NCAA approves Shepard ND waiver | Page 5 | The Boneyard

NCAA approves Shepard ND waiver

Phil said:
I'd like to see a quote from Shepard saying that the reason for her eligibility is "personal". My guess is that this word applies to her reasons for wanting to transfer but not for her being granted eligibility.
Expand ...
From March 27

“Coach Williams and the whole staff have been very supportive of me, and I thank them for giving me some time after the season to make my decision,” Shepard said. “I also want to thank the University of Nebraska and all of my teammates for the support they have given me the past two years, but I feel like I have to do what I think is best for me and my future at this time.”

Williams Announces Shepard Plans to transfer
 
Phil said:
While there has been absolutely no evidence to date even hinting that Notre Dame is at fault, you go too far in stating unequivocally that the fault "does not lie with ND".
.
We simply don't know. While I agree there's no crime and asking for a waiver one doesn't simply check a box and say please consider a waiver. I presume that someone had to make a case. What was said in the request? Did the request include assertions that there were multiple season-ending injuries and only so many non-injured players available? I'd be interested in knowing what Notre Dame said in their waiver request. My guess is that the author claiming that the rationale had to do with only seven eligible players got it wrong but if they got it right I'd like to know who the seven players were and why other players have been playing?
Expand ...

Is there any crime in asking for a waiver? What issue could ND have created in requesting a waiver. It does not matter what ND put in their request. Whatever they requested was reviewed by the NCAA--whom must be intelligent enough to see through improper, irregular, just plain wrong requests.
Now on the PERSONAL issue--I'll agree we don't know enough, nor probably should we know.
The number of available players on any team should not be the concern of the NCAA or any reason. My point is --the NCAA is the final judge--any fault, if there is any, does not belong with ND, for requesting, but with the NCAA for poor decision making, apparently..
 
Phil said:
I'd like to see a quote from Shepard saying that the reason for her eligibility is "personal". My guess is that this word applies to her reasons for wanting to transfer but not for her being granted eligibility.
Expand ...

"The junior forward (Shepard) didn't go into specifics of what her waiver said except to say that "it was an accumulation of personal reasons and different things like that."

Shepard making immediate impact with Notre Dame
 
Phil said:
While there has been absolutely no evidence to date even hinting that Notre Dame is at fault, you go too far in stating unequivocally that the fault "does not lie with ND".

We simply don't know. While I agree there's no crime and asking for a waiver one doesn't simply check a box and say please consider a waiver. I presume that someone had to make a case. What was said in the request? Did the request include assertions that there were multiple season-ending injuries and only so many non-injured players available? I'd be interested in knowing what Notre Dame said in their waiver request. My guess is that the author claiming that the rationale had to do with only seven eligible players got it wrong but if they got it right I'd like to know who the seven players were and why other players have been playing?
Expand ...

My case is that ND did nothing wrong in requesting a waiver--checking a box or writing a case for the waiver, regardless of the contents of the case presented using the greats of whoppers--is not in and by itself WRONG, illegal, maybe a bit immoral--presenting a case is valid. Nothing can be seen or manipulated in believing to be wrong with that process. If so please fully explain .
The fault, if there is any, solely belongs to the governing (the people that control) body. They make decisions, not the school (not ND) supposedly basing that decision on NCAA rules, regulations, traditions. The case presented must be along those guidelnes--if not then it is not a valid request for waiver.
I can see nothing in this process that indicates that any school, ND or otherwise, presenting a waiver has in anyway done anything wrong. Can you??
I don't need to know the players involved only that the number was deemed insufficient, due to some process---that too is not ND's choice---Hey NCAA we only have 4 players, we need a waiver to take on 11 more right now---most people would think they'd say--that's your problem.
 
