NCAA approves Shepard ND waiver

[Phil]

If Z was eligible last year, we would be talking about going for 6 in a row. and win #124.

 

[j66kicker]

When I heard Shepard was given the waiver, I assumed it had something to do with issues at Nebraska not Notre Dame (I do realize that the timing suggested that may not of been the case, but I naïvely found it hard to believe that Notre Dame would be given special preference).

Do we know if the report of the claims it was because they only had seven healthy players knows this for sure?

I could be open to some sympathy if a team had the full complement of 15 players on the roster and due to some freakish circumstances had eight injured players and were down to only seven active players. Seven is enough, although not much room for error so I'm not even sure that I would find that compelling but I'd be open to some sympathy. However, that's not the case. I believe Notre Dame has only 13 players on the roster so they've chosen to go with two few than permitted. That's something Geno typically does but that's a coaches decision, and if it doesn't work out due to injuries is the NCAA supposed to bail them out?

In addition, I see 11 Notre Dame players who have appeared in a game this year. Obviously, one a Shepherd but that leaves 10 players who managed to play. If there were only seven players healthy at the time of the decision it means some of those injury issues were short-term in nature. I believe one was Westbeld who's managed to play in 12 of the 13 games and start seven. Did several players miraculously recover?

Graduate students such as Lili Thompson can play immediately. Were there no graduate students with eligibility left the country? I understand that probably weren't any with Shepherd skills but that's shouldn't be the issue.

I'm open to hearing that I'm missing something but so far this sounds fishy.

 

[nwhoopfan]

However, if you reduce the WCBB limit to a level at which most schools are currently operating, what have you really accomplished?

This is a Title IX issue as well. If you reduce scholarships in women's basketball, by law you would either have to increase scholarships in another women's sport, or decrease scholarship's in a men's sport.

 

[oldude]

I think what people are asking for and will probably never get from the NCAA is a little bit of consistency. If "Waivers for Everyone!" ( stolen from @UConnCat) is to be the NCAA policy, I sure would have liked for Azura and Batouly to have been eligible for UCONN last year. I personally deplore the policy of multiple ND players having to get hurt for the NCAA to show sympathy. Do you think Shepard would have been declared eligible if she had transferred to UCONN?

While I certainly agree from a big picture standpoint, I take a great deal of satisfaction from the knowledge that UConn WBB doesn’t need to cut corners to succeed, whether it relates to recruiting, transfers or academic performance.

 

[CocoHusky]

While I certainly agree from a big picture standpoint, I take a great deal of satisfaction from the knowledge that UConn WBB doesn’t need to cut corners to succeed, whether it relates to recruiting, transfers or academic performance.

Rightfully so @oldude. I also believe that fans of other programs like ND and SC can also rightfully take pride in not cutting any corners. The transfers that helped SC win a championship last year and Azura Stevens were available to most other programs. ND is blameless in Shepard waiver decision, and did not cut any corners.

 

[oldude]

Rightfully so @oldude. I also believe that fans of other programs like ND and SC can also rightfully take pride in not cutting any corners. The transfers that helped SC win a championship last year and Azura Stevens were available to most other programs. ND is blameless in Shepard waiver decision, and did not cut any corners.

We have a slightly different take on the definition of “cutting corners.” I absolutely agree that SC has nothing to apologize for with Gray & Davis being critical to their title run last season, and obviously I have no problem with Z & Batouly at UConn.

ND is a little more complicated. They certainly did not violate any rules when they made a waiver request to the NCAA relative to Shepard, as far as I know, but as you point out, ND had 8 scholarship players when that request was initiated.

So I’m left with a hypothetical, “What would Geno do in a similar situation?” While we don’t have an exact parallel, there are similar situations. Several years ago, when UConn had only 8 scholarship players, they scoured the campus to come up with Polly & Tierney. Of course the Huskies didn’t have any transfers waiting in the wings at that time.

That brings us to last year. Courtney Ekmark transfers and UConn is left with 10 scholarship players, but let’s be honest, Tierney was a great teammate, but she was not going to get PT during crunch time. 2 of the 3 freshmen were also not ready for meaningful minutes as well. That left UConn with 7 players they could realistically play vs top teams. Then the Huskies lose Saniya for a time followed by Crystal for a time, both to concussions prior to the start of the 2nd semester making a thin bench even thinner.

As far as I know Geno never considered, and he certainly never requested, that either of his transfers be declared eligible. In my mind, that means Geno doesn’t cut corners. As for ND, it’s a bit of a gray area.

My final point is the one I made earlier in this thread. I don’t care what ND does. UConn will beat them regardless.

 

[CocoHusky]

We have a slightly different take on the definition of “cutting corners.” I absolutely agree that SC has nothing to apologize for with Gray & Davis being critical to their title run last season, and obviously I have no problem with Z & Batouly at UConn.

ND is a little more complicated. They certainly did not violate any rules when they made a waiver request to the NCAA relative to Shepard, as far as I know, but as you point out, ND had 8 scholarship players when that request was initiated.

So I’m left with a hypothetical, “What would Geno do in a similar situation?” While we don’t have an exact parallel, there are similar situations. Several years ago, when UConn had only 8 scholarship players, they scoured the campus to come up with Polly & Tierney. Of course the Huskies didn’t have any transfers waiting in the wings at that time.

That brings us to last year. Courtney Ekmark transfers and UConn is left with 10 scholarship players, but let’s be honest, Tierney was a great teammate, but she was not going to get PT during crunch time. 2 of the 3 freshmen were also not ready for meaningful minutes as well. That left UConn with 7 players they could realistically play vs top teams. Then the Huskies lose SaniyaI don't have an answer behind those other programs what happened, why some kids are eligible and some kids are not," Auriemma said. "I just know that our two are not. From talking to them, it doesn't seem like there is anything that would make me think 'OK we should go and pursue this.' I don't know happened that those other players were able to do that. If I felt there were something there, I would pursue it but it would be dishonest for me to think there is when there isn't."

Also, with Kia for a time followed by Crystal for a time, both to concussions prior to the start of the 2nd semester making a thin bench even thinner.

As far as I know Geno never considered, and he certainly never requested, that either of his transfers be declared eligible. In my mind, that means Geno doesn’t cut corners. As for ND, it’s a bit of a gray area.

My final point is the one I made earlier in this thread. I don’t care what ND does. UConn will beat them regardless.

For me cutting a corner is doing something prohibited by the rules and to the best of my knowledge that is neither ND nor UCONN.
We don't have to be "hypothetical" about what Geno would do in a simmilar situation because he tells us exactly what he did. In the case of Batouly and Azura he "looked" into thier immediate eligibility and decided it had no merits and decided not to pursue.

"I don't have an answer behind those other programs what happened, why some kids are eligible and some kids are not," Auriemma said. "I just know that our two are not. From talking to them, it doesn't seem like there is anything that would make me think 'OK we should go and pursue this.' I don't know happened that those other players were able to do that. If I felt there were something there, I would pursue it but it would be dishonest for me to think there is when there isn't."'
The New Haven Register Blogs: Elm City to Eagleville: No immediate eligibility for UConn's transfers

ND looked into Shepard's situation decided that it had merits and pursued the waiver so I'm afraid I don't see a gray area.

 

[oldude]

For me cutting a corner is doing something prohibited by the rules and to the best of my knowledge that is neither ND nor UCONN.
We don't have to be "hypothetical" about what Geno would do in a simmilar situation because he tells us exactly what he did. In the case of Batouly and Azura he "looked" into thier immediate eligibility and decided it had no merits and decided not to pursue.

"I don't have an answer behind those other programs what happened, why some kids are eligible and some kids are not," Auriemma said. "I just know that our two are not. From talking to them, it doesn't seem like there is anything that would make me think 'OK we should go and pursue this.' I don't know happened that those other players were able to do that. If I felt there were something there, I would pursue it but it would be dishonest for me to think there is when there isn't."'
The New Haven Register Blogs: Elm City to Eagleville: No immediate eligibility for UConn's transfers

ND looked into Shepard's situation decided that it had merits and pursued the waiver so I'm afraid I don't see a gray area.

I appreciate the link. I agree with you on Z & Batouly, but that does not clarify the situation with Shepard in my mind. We don't know specifically how Geno feels about Shepard being eligible this year. I suspect he doesn't care, just like me. The rationale for her eligibility certainly is something new and not particularly clear cut (kinda gray you might say).

Coco, I respect your opinion, but on this issue I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[CocoHusky]

I appreciate the link. I agree with you on Z & Batouly, but that does not clarify the situation with Shepard in my mind. We don't know specifically how Geno feels about Shepard being eligible this year. I suspect he doesn't care, just like me. The rationale for her eligibility certainly is something new and not particularly clear cut (kinda gray you might say). Coco, I respect your opinion, but on this issue I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.

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?

 

[oldude]

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?

OK, let me address the “gray area” in each potential justification for Shepard’s eligibility:

1. It’s “personal.” That’s a vague explanation that could be justified, but could also simply be a dodge. What we know is that when Nebraska got rid of their former coach 2 seasons ago, several players left, but Shepard elected to stay. Shepard was the best player on a bad team last season. The new coach appears to be a very good young coach with a great future. Shepard surprised everyone by deciding to transfer.

2. ND had a limited number of players. That has never been a justification for making a transfer immediately eligible. Countless teams have found themselves in similar situations and their response has typically been to scour the campus dorms scrounging up players.

In my mind either justification presents a gray area. You don’t have to agree with me, and I’m pretty sure you won’t. So lets both of us let this one go.

 

[BroadwayVa]

If Z was eligible last year, we would be talking about going for 6 in a row. and win #124.

I don't believe in gurarantee's in sports ---but that is one I'd guarantee. Without a doubt, and I doubt many theories, unproven facts.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Of course Shepard's situation was personal. She personally wanted to play this year.

