As the revelation came forth that some Buckeye football players had sold their Big 10 champion rings, & other paraphernalia, sometimes in exchange for big discounts on new cars, school officials investigated, said the offenders were exposed,& the matter was closed by the NCAA's handing out 5-game suspensions for Coach Tressel, and five players. However, twitters, tweets, and blogs keep coming out alleging much more wrongdoing by OSU athletes and coaches. However, one player said, "It's MY ring. I earned it with my sweat, time, and a little blood. It's MY property now; it was given to me PERMANENTLY. I should be able to sell it if I so choose." Jerseys and other parts of uniforms are generally school property, but very few used uniforms are ever worn again once the players who used them are finished with them. And players often have the option to purchase as many jerseys, etc. as they wish. Now, is there a legitimate gripe here? Or are we attempting to cling to the old notion of separation of pro and amateur sports. I personally see nothing wrong with, say, Terrelle Pryor being paid for use of a pic showing him drinking Ovaltine with the caption, "Terrelle Pryor Drinx Ovaltine". He would NOT be paid to play football; he'd be paid for drinking Ovaltine, although playing football made him a celeb. Many European nations have blatantly had "amateur" pros for many years. The famous Russian weight lifter Alexeev's occupation was listed as "phys. Ed. Instructor" althouth his "instruction" consisted in training himself. Same for the Russian basketball team which beat the Americans in the Olympix. They all played basketball full-time! I believe a total revision of the definitions for pro and amateur athletes is in order, especially allowing college athletes to endorse products for pay, and allowing them to retain an agent to handle their relationships with sponsors and potential future employers, such as pro teams in their sport. Meanwhile, Readers, what are YOUR thoughts on the Ohio State thingie?