Jordan Danberry granted another year MSU | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Jordan Danberry granted another year MSU

SimpleDawg said:
I agree, but maybe they're in the process of beginning a change now.

Let's refer to Daneesha Provo of Utah. She played bits and pieces of her freshman in Clemson. 31 games of her sophomore. 28 of her junior, and 13 of her senior before being injured. She had a "bits and pieces" situation like Danberry - though it was in her freshman and senior year. So they bunched those 2 partial years together and called it one year.

If starting right now is when they're beginning a change towards the combining the bits and pieces years, I have no problem with it.
Expand ...

I actually do have a problem with it. In this transfer era such a change could result in more mid-season transfers. Losing a season of eligibility used to be a deterrent to transferring after the first semester (provided the student-athlete played in Nov-Dec games). Now, that doesn’t seem to matter.

I expect the NCAA will continue to grant an extra year of eligibility in these cases through the waiver process. What else can it do? Enact a rule that says if you transfer after the first semester you won’t lose a year of eligibility no matter how many games you play in Nov-Dec? I don’t think so.
 
Plebe said:
Uh, that's not gonna be a very persuasive case.
Expand ...

It kind of should be.

The NCAA has systematically shafted kids in Danberry's position for decades and all of a sudden they're like "oh why even look at the rule book".

If I was confident that everyone in that situation would now get a waiver that would be cool. But it won't go that way. Who makes up the best story and hits the committee on the right day. That's what its all about.
 
Gamecockfan77 said:
It kind of should be.

The NCAA has systematically shafted kids in Danberry's position for decades and all of a sudden they're like "oh why even look at the rule book".

If I was confident that everyone in that situation would now get a waiver that would be cool. But it won't go that way. Who makes up the best story and hits the committee on the right day. That's what its all about.
Expand ...
I don't consider it "shafting" if they were simply applying plainly stated rules. The perplexing part is when they start granting exemptions from those rules for no apparent non-capricious reason.

In this case no one, as far as I knew, was expecting Danberry to get another season, and in fact even the most diehard MSU fans seemed oblivious to the fact that a waiver request was even in the works.
 
Plebe said:
I don't consider it "shafting" if they were simply applying plainly stated rules. The perplexing part is when they start granting exemptions from those rules for no apparent non-capricious reason.

In this case no one, as far as I knew, was expecting Danberry to get another season, and in fact even the most diehard MSU fans seemed oblivious to the fact that a waiver request was even in the works.
Expand ...

I mean what basis would anyone have for thinking it would be granted?

I tend to agree that applying a black and white rule isn’t shafting anyone, but like the other gamecock fan said, I think we had a guy lose a season over an exhibition game or maybe just a single game.

When someone gets a special exception for no obvious reason you are sort of retroactively shafting everyone that lost a year. Not really but does this mean the rule is changed by precedent or do you have to know the magic words and gestures?
 
Gamecockfan77 said:
I mean what basis would anyone have for thinking it would be granted?

I tend to agree that applying a black and white rule isn’t shafting anyone, but like the other gamecock fan said, I think we had a guy lose a season over an exhibition game or maybe just a single game.

When someone gets a special exception for no obvious reason you are sort of retroactively shafting everyone that lost a year. Not really but does this mean the rule is changed by precedent or do you have to know the magic words and gestures?
Expand ...
People are acting like Danberry's case was the first of its kind. It isn't like they did it for one person, and denied a bunch of other ones. Japreece Dean, then Daneesha Provo, then Jordan Danberry.
 
.-.
DaBball said:
People are acting like Danberry's case was the first of its kind. It isn't like they did it for one person, and denied a bunch of other ones. Japreece Dean, then Daneesha Provo, then Jordan Danberry.
Expand ...

They have denied lots of other ones in the past.

I think it's insane that they have built a system based on who comes up with the best story to appeal to a committee on a day when they are feeling mellow.

I sort of think that giving players more control over their careers and being a little more human about some things is a good thing, but who can predict what they are going to do?

The football player that wanted to transfer to a smaller school much closer to home so his dying grandfather could watch him play? Go screw yourself. The guy who wanted to transfer to another program farther away from home just cause? Step right up buddy.

It's nuts.
 
Gamecockfan77 said:
They have denied lots of other ones in the past.

I think it's insane that they have built a system based on who comes up with the best story to appeal to a committee on a day when they are feeling mellow.

I sort of think that giving players more control over their careers and being a little more human about some things is a good thing, but who can predict what they are going to do?

The football player that wanted to transfer to a smaller school much closer to home so his dying grandfather could watch him play? Go screw yourself. The guy who wanted to transfer to another program farther away from home just cause? Step right up buddy.

It's nuts.
Expand ...

So there was the kid who wanted waiver for transfer from Coastal to Virginia Tech that said his mom had a brain tumor and he wanted to be closer to help. Denied. Maybe it wasn't really feasible for him to help, maybe it was longstanding condition, whatever.

Then there is Tate Martel, who is from Vegas, who transferred to Miami from Ohio State about 15 minutes after Ohio State took another QB transfer Justin Fields. All good says the NCAA. You get to play right away.

Justin Fields actually had a good case care of his baseball teammate using a racial slur against him in a well publicized story, but I mean we all know he transferred because he didn't win the QB job. But no problem.

Michigan kid transfers to Tennessee after playing in five games last year. Immediately eligible for what reason again?

I actually believe they probably do have guidelines and I do like to believe that bodies of people generally operated within reason, but it's just a bad looking process right now. It's difficult to find information as to what the criteria is, the rulings are opaque, they seem inconsistent, and it seems like the edge of the bubble is pushed out more and more every year, while some folks don't get the benefit of it.

I personally think sitting out a year is a reasonable requirement, but when you are suddenly doing away with that requirement for certain kids who can come up with a credible cover story you've got a perception problem.

Open it up or close it down. I think that's the right thing to do. Don't make it a lawyering contest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,230
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom