Facey Update?

[OklahomaUconn]

You cant burn up the ncaa phones and demand quicker action. If you do that they will say fine you want a answer...hes inelligable. Cant get on their bad side

 

[sammydabiz]

You cant burn up the ncaa phones and demand quicker action. If you do that they will say fine you want a answer...hes inelligable. Cant get on their bad side

Ya I think Wise2 has the right idea a few posts up. We have to "Vietnam War" this Facey issue, and get the media (aka public opinion) to force a reasonable decision from the NC2A...in a timely matter...

 

[FfldCntyFan]

My guess is the NCAA will eventually claim that this kid is too smart for college and penalize us three scholarships for admitting him.

 

[Kitaman]

Wasn't rebranding as UCONN one of the most inportant aspects of the logo change? Why do the balls say Connecticut?

Well they are big balls. 'UConn' tattoo fits perfectly on mine.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Well they are big balls. 'UConn' tattoo fits perfectly on mine.

You got yours tattoo'd? Well, I guess it beats getting them branded.

 

[Kitaman]

You got yours tattoo'd?

In hindsight I should have posted this on the women's board.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

i don't know, i would get them

blue balls ... if you paid

 

[ctchamps]

Well they are big balls. 'UConn' tattoo fits perfectly on mine.

 

[B1GEast]

the way I see it, the ncaa owes us one for the post season ban BS, I think facey will be cleared.

 

[OkaForPrez]

the way I see it, the ncaa owes us one for the post season ban BS, I think facey will be cleared.

My prediction is they take a year on the back end and let him play this year.

 

[aceboon]

My prediction is they take a year on the back end and let him play this year.

if the NCAA wants to show their semi-serious about education I doubt they would let him play this year if they only give him 3 years.

 

[OkaForPrez]

if the NCAA wants to show their semi-serious about education I doubt they would let him play this year if they only give him 3 years.

I hear that, but isn't the overall spirit of the rule intended to keep kids from holding back in prep to increase their development before entering into D1? What other rationale could there be in protecting when an eligibility clock starts? It seems like holding a kid back a year just sort of plays into that, irregardless of the 1 year penalty on the back end.