Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Junior blobfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,508
    Quote Originally Posted by muskiefan82 View Post
    Google "Chris Mack", "Jim Crews" and "Evansville" and you should figure it out
    OOOhhh! He's THAT guy!

    Yeah. Schmuck.

  2. #22
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kyxu View Post
    What about Dez?
    Although the two might practically seem the same, the NCAA is far more concerned with technicalities than practicalities, and technically the two are very different.

    Essentially, what happened with Dez was along the lines of a school discontinuing a program. Dez never sought a transfer, and not only could he not return to the team, he could not return to the institution. All the NCAA cares about is that Dez broke no NCAA rules, and that it was impossible for him to return to the INSTITUTION, much less the team.

    In the case of Drew, he merely lost his scholarship. He could still remain a student at SLU. For that matter, it was never demonstrated that he couldn't play on the team as a walk on. As far as the NCAA is concerned, it was Drew that sought the transfer, and his reason for seeking it is because he lost his scholarship.

    Fair or not, that is not grounds for a waiver. It never has been as far as I know.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  3. #23
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    I predict that St. Louis will regret hiring this guy within 2 years.

    Guys that age don't change their stripes. He'll pull his usual fade act soon.
    He learned at the feet of master asshole, Bob Knight. For all the good deeds Bob did, he evened it out by being an ass most of the time.

  4. #24
    Supporting Member UCGRAD4X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,832
    I would think the fact that he sat out last year would be a major factor in his favor.
    “Tequila is not even a drink; it’s a way for having the cops around without using a phone.” – Dylan Moran

  5. #25
    Nothing special kyxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    Although the two might practically seem the same, the NCAA is far more concerned with technicalities than practicalities, and technically the two are very different.

    Essentially, what happened with Dez was along the lines of a school discontinuing a program. Dez never sought a transfer, and not only could he not return to the team, he could not return to the institution. All the NCAA cares about is that Dez broke no NCAA rules, and that it was impossible for him to return to the INSTITUTION, much less the team.

    In the case of Drew, he merely lost his scholarship. He could still remain a student at SLU. For that matter, it was never demonstrated that he couldn't play on the team as a walk on. As far as the NCAA is concerned, it was Drew that sought the transfer, and his reason for seeking it is because he lost his scholarship.

    Fair or not, that is not grounds for a waiver. It never has been as far as I know.
    Is there a bylaw in support of what you're saying, or is it totally discretionary? I'm asking because I don't know.

    I do know that reason often does not play a role in such decisions rendered by the NCAA, so I could see where the NCAA would make him sit a year. And I understand Drew, unlike Wells, wasn't expelled. But one would think that having your scholarship taken away, especially at a private school, would amount to de facto expulsion. Pretty terrible.

  6. #26
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kyxu View Post
    Is there a bylaw in support of what you're saying, or is it totally discretionary? I'm asking because I don't know.

    I do know that reason often does not play a role in such decisions rendered by the NCAA, so I could see where the NCAA would make him sit a year. And I understand Drew, unlike Wells, wasn't expelled. But one would think that having your scholarship taken away, especially at a private school, would amount to de facto expulsion. Pretty terrible.
    I'm not trying to side step your question, but I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. The bylaw is that all men's basketball players who transfer must complete an academic year at the new institution before they can play (IE, they have to sit a year). There is no bylaw that guarantees a player a waiver. If there were, then they would not need a waiver in the first place. So, I guess it is discretionary.

    I agree that it is terrible. I don't think players should have to sit at all when they transfer, and I've been saying that for years. I'm not agreeing with their thought process. I'm merely explaining what I think their thought process is. I was expecting Dez to get one for the reasons I mentioned above. I don't think Drew will. As crazy as this sounds, they do not view a scholarship as a necessity, so the fact that they did not renew it means nothing to the NCAA. Not all players have scholarships. They're going to say that Drew sought a transfer. Whenever a player seeks a transfer and is not kicked out of school, or if the program is not discontinued, they basically never get a waiver.
    Last edited by xubrew; 05-20-2013 at 11:11 AM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  7. #27
    Administrator Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    12,431
    Yeah Drew is ineligible but this guy somehow can transfer from Arizona to Washington St and the back to Arizona in the span of 5 months and still be eligible to play college football.
    "He's a little bit ball-dominant, he needs to have the ball in his hands, and he's not a good shooter." Ball-dominant … isn't that a nice way of calling someone a ball hog? Where is my Jay Bilas Thesaurus?

    Follow XH on Twitter

    Follow XH on Facebook

  8. #28
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskie View Post
    Yeah Drew is ineligible but this guy somehow can transfer from Arizona to Washington St and the back to Arizona in the span of 5 months and still be eligible to play college football.
    Yes. He graduated and is enrolling in a graduate program that Washington State doesn't offer. Again, it's technicalities, not practicalities. What Daniel Jenkins did is within the rules.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  9. #29
    Nothing special kyxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    I'm not trying to side step your question, but I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. The bylaw is that all men's basketball players who transfer must complete an academic year at the new institution before they can play (IE, they have to sit a year). There is no bylaw that guarantees a player a waiver. If there were, then they would not need a waiver in the first place. So, I guess it is discretionary.

    I agree that it is terrible. I don't think players should have to sit at all when they transfer, and I've been saying that for years. I'm not agreeing with their thought process. I'm merely explaining what I think their thought process is. I was expecting Dez to get one for the reasons I mentioned above. I don't think Drew will. As crazy as this sounds, they do not view a scholarship as a necessity, so the fact that they did not renew it means nothing to the NCAA. Not all players have scholarships. They're going to say that Drew sought a transfer. Whenever a player seeks a transfer and is not kicked out of school, or if the program is not discontinued, they basically never get a waiver.
    I would hope having your financial aid unexpectedly taken away would amount to a hardship to waive the one-year ineligibility rule, but we'll see.

  10. #30
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kyxu View Post
    I would hope having your financial aid unexpectedly taken away would amount to a hardship to waive the one-year ineligibility rule, but we'll see.
    It won't. I cannot think of a single case where it has.

    They won't consider that a hardship. They would merely direct him to the financial aid office.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •