OT - NCAA is at it again

[gruconn]

ncaa-rules-that-rutgers-basketball-player-who-transferred-to-be-closer-to-home-after-his-father-and-brother-died-within-2-months-of-each-other-doesnt-qualify-for-a-hardship-waiver/



http://www.barstoolsports.com/bosto...h-other-doesnt-qualify-for-a-hardship-waiver/

 

[Kitaman]

I may hate the uniforms but certainly not the kids who wear them. This is as hardship as they come. His mother needs him closer I would have to believe, and him playing is therapy of sorts. I envision this being reversed after the soon to come uproar.

 

[ctchamps]

I may hate the uniforms but certainly not the kids who wear them. This is as hardship as they come. His mother needs him closer I would have to believe, and him playing is therapy of sorts. I envision this being reversed after the soon to come uproar.

This is an absolutely horrible decision. This group within the NCAA doling out punishments are more about making examples of people than about justice. RU did some bad things recently, but taking it out on a kid who had nothing to do with those things is plain wrong. The NCAA is composed of people with agendas as opposed to people who want to try to fix things.

 

[superjohn]

The NCAA makes my blood pressure go through the roof, they seriously seem like a group of very bad people.

 

[huskymedic]

The NCAA makes my blood pressure go through the roof, they seriously seem like a group of very bad people.

DanWolken 8:55am via Twitter for iPhone
One of biggest mistakes NCAA has made was conflating personal tragedy with transfers. NCAA shouldn't be in position to judge whose is worse

DanWolken 8:58am via Twitter for iPhone
The NCAA has allowed a ton of hardship waivers. But when you do that and then deny one, it becomes public tragedy comparison. Bad for all.

I'm not sure what the answer is - grant them all?

I saw this in another thread that IMHO summarizes it better:

"I am rarely moved to defend the NCAA, but I do think they are in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation on this issue.

If they don't allow hardship waivers, then they are heartless bastiches.

If they do allow them, then they will have to make determinations about how "legitimate" a player's family hardship is versus what his basketball interests are. That is often going to be a very tough call. If they stick strictly to a set of rules in every case, they are hardasses. If they stretch the rules in some cases, they play favorites.

If they explain publicly why they reject a request, then they basically have to say bad things (he is using a family problem for personal gain) about the player (who is usually facing at least some hardship) publicly. If they don't explain their reasons publicly, then they are hiding things.

Making these decisions is definitely a job I would not want to have.<<

 

[Husky]

wtf is this ...

 

[upstater]

Is the NCAA really incapable of deciding the difference between an ill grandparent and the death of a father and brother?

The airlines do it. The NCAA can't?

 

[Fishy]

The hardship waiver was a bad idea and it was immediately exploited.

If you're truly transferring home to be closer to family, you can. The Rutgers' kid is in school, has a scholarship and he's closer to his family. He's part of the team and can practice with them, eat with them, study with them, etc. He's not losing a year of eligibility or being forced into his own pocket for tuition.

The fact that he won't be able to play in games or travel with the team until next season is not a crime against humanity.

 

[champs99and04]

The hardship waiver was a bad idea and it was immediately exploited.

If you're truly transferring home to be closer to family, you can. The Rutgers' kid is in school, has a scholarship and he's closer to his family. He's part of the team and can practice with them, eat with them, study with them, etc. He's not losing a year of eligibility or being forced into his own pocket for tuition.

The fact that he won't be able to play in games or travel with the team until next season is not a crime against humanity.

Yeah, but since they do have the waiver, it's more than a bit perplexing to me that they wouldn't utilize it in this situation. A situation like this is precisely why the rule was invented - the fact that the rule has been exploited is unfortunate, but if you're going to pick and choose (which is a slippery slope), it's baffling to me that they opted to rule against the kid in this spot. If losing a brother and father within the span of two months doesn't warrant a waiver, then it's time to get rid of the rule entirely.

 

[Fishy]

Yeah, but since they do have the waiver, it's more than a bit perplexing to me that they wouldn't utilize it in this situation. A situation like this is precisely why the rule was invented - the fact that the rule has been exploited is unfortunate, but if you're going to pick and choose (which is a slippery slope), it's baffling to me that they opted to rule against the kid in this spot. If losing a brother and father within the span of two months doesn't warrant a waiver, then it's time to get rid of the rule entirely.

You're actually mistaken - his situation places him outside the guidelines for a waiver.

The rules allow players to transfer closer to home if they're expected to contribute directly to the care of a sick relative. Rightly or wrongly, the guidelines make no provisions for the death of a relative.

But it would not surprise me if this is a situation like with the Marine - the initial ruling has to be by the book and then the kid can petition past it for relief. He surely deserves some good news.

 

[champs99and04]

You're actually mistaken - his situation places him outside the guidelines for a waiver.

The rules allow players to transfer closer to home if they're expected to contribute directly to the care of a sick relative. Rightly or wrongly, the guidelines make no provisions for the death of a relative.

But it would not surprise me if this is a situation like with the Marine - the initial ruling has to be by the book and then the kid can petition past it for relief. He surely deserves some good news.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

 

[CTBasketball]

This just in, Johnny Manziel signed with the Rams and the NCAA deems him eligible for the 2013 NCAAF Season.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

This just in, Johnny Manziel signed with the Rams and the NCAA deems him eligible for the 2013 NCAAF Season.

Come on its the Rams
Its not like its a real professional team

 

[freescooter]

DanWolken 8:55am via Twitter for iPhone
One of biggest mistakes NCAA has made was conflating personal tragedy with transfers. NCAA shouldn't be in position to judge whose is worse

DanWolken 8:58am via Twitter for iPhone
The NCAA has allowed a ton of hardship waivers. But when you do that and then deny one, it becomes public tragedy comparison. Bad for all.

I'm not sure what the answer is - grant them all?

I saw this in another thread that IMHO summarizes it better:

"I am rarely moved to defend the NCAA, but I do think they are in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation on this issue.

If they don't allow hardship waivers, then they are heartless bastiches.

If they do allow them, then they will have to make determinations about how "legitimate" a player's family hardship is versus what his basketball interests are. That is often going to be a very tough call. If they stick strictly to a set of rules in every case, they are hardasses. If they stretch the rules in some cases, they play favorites.

If they explain publicly why they reject a request, then they basically have to say bad things (he is using a family problem for personal gain) about the player (who is usually facing at least some hardship) publicly. If they don't explain their reasons publicly, then they are hiding things.

Making these decisions is definitely a job I would not want to have.<<

Bashing the NCCA is easy in most cases, though like congress everyone assumes his or her president would never approve such draconian rules. I don't know the rules for these hardship waivers, but I agree with this post. I would think the best solution is to just say no hardships for anyone. You transfer you sit a year. No exceptions. And I don't intend this as a knock on the kid, but it isn't like he was an All-American at Iowa State who decided to transfer to Rutgers. He appeared in 9 games. And his family is in the Bronx,not New Brunswick. I guess he will be marginally more help to his Mom in New Brunswick than in Iowa city, but not in any immediate way. I mean it takes a solid hour to make the trip from da Bronx to Rutgers even if the traffic is not awful. I've taken 2 from the GW to Rutgers in the past. despite all the nonsense about Rutgers' influence in the New York market, it is hardly the 6th borough. It is about mid-way between New York and Philly. I would think a transfer to Fordham or Manhattan or St Johns would be more sympathetically received by the NCAA.