Pitt's Cook loses appeal for extra year

[CO_Hoya]

Boo. While he plays for a rival, I would have preferred that he was given another year.

Link

[SFHoya99]

I feel bad for Cook.

As an aside, note that the staff and Chris Wright could have pursued this option, but as we hashed on here, 11 games played before injury was just a bit too many for the rule. It doesn't mean anything -- he might've come back anyway, but just interesting to me.

[regalmeans]

I feel for the guy - I remember watching him go down and seeing him screaming in pain - it was horrible. I was hoping he'd be given another year.

[The Stig]

That sucks. If he'd been hurt one game earlier he could have gotten the extra season.

[lichoya68]

too bad sometimes these ncaa rules a little not flexible adn a little too rigid should give players a little more leeway reminds me of the football player in the south who was raising his brother and they got on him for getting help to raise him some ridiculous stuff i cant remember they did and finally on appeal they relented. and SO MUCH OTHER BAD STUFF GETS GOTTEN AWAY WITH not sure where the fairness is you know JUST myhumble opinioin..

[HoyaSinceBirth]

That's really too bad. It's a real shame the NCAA didn't get this one right.

[kchoya]

Aug 21, 2008 10:36:26 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

That's really too bad. It's a real shame the NCAA didn't get this one right.

What didn't they get right? Where do you draw the line? Is it at x number of games? Or at a certain percentage?

Sometimes life stinks and you get injured, but you have to deal with it. There is has to be a limit and someone is always going to be just beyond that limit (no matter where it's set).

Sure it stink for this kid, by why is he any more deserving than anyone else?

[lichoya68]

the rule where they wouldnit let his teamates help the football player in the south who was going to school raising his brother and then THEY FINALLY agreed to an exception.. the exception determines the rule man .. common sense.. when it smells and looks rotten it usually is.. excuse me but somtimes the ncaa rules make no sense and some coaches continually get a way with murder something needs to be looked at thats my point fell sorry for his but come on go hoyas just one mans humble opinion yup

[kchoya]

Aug 21, 2008 12:19:53 GMT -5 lichoya68 said:

the rule where they wouldnit let his teamates help the football player in the south who was going to school raising his brother and then THEY FINALLY agreed to an exception.. the exception determines the rule man .. common sense.. when it smells and looks rotten it usually is.. excuse me but somtimes the ncaa rules make no sense and some coaches continually get a way with murder something needs to be looked at thats my point fell sorry for his but come on go hoyas just one mans humble opinion yup

Apples and Oranges. The situation with Ramon McElrathbey was much different than Mike Cook or any number of other athletes who get injured and get only so many bites at the apple.

[lichoya68]

and i remember one hoya who couldnt pass the sats in english despite being fairly brillant dad was a principal of a high school in africa i believe so he spent a year learning english and the after three years of playing he applied for an exception to get another year by the way... he spoke like five or six other languages...by the way. and THE NCAA DENIED HIM ..yup .. oh by the way that hoya did go pro... did ok..... and donated a freaking hospital to his country ... i think you all know who i mean.. ncaa fairness? and common sense? well in my opinion............ gimme a freaking break... something is not quite right .. nope

[lichoya68]

and with the ramon guy they did initially DENY HIM yup come on

[kchoya]

Look, there's lots of reasons to hate the NCAA. This isn't one of them.

And I highly doubt Dikembe was going to stick around for one more year.

[Boz]

So.

I guess I'm the only one callow and shallow enough to say, "F 'im. He plays played for Pitt. I don't want them any better than they already are."

OK, I'll be that.

[hifigator]

Aug 20, 2008 21:01:06 GMT -5 lichoya68 said:

too bad sometimes these ncaa rules a little not flexible adn a little too rigid should give players a little more leeway reminds me of the football player in the south who was raising his brother and they got on him for getting help to raise him some ridiculous stuff i cant remember they did and finally on appeal they relented. and SO MUCH OTHER BAD STUFF GETS GOTTEN AWAY WITH not sure where the fairness is you know JUST myhumble opinioin..

What ^^ he said ... except in better english.


Seriously, I think we would all agree that in an ideal situation, extra eligibility would be granted more often than it is. It just doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to look at each situation and use a degree of reason and common sense, rather than typically going by the letter of the law.

[SFHoya99]

This is a complete letter of the law situation.

At some point, a player has played enough for it to be considered playing in a season. You can argue what that amount should be, but the important thing here is that the school has clearly delineated exactly what that number should be.

As for the post-season games = just one game, the writer fails to acknowledge the incredibly obvious and good reason for the rule: without it, there is an advantage to better teams. Two players are each out eleven games, but the player on UNC can play and the player from James Madison can't?

[Hoya TMF]

I disagree. Treating post season games as only one game penalizes successful teams for absolutely no reason. Pitt certainly overachieved last year with their run to the BET Title in spite of major injuries to two starters, one of them being Cook. The team played 37 games-why should they not credit for that? This system doesn't disadvantage smaller schools since they'd lose nothing in the change. Plus, since a deep run in their own conference tournament might get a JMU over the hump-the general big school/small school advantage is minimized even further.

[SFHoya99]

Except Cook didn't play in those post-season games.


Furthermore, it's how the NCAA defines it -- it is clear as day in the rule book. Change the rule if you like, but don't exempt Mike Cook and not others.

[Hoya TMF]

What's your point? They divide the team's games by the nubemr of games played by the player. Why shouldn't the team's post season games count too?

[kchoya]

Aug 21, 2008 14:28:44 GMT -5 Hoya TMF said:

I disagree. Treating post season games as only one game penalizes successful teams for absolutely no reason. Pitt certainly overachieved last year with their run to the BET Title in spite of major injuries to two starters, one of them being Cook. The team played 37 games-why should they not credit for that? This system doesn't disadvantage smaller schools since they'd lose nothing in the change. Plus, since a deep run in their own conference tournament might get a JMU over the hump-the general big school/small school advantage is minimized even further.

Do you really want it coming down to a situation where a team, if it wins one more game, will get a player back for another season.

There are certain rules where you need a bright line, and there are some rules where you need flexibility and the opportunity to look at the circumstances. This instance falls into the former.

I hate Pitt and I think Mike Cook comes across as a total punk. But that's not why I think he shouldn't get another year. I never cheer when I hear about injuries to players on other teams that might help GU because I know karma can be a bitch and want all players to be healthy. Plus, losing a player, like Cook, doesn't mean we automatically win the BE tourney (see last year).

[Hoya TMF]

This rule has a bright line. You count how many games the team played during the season. If the player played in more than 30% of those games, then he does not get an extra year of eligibility. What could more clear? That rule doesn't become less bright based on how you count the games. It's just as easy to look at the schedule and say "Pitt was 27-10, that's 37 games." Here, 37 games is key because 11 games is 29.7% of 37 or just below the threshhold. For those of you claiming that this system is unfair to unsuccessful or (smaller) teams, the current system (one game for playoffs) is also unfair. Under the current system, the four teams left out of the BET play in one less game than each of the other twelve. If the NCAA is willing to credit schools that make post season with one "extra" game for the purposes of this calculation, then why not give the system so real legitimacy and count all of the games? That's the easiest way to create a bright line rule. If Pitt played in 37 games last year, then that number should be used for evaluating Mike Cook's eligibility.