HoopsFan21 said:
Cooper was kicked off her previous team. She should be allowed to play right away. If she's denied I hope Coach Staley makes a big stink. That's usually the only way to get the NCAA to budge.
Expand ...
Technically, Cooper transferred out before sanctions could be "handed out". The issue I have with Dawn on this is pretty simple-Shepard's situation had to do with her original coach being fired for inappropriate behavior with some of her teammates being granted immediate approval to play elsewhere in 2016-17. Shepard decided to stay and evaluate the new coach and oversight. After the season, she decided she wanted to go elsewhere and the Nebraska coaching staff supported her decision. I think their support had more to do with her being granted immediate clearance than the ND injury situation. As far Dawn goes, rewarding Te'a Cooper for bad behavior would only precipitate any player wanting out to misbehave and go to a school for a more accommodating situation. I apologize to the prior poster who noted this that I am too lazy to go look for proper credit but the NCAA would probably grant another year of eligibility to let her play a 6th year if she so chose to. I would be appalled/shocked if the NCAA allowed her to play this year due to her prior issues at Tennessee (of which there were many).
 
Phil said:
I'll start by emphasizing that I'm not accusing Notre Dame of anything.

That said, there are some questions that deserve to be asked.

The author of the article said the rationale was that the team only had seven eligible players. I spent a decent portion of my day reading multiple accounts of the same situation and see enough differences that I can say for certain that I don't automatically assume the author got it right. But for the sake of this discussion let's assume that the NCAA made the decision on the basis of the fact that Notre Dame had only seven eligible players. I think we can reasonably assume that the NCAA did not send a doctor to examine the remaining players. We see 11 names in the season box score so some of those injuries were far from season-ending. Was there a Christmas miracle curing what appeared to be a season-ending injury? Or can a player with a bad hangnail who's going to miss a game be counted as injured and contribute to the eligibility of an otherwise ineligible player?
Expand ...
@Phil the NCAA made this decision on 1 November- BEFORE ND played the first scrimmage. The author simply got this wrong.
 
.-.
CocoHusky said:
"The junior forward (Shepard) didn't go into specifics of what her waiver said except to say that "it was an accumulation of personal reasons and different things like that."

Shepard making immediate impact with Notre Dame
Expand ...
The term PERSONAL has a myriad of meanings --from being attacked too --I want to play. I cannot understand how that would have a significant impact on allowing her to play immediately.
 
BroadwayVa said:
The term PERSONAL has a myriad of meanings --from being attacked too --I want to play. I cannot understand how that would have a significant impact on allowing her to play immediately.
Expand ...
Agreed. Personal could simply mean I going to keep the reason(s) to myself. I will be glad to tell the NCAA but beyond that it's noone's business. You see it all the time in business The CEO is leaving for personal reasons.
 
CocoHusky said:
Agreed. Personal could simply mean I going to keep the reason(s) to myself. I will be glad to tell the NCAA but beyond that it's no one's business. You see it all the time in business The CEO is leaving for personal reasons.
Expand ...
Look at all the congressmen bailing---for personal reasons. However in her case---Personal to her is personal. But to me the reasons for NcAA of a personal nature should not bear weight in a waiver case--for allowing her to play one year early. If it was a decision of COULD she TRANSFER--ok accept the Personal reasons--but this is beyond that, she is being granted the right to play early, so how does personal play into that?.
 
BroadwayVa said:
Look at all the congressmen bailing---for personal reasons. However in her case---Personal to her is personal. But to me the reasons for NcAA of a personal nature should not bear weight in a waiver case--for allowing her to play one year early. If it was a decision of COULD she TRANSFER--ok accept the Personal reasons--but this is beyond that, she is being granted the right to play early, so how does personal play into that?.
Expand ...
I'm not following you. Personal also means we (you, me, everyone else reading this) don't know. If we don't know the reason, how can we say that reason is not good enough for her to be made immediate eligible?
 
.-.
Phil said:
Can you explain how you came to see the waiver request?
Expand ...
@Phil that's a silly cop out if you believe that we have to have seen the request to determine that ND did not do something improper.
 
