Ohio State's victory over Navy on Saturday has been overshadowed by the controversy surrounding the eye black worn by Buckeye quarterback Terrelle Pryor.

Pryor, who completed 14 of 21 passes for 174 yards, threw a 38-yard touchdown pass and ran in another, decorated his stick-on eye black with the words "Mika Vick" as a tribute to the NFL quarterback who just recently returned to football after a two year prison sentence for orchestrating a dog fighting ring.

While players have been writing on their eye black for years, this is the first time I can remember the practice causing such commotion from the media and football fans across the country. Much of the public's reaction is due to the violent nature of Vick's crime and Pryor's resulting defense of his tribute: "Not everybody is the perfect person in the world. Everyone does -- kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me. I just feel that people need to give him a chance."

Defenders of Pryor are claiming freedom of speech, but is a football field the place for expression of personal, political or religious beliefs? Does it cloud the purpose of sport and competition when a game becomes a soapbox?

Where do you draw the line between what an athlete can write on themselves for inspiration and what is inappropriate for fans and spectators? Is it more inappropriate because the words are directed toward others? After all, Pryor couldn't see his own eye black.

ESPN created a short video highlighting some of the latest versions of the eye black trend and a bible verse on Tim Tebow's face is extremely visible. Is this different than Pryor's choice?

Is it appropriate for student-athletes to use their visibility on national television as a chance to illustrate their personal beliefs?

Do you think it is a coach's job to monitor what his or her student-athletes are promoting on the field? After all, student-athletes are wearing their team uniforms and representing their universities. Does this practice need to be done away with all together?