Some can guess where I might go with this, but I will explain...

Anyhow, during EACH bowl game, it has been mentioned that the participants have been given "gift cards" to go shopping.  Now, the media made love with stories of a couple players from different bowl games who went out and spent their gift cards (Best Buy, Lowe's, other shops) on needy people... real great stories there.  However, the other 85-100 players got $300-$500 each from the bowls to go shopping and did not necessarily act so altruistically- they got to buy and do with what they want.

Yet, when players sell their gift bags (or gold pants)- also awards... for equal value... it is a sin.

Does anyone beside me find this just a bit hypocritical- you can give these players the equivalent of cash and let them shop, but they can not take hard gifts and get cash or trade them for something else.

Yes, there is more to TatGate and all that BS.. .but really... that is what it came down to... the OSU players traded/sold materials won from NCAA bowls or games and got in trouble... but it is okay for bowl games to give the players Cash Cards?  The lowest amount I heard was $250 in one bowl game... I heard the Pin Stripe gave the players $500 gift cards... maybe I am crossing bowls, but each bowl.

Seriously, anyone have thoughts about this?  I am not yelling outrage here, but I do find this a bit hypocritical.

Cash equivalent awards are not supposed to be allowed, but I guess they allow it if it's set up like a shopping spree during the bowl trip or something.  It's setting them up for more issues because you know guys are just going to go and sell that stuff when they get home.

I think the bowl game swag has been ridiculous for a while now.  Player awards should be something to remember the trip.  If we are going to give them 500 bucks to spend at Best Buy, may as well give it to everyone whether they go to a bowl game or not.  There's no point to it.

ArmchairQuarterBuck wrote: Cash equivalent awards are not supposed to be allowed, but I guess they allow it if it's set up like a shopping spree during the bowl trip or something.  It's setting them up for more issues because you know guys are just going to go and sell that stuff when they get home.

I think the bowl game swag has been ridiculous for a while now.  Player awards should be something to remember the trip.  If we are going to give them 500 bucks to spend at Best Buy, may as well give it to everyone whether they go to a bowl game or not.  There's no point to it.

That's kind of what I am thinking.  It's okay "if..."  This is seriously such a vast sense of right and wrong for something (the OSU scandal vs the allowed gift cards) that seems to me to be a slight difference in end result.

OSU forced to vacate a season, 5 players suspended for up to 7 games, etc.  yet, the transgression is very close to this allowed behavior. 

It reminds me subtly of an old George Carlin line about prostitution:  "you get in trouble for selling something that is perfectly fine to give away for free."

TO me, the NCAA allowing this cash award or cash equivalent while punishing another team for its players getting cash for their awards is very ironic.

Silly NCAA

You make a beautiful point....but Ohio State wasn't punished for what the players did...in fact, the players were allowed  by the NCAA to play  ( and win ) the Sugar Bowl...( see Thomas' interception )..( our coach even allowed them to play but  only if they promised not to turn pro and  to come back for another year )...then the players were to sit out games at the beginning of the next  season for doing basically what they could have done with bowl game gift cards...that doesn't make sense....but that was all it was until this & that happened... but what the players did  is not why we  were punished...as I have said  before, blaming the players for our punishment is like blaming African -Americans for the American Civil War

asdodge wrote:

ArmchairQuarterBuck wrote: Cash equivalent awards are not supposed to be allowed, but I guess they allow it if it's set up like a shopping spree during the bowl trip or something.  It's setting them up for more issues because you know guys are just going to go and sell that stuff when they get home.

I think the bowl game swag has been ridiculous for a while now.  Player awards should be something to remember the trip.  If we are going to give them 500 bucks to spend at Best Buy, may as well give it to everyone whether they go to a bowl game or not.  There's no point to it.

That's kind of what I am thinking.  It's okay "if..."  This is seriously such a vast sense of right and wrong for something (the OSU scandal vs the allowed gift cards) that seems to me to be a slight difference in end result.

OSU forced to vacate a season, 5 players suspended for up to 7 games, etc.  yet, the transgression is very close to this allowed behavior. 

It reminds me subtly of an old George Carlin line about prostitution:  "you get in trouble for selling something that is perfectly fine to give away for free."

TO me, the NCAA allowing this cash award or cash equivalent while punishing another team for its players getting cash for their awards is very ironic.

djtidebuck wrote: Silly NCAA

I agree with this.  Like many things, they should tear up their rule book and rewrite it on a clean sheet of paper.

OSU was punished for what the players did (the suspensions).  Which is my point.  The aftermath is irrelavant to the intial point that OSU was punished (supsensions) for what basically it allows in another form.

We are not here to re-open the case.  SUspending players was for the act we are discussing.  Vacating the wins was for Tressel's hiding the fact he knew ahead of time.  Now, mind you, the NCAA knew th eplayers were already ineligible, allowed them to play in the bowl, then turned aorund and vacated all wins, including the bowl they were cleared to play is rather silly, too.  Add to that the schollie reductions, the forced firing/resignation of JT and his 5 year show-cause, and the 1-year bowl ban all stemming from the minor offense (and it was minor)... all this for the initial "crime" of selling bowl goods to get tats or cash... then compare it to the NCAA allowing these bowls to give players cash/gift cards...

Please, wrap your mind aorund the irony or inconsistency here.  Subsequent events stem from the initial event.  If getting cash for NCAA work is wrong, it is wrong on all levels... not pick and choose.  You sell your gold pants for $200 (valued on one TV show at $700)- you get suspended.  Go to Alamo Bowl, you get a $350 gift card and buy what you want and it's all good.  That's the point.

OleLardbelly wrote: You make a beautiful point....but Ohio State wasn't punished for what the players did...in fact, the players were allowed  by the NCAA to play  ( and win ) the Sugar Bowl...( see Thomas' interception )..( our coach even allowed them to play but  only if they promised not to turn pro and  to come back for another year )...then the players were to sit out games at the beginning of the next  season for doing basically what they could have done with bowl game gift cards...that doesn't make sense....but that was all it was until this & that happened... but what the players did  is not why we  were punished...as I have said  before, blaming the players for our punishment is like blaming African -Americans for the American Civil War

asdodge wrote:

ArmchairQuarterBuck wrote: Cash equivalent awards are not supposed to be allowed, but I guess they allow it if it's set up like a shopping spree during the bowl trip or something.  It's setting them up for more issues because you know guys are just going to go and sell that stuff when they get home.

I think the bowl game swag has been ridiculous for a while now.  Player awards should be something to remember the trip.  If we are going to give them 500 bucks to spend at Best Buy, may as well give it to everyone whether they go to a bowl game or not.  There's no point to it.

That's kind of what I am thinking.  It's okay "if..."  This is seriously such a vast sense of right and wrong for something (the OSU scandal vs the allowed gift cards) that seems to me to be a slight difference in end result.

OSU forced to vacate a season, 5 players suspended for up to 7 games, etc.  yet, the transgression is very close to this allowed behavior. 

It reminds me subtly of an old George Carlin line about prostitution:  "you get in trouble for selling something that is perfectly fine to give away for free."

TO me, the NCAA allowing this cash award or cash equivalent while punishing another team for its players getting cash for their awards is very ironic.