Phil said:
My guess is that the author claiming that the rationale had to do with only seven eligible players got it wrong but if they got it right I'd like to know who the seven players were and why other players have been playing?
Expand ...

At the time Shepard's waiver was approved the 7 available scholarship players were: Thompson, Ogunbowale, Young, Mabrey, Nelson, Vaughn and Patterson. Westbeld had not yet been cleared to return from her ankle injury. That of course excludes walk-ons Butler and Cole.

Not that that writer's ridiculous assertion bears discussion.
 
CocoHusky said:
What do you believe to be the rationale for Shepard's eligibility ? ND and Shepard said it was "personal". The NCAA did not provide a rationale. The author of this article stated it was because ND only had only 7 eligible players. Even if the author is correct ( he is not because ND had injuried player(s) after the NCAA had already made it's decision) what corner would ND be cutting?
Expand ...

Just to clarify, the author actually said, "...it had seven "scholarship" players healthy." I have to assume the two walk-ons are not on scholarships.

Doing a little more digging found this article from ndsmcobserver.com stating basically same as other author;

The waiver was submitted as the list of Irish injuries kept growing.

The squad lost senior forward Brianna Turner to a torn ACL during its win over Purdue in the second round of the NCAA tournament in March. Then, just a week before the season began, senior guard Mychal Johnson suffered a season-ending ACL tear, after just recovering from shoulder surgery. This on top of senior forward Kathryn Westbeld, who is still not practicing after undergoing ankle surgery, although she should join the ranks of healthy Irish players early in the season, makes Shepard a welcome addition.

Notre Dame also lost two scholarship athletes in sophomore forward Erin Boley and junior guard Ali Patberg, who transferred over the off season.

Jessica Shepard granted immediate eligibility // The Observer

EDIT: may have found where the author got his info to begin with. Looks like Doug Feinberg (AP) has mentioned the following;

Shepard's immediate eligibility has helped the Irish, who were down to only seven healthy scholarship players to start the season. Kathryn Westbeld missed the first game while recovering from April ankle surgery but returned on Tuesday night in a game against Western Kentucky.

Women's basketball: Notre Dame thrilled to have newcomer Shepard doing her thing

As some have argued, I don't fault any team requesting a waiver, one only hopes the NCAA is fair to all. (where's that sarcasm emoji?)
 
Last edited:
CocoHusky said:
@Phil that's a silly cop out if you believe that we have to have seen the request to determine that ND did not do something improper.
Expand ...


Then you tell me.

How can you determine that nothing improper was said if you did not see what was said?

I have no idea what was said, and my default assumption is that Muffet is an upstanding person who would neither do something improper, nor encourage her staff to do something improper, but you are going beyond giving her the benefit of the doubt, you are outright stating that nothing improper was done. I'd like to know the basis of your claim.
 
.-.
BroadwayVa said:
Read the past two posts; if they give you no understanding to my belief, no further words shall.
Expand ...

I've read them.

You don't seem to understand my question.

I understand that people believe things without direct evidence. I believe it is cold in downtown Hartford at the moment, but I haven't been there so my belief is not based upon personal evidence.

You didn't simply say that you believed the waiver request was fine, you made an absolute declaration that "...ND did nothing wrong...". I am curious how you know this? If you want to say you simply assume that ND would not do anything inappropriate, then fine, we can move on. But if you baldly state that if anything was wrong, it must be with the NCAA, then you leave the impression you are in the know, not just giving the school the benefit of the doubt.
 
Orangutan said:
Not that that writer's ridiculous assertion bears discussion.
Expand ...

As ridiculous as the writer's assertion may be to you, it seems to reflect the opinion of the head coach of the 2017 national champions and current head coach of Team USA.
 
HoopsFan21 said:
I agree because the NCAA knows everyone is watching.
Expand ...

I'm not sure if the fact that everyone is watching helps or hurts Cooper's petition. Dawn clearly thinks it will help.

