games had they not cheated. Vacating wins implies the cheating team wouldn't have accomplished what they did had they not cheated. Otherwise you are simply whitewashing history and saying that something that happened actually didn't.

Now I'm not saying cheating teams shouldn't be punished. If you want to punish a team then there are other, more logical ways to do so. Institute a bowl or post season ban, limit scholarships, fine them, limit the number of assistant coaches they can hire, restrict them from attending high school or AAU events during recruiting seasons, institute a death penalty etc.

Those punishments all make logical sense if a team cheated but it did not affect the final result had they not cheated. Vacating wins does not.
Click to expand...

Let's look at it this way, what if it was a QB and he had 450 yards passing each game - how could you prove that the backup wouldn't have done that? How could you ever say a team wouldn't have won without the star (or role player or whatever)?

If they knowingly hired an ex-NFL player and he only played one down a game would you be making the same argument?

You play an ineligble player you forfeit. Period. It's the school's job to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

That said, I imagine the NCAA will be so mad at Ohio State that Illinois will get ten years of sanctions! :)
 





Lakeville Goldy said:
Let's look at it this way, what if it was a QB and he had 450 yards passing each game - how could you prove that the backup wouldn't have done that? How could you ever say a team wouldn't have won without the star (or role player or whatever)?

If they knowingly hired an ex-NFL player and he only played one down a game would you be making the same argument?

You play an ineligble player you forfeit. Period. It's the school's job to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

That said, I imagine the NCAA will be so mad at Ohio State that Illinois will get ten years of sanctions! :)
Click to expand...

To me that is more of a reason to not vacate wins, not the other way around.

And if you do vacate a championship then what happens to the champion that year? You can't just not have a champion, someone has to be one. Do you give it to the second place team? What if the team that lost to the champions in the semi-finals would have beaten the 2nd place team? More reason to not vacate wins.
 

PitinoFan said:
Exactly. Now he doesn’t have to worry about getting injured.
Click to expand...

I don't think he'll have to sit the rest of the year anyways but what if playing in the CFB playoff and winning a national championship with his teammates is more important to him than his draft stock?
 

die hard gopher said:
To me that is more of a reason to not vacate wins, not the other way around.

And if you do vacate a championship then what happens to the champion that year? You can't just not have a champion, someone has to be one. Do you give it to the second place team? What if the team that lost to the champions in the semi-finals would have beaten the 2nd place team? More reason to not vacate wins.
Click to expand...

Vacated championships aren't awarded to other teams in other NCAA sports and divisions. The record is just officially deleted for the offender.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Vacated championships aren't awarded to other teams in other NCAA sports and divisions. The record is just officially deleted for the offender.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. And that doesn't make sense to me that there wouldn't be a champion for a particular year and is part of the reason why I don't like vacating wins and titles.
 

die hard gopher said:
That should absolutely 100% be the only consideration as to whether their wins get vacated.

It makes zero sense to vacate wins if the cheating team would have won those games had they not cheated. Vacating wins implies the cheating team wouldn't have accomplished what they did had they not cheated. Otherwise you are simply whitewashing history and saying that something that happened actually didn't.

Now I'm not saying cheating teams shouldn't be punished. If you want to punish a team then there are other, more logical ways to do so. Institute a bowl or post season ban, limit scholarships, fine them, limit the number of assistant coaches they can hire, restrict them from attending high school or AAU events during recruiting seasons, institute a death penalty etc.

Those punishments all make logical sense if a team cheated but it did not affect the final result had they not cheated. Vacating wins does not.
Click to expand...

LOL. That's ridiculous.

Who decides whether they would have won or not? You?
 


USAF said:
LOL. That's ridiculous.

Who decides whether they would have won or not? You?
Click to expand...

If you can't decide, or don't like the idea of making an arbitrary decision then don't vacate the wins. Punish them in other, more logical ways that I mentioned.
 

die hard gopher said:
If you can't decide, or don't like the idea of making an arbitrary decision then don't vacate the wins. Punish them in other, more logical ways that I mentioned.
Click to expand...
How about following established NCAA rules for these situations?
 

die hard gopher said:
If you can't decide, or don't like the idea of making an arbitrary decision then don't vacate the wins. Punish them in other, more logical ways that I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Die Hard - I agree with you on the idea of vacating wins being a weird penalty. That said, if you are vacating them, it needs to just be a clear cut rule. Trying to decide whether or not they would have won anyway is impossible. You cannot just look at the stats in isolation.
 

USAF said:
How about following established NCAA rules for these situations?
Click to expand...

If Ohio State does this again, the NCAA is going to have to put Missouri or UTEP on probation.
 

die hard gopher said:
If you can't decide, or don't like the idea of making an arbitrary decision then don't vacate the wins. Punish them in other, more logical ways that I mentioned.
Click to expand...

If a program wants to get credit for the results it would have earned had it not broken the rule, then play by the rules.

I think the more relevant objection to vacating results would be whether or not that is a fair remedy for individual (vs team/program) violations. For example, I dont think the Twins should have to vacate wins because Pineda was using a banned substance. If I found out that Twina management was distributing banned substances to players, I think they should.
 

die hard gopher said:
I don't think he'll have to sit the rest of the year anyways but what if playing in the CFB playoff and winning a national championship with his teammates is more important to him than his draft stock?
Click to expand...

If that’s the case, he should have thought about that before he broke the rules.
 

PitinoFan said:
If that’s the case, he should have thought about that before he broke the rules.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying he shouldn’t have.

I just don’t like saying he is better off because he might not be playing the rest of the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I don't know if it's different in college, but in High School, if an ineligible player appears in the game, you have to forfeit the game. It doesn't matter what the player did in the game. If he just ran down the field on a kickoff, but was ineligible, that is a violation.

In my experience covering HS sports, this comes up in transfer situations. I know of a couple of situations in recent years in SW MN where schools have had to forfeit multiple games after using a player who should not have been eligible.

Again, don't know the college rule, but in HS, the school and AD are presumed to know and follow the rules, so you can't plead ignorance. ineligible is ineligible. can't say "gee, we didn't know."

But in my experience, there are set penalties for a rules violation. it's not a Chinese menu. you don't get to pick one from column A or one from column B.
 

Yah-E said:
I guess a “cheat” is a “cheat”, a violation is a violation, but let’s be honest a lot of these kids came from tough economic family situations and “borrowing” money is a lot less of an offense in my option than let say he doped in enhancement drugs or stole money.
Click to expand...

Now there is a slippery slope. "He loaned me $100,000 but I come from a "poor" family."
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom