- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,384
- Reaction Score
- 6,160
It is frustrating to me that UConn has a number of writers who follow them closely and yet none of them have taken the time to understand the rules on medical hardship waivers. The rules generally are very clear and rarely is there any subjectivity involved. And yet all of the writers have posted very inaccurate info on whether or not she will get another year. For example Altavilla just said:
The normal threshold to qualify for a medical hardship is playing in fewer than 30 percent of a team’s regular-season games. Tuck still appears to qualify for a possible redshirt in that scenario. But a player also can not appear in any of the games after the midway point of the season, which for UConn would have been the 17th game since it has 31 regular-season games this season. Tuck’s last appearance was in the 16th game.
The NCAA will have final jurisdiction over the decision. It is possible they could view Tuck’s participation in three January games, or view a normal regular-season as 30 games, as reasons to deny the request.
For some bizarre reason, he seems to think the NCAA sits in a room and decides whether or not to throw out the very clear-cut rules in their bylaws and just make up something. This has NEVER happened in a "redshirt" situation. Why would participation in January matter since the rules clearly say that is irrelevant? Or why would the NCAA decide 30 games is the denominator in the formula when the rules clearly say it is 32? Bizarre logic - and it seems to indicate a total lack of understanding of the situation and a complete lack of any homework. Fuller has been no better and Rich Elliott only slightly better.
I appreciate their coverage when it comes to games - but they have totally dropped the ball on Morgan's situation.
The normal threshold to qualify for a medical hardship is playing in fewer than 30 percent of a team’s regular-season games. Tuck still appears to qualify for a possible redshirt in that scenario. But a player also can not appear in any of the games after the midway point of the season, which for UConn would have been the 17th game since it has 31 regular-season games this season. Tuck’s last appearance was in the 16th game.
The NCAA will have final jurisdiction over the decision. It is possible they could view Tuck’s participation in three January games, or view a normal regular-season as 30 games, as reasons to deny the request.
For some bizarre reason, he seems to think the NCAA sits in a room and decides whether or not to throw out the very clear-cut rules in their bylaws and just make up something. This has NEVER happened in a "redshirt" situation. Why would participation in January matter since the rules clearly say that is irrelevant? Or why would the NCAA decide 30 games is the denominator in the formula when the rules clearly say it is 32? Bizarre logic - and it seems to indicate a total lack of understanding of the situation and a complete lack of any homework. Fuller has been no better and Rich Elliott only slightly better.
I appreciate their coverage when it comes to games - but they have totally dropped the ball on Morgan's situation.