 

[BroadwayVa]

OK, let me address the “gray area” in each potential justification for Shepard’s eligibility:

1. It’s “personal.” That’s a vague explanation that could be justified, but could also simply be a dodge. What we know is that when Nebraska got rid of their former coach 2 seasons ago, several players left, but Shepard elected to stay. Shepard was the best player on a bad team last season. The new coach appears to be a very good young coach with a great future. Shepard surprised everyone by deciding to transfer.

2. ND had a limited number of players. That has never been a justification for making a transfer immediately eligible. Countless teams have found themselves in similar situations and their response has typically been to scour the campus dorms scrounging up players.

In my mind either justification presents a gray area. You don’t have to agree with me, and I’m pretty sure yoHu won’t. So lets both of us let this one go.

\

Those are NOT GREY areas---they are non area's.
When a decision is one that has the potential to effect every school in some manner. Personal alone as a description does not do it. I know three or four areas currently used most are shown to those effected.

Of all the dip----_)()*_)**&(& -reasons ever printed. A bad recruiting year, from what I recall, for ND and that equates to a reason to make a transfer eligible one year earlier??? For me this is NOT an ND vs the world issue, it is as was stated a fairness, equal treatment, across the board , consistency issue. Geno should have used this in the 16/17 year, he was down 2 or 3 post players---

I know I'm naive, organizations that have as their base educational institutions that effect kids/students. If fairness is not attainable, consistency must be the norm.

Where is Pandora---this box shall be opened again.

 

[CocoHusky]

\

Those are NOT GREY areas---they are non area's.
When a decision is one that has the potential to effect every school in some manner. Personal alone as a description does not do it. I know three or four areas currently used most are shown to those effected.

Of all the dip----_)()*_)**&(& -reasons ever printed. A bad recruiting year, from what I recall, for ND and that equates to a reason to make a transfer eligible one year earlier??? For me this is NOT an ND vs the world issue, it is as was stated a fairness, equal treatment, across the board , consistency issue. Geno should have used this in the 16/17 year, he was down 2 or 3 post players---

I know I'm naive, organizations that have as their base educational institutions that effect kids/students. If fairness is not attainable, consistency must be the norm.

Where is Pandora---this box shall be opened again.

I suspect as early as tomorrow we will revisit this topic when the NCAA is expected to rule on the T'ea Cooper's immediate eligibility for SC.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I suspect as early as tomorrow we will revisit this topic when the NCAA is expected to rule on the T'ea Cooper's immediate eligibility for SC.

In the measure of Consistency---using the NCAA ruling for ND as the standard--what is your best guess on the outcome??

 

[Phil]

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?

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.

 

[HoopsFan21]

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.

 

[BroadwayVa]

We have a slightly different take on the definition of “cutting corners.” I absolutely agree that SC has nothing to apologize for with Gray & Davis being critical to their title run last season, and obviously I have no problem with Z & Batouly at UConn.

ND is a little more complicated. They certainly did not violate any rules when they made a waiver request to the NCAA relative to Shepard, as far as I know, but as you point out, ND had 8 scholarship players when that request was initiated.

So I’m left with a hypothetical, “What would Geno do in a similar situation?” While we don’t have an exact parallel, there are similar situations. Several years ago, when UConn had only 8 scholarship players, they scoured the campus to come up with Polly & Tierney. Of course the Huskies didn’t have any transfers waiting in the wings at that time.

That brings us to last year. Courtney Ekmark transfers and UConn is left with 10 scholarship players, but let’s be honest, Tierney was a great teammate, but she was not going to get PT during crunch time. 2 of the 3 freshmen were also not ready for meaningful minutes as well. That left UConn with 7 players they could realistically play vs top teams. Then the Huskies lose Saniya for a time followed by Crystal for a time, both to concussions prior to the start of the 2nd semester making a thin bench even thinner.

As far as I know Geno never considered, and he certainly never requested, that either of his transfers be declared eligible. In my mind, that means Geno doesn’t cut corners. As for ND, it’s a bit of a gray area.

My final point is the one I made earlier in this thread. I don’t care what ND does. UConn will beat them regardless.

True enough.
My take is : it isn't the fault of any school to request a waiver at any time, the fault in the Shepherd decision does not lie with ND. There is no crime in asking.
The problem with the decision---was to me in that it was a decision with apparently bad backup data, i.e. the image you walk away with is that it was a biased decision for improper reasoning. Throw out the PERSONAL reason, to be more than fair, the number of team members reeks with bias.

 

[Phil]

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?

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?

 

[Phil]

True enough.
My take is : it isn't the fault of any school to request a waiver at any time, the fault in the Shepherd decision does not lie with ND. There is no crime in asking.

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?

 

[j66kicker]

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.

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

 

[BroadwayVa]

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?

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..

 

[CocoHusky]

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.

"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

 

[BroadwayVa]

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?

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.

 

[DefenseBB]

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.

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).