The NCAA has put itself in a bind with some help from Dawn. I can't recall a situation in which a coach has made public comments challenging the NCAA to rule a certain way on a transfer waiver petition. The problem for the NCAA is that ruling in Cooper's favor may set some precedents it rather not set: 1) injuries and the state of the roster are factors in ruling on waiver petitions; 2) a player who sits out a season due to injury and then transfers does not have spend a full year in residence at the new school (one semester? why not immediate eligibility?); and 3) coaches who publicly challenge the NCAA to make a decision consistent with perceived precedent will prevail.
 
UConnCat said:
I'm not sure if the fact that everyone is watching helps or hurts Cooper's petition. Dawn clearly thinks it will help.

The NCAA has put itself in a bind with some help from Dawn. I can't recall a situation in which a coach has made public comments challenging the NCAA to rule a certain way on a transfer waiver petition. The problem for the NCAA is that ruling in Cooper's favor may set some precedents it rather not set: 1) injuries and the state of the roster are factors in ruling on waiver petitions; 2) a player who sits out a season due to injury and then transfers does not have spend a full year in residence at the new school (one semester? why not immediate eligibility?); and 3) coaches who publicly challenge the NCAA to make a decision consistent with perceived precedent will prevail.
Expand ...
I'm not sure how much of a bind a favorable ruling for Cooper would put the NCAA in and maybe we are looking at this all wrong. Maybe the direction the NCAA want's to go in is immediate eligibility for WCBB transfers. Rather than make a change to the current policy the NCAA could just say wink wink you know we'll let you if you ask. Do we know of any petitions for immediate eligibility that have been denied? I've read about a few cases in MCBB being denied but can't recall any for WCBB.
 
I believe that Notre Dame did nothing improper in submitting the waiver petition for Shepard and that the NCAA decision to grant the waiver was BS. Muffet used the word "hardship" multiple times to describe the the waiver petition. That type of waiver petition had been used to describe situations where student-athletes transferred to be closer to home (typically family illness) and the NCAA publicly announced that it was eliminating hardship waivers. Yet, here comes Muffet talking hardship waiver when the player moves away from her hometown school!! You can't make this stuff up.

Maybe there were extenuating personal reasons to justify the waiver request, and maybe that explanation is just cover for the NCAA doing Notre Dame a favor. Therein lies the problem. We as fans don't know and, journalists don't know and, most importantly, other coaches don't know. Part of me hopes the NCAA denies Cooper's request just so I can listen to Dawn's reaction.

Because of the mess the NCAA has made of the entire process I now favor immediate eligibility for all transfers.
 
.-.
Phil said:
I've read them.

You don't seem to understand my question.no

I understand that people believe things without direct evidence. I believe it is cold in downtown Hartford at the moment, but I haven't been there so my belief is not based upon personal evidence.

You didn't simply say that you believed the waiver request was fine, you made an absolute declaration that "...ND did nothing wrong...". I am curious how you know this? If you want to say you simply assume that ND would not do anything inappropriate, then fine, we can move on. But if you baldly state that if anything was wrong, it must be with the NCAA, then you leave the impression you are in the know, not just giving the school the benefit of the doubt.[/

I without a doubt stated and do state: With the submission of a request for Waiver; ND did nothing wrong.
If you require legal action to further your discussion, I can recommend an excellent attorney; but I warn you her legal fees are outrageous.

I'd like to say it's been fun. But you know!
Expand ...
 
CocoHusky said:
NCAA Approves Shepard’s Waiver

"The NCAA announced on Wednesday that it has approved the University of Notre Dame’s waiver of junior transfer Jessica Shepard, making the former two-time All-Big Ten and Nebraska forward eligible effective Nov."

I think is setting a low water mark for making transfers immediately eligible to play which appears to be the direction the NCAA maybe heading. Thoughts?
Expand ...
Is this a new thing? Why didn't UCONN apply for waivers with Stevens and Batouly, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,388
Messages
4,570,158
Members
10,475
Latest member
Tunwin22


Top Bottom