rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Aug 21, 2008 14:57:24 GMT -5
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. "Alright team, we've got to pull together and win this next game for Mikey, or Mikey will never play basketball again. Who's with me?"
|
|
|
Post by Hoya TMF on Aug 21, 2008 15:00:59 GMT -5
Exactly. How is that any different than trying to win one so that the seniors get to keep playing? Besides, it's not as though teams or coaches should need any extra motivation to win games. What's the downside?
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Post by lichoya68 on Aug 21, 2008 21:17:15 GMT -5
by the way.. they did apply for deke for another year.. and its my understanding he woulda played ...and we coulda used him... could be wrong.. but can somebody verify??? go hoyas.. go deke
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,748
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 21, 2008 21:21:11 GMT -5
Exactly. How is that any different than trying to win one so that the seniors get to keep playing? Besides, it's not as though teams or coaches should need any extra motivation to win games. What's the downside? Er, um, because that's one or two games versus an entire season? The NCAA only wants players to play four years. You can just as wll ask the downside of letting players play for five or six years.
|
|
|
Post by Hoya TMF on Aug 22, 2008 7:04:41 GMT -5
Your sarcasm is not well placed. The difference is that Cook didn't play a fourth year. He didn't play in 30% of his team's games last year. Somehow the rule is different for successful teams that make the postseason. The NCCA will credit the postseason as only one game instead of how ever many the team actually played. How is it unfair for the NCAA to allow a team to get credit for 37 games if the team actually played 37 games? The NCAA should either (1) treat every team the same and give no credit for postseason or (2) treat every team the same and give teams credit for the amount of games they actually play. Even the former of these proposals is unfair, but it's at least less unfair than the current rule.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 22, 2008 8:47:33 GMT -5
I think part of the problem is that Cook played his team's first 11 games, then missed the rest of the season. College basketball seasons are weighted heavily towards the end of the season, so the last 11 games are worth significantly more than the first 11 games.
If he'd been hurt at the start of the season, played his team's last 10 regular season games, then played through the entire BET and NCAA, I don't think anybody would be talking about how he got a raw deal. But instead he played 11 games that don't mean much, and he ended his career with an injury.
Maybe the NCAA ought to consider when the injury happens for things like this.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,748
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 22, 2008 9:48:15 GMT -5
The point is, the rule is the rule. Whatever they determine it to be, that's when a player has played a season.
They could say if you play a minute, you've burned your ability to medically redshirt. To avoid things like this, I'd put it at a number of games, regardless of how many a team plays.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 22, 2008 10:25:13 GMT -5
by the way.. they did apply for deke for another year.. and its my understanding he woulda played ...and we coulda used him... could be wrong.. but can somebody verify??? go hoyas.. go deke I can guarantee you he wouldn't have played. If JT2 was getting feedback from his NBA contacts that he wsa a top 5 pick, he was going. Like Iverson, he wouldn't have advised him to stick around.
|
|
|
Post by Hoya TMF on Aug 22, 2008 11:19:16 GMT -5
The point is, the rule is the rule. Whatever they determine it to be, that's when a player has played a season. They could say if you play a minute, you've burned your ability to medically redshirt. To avoid things like this, I'd put it at a number of games, regardless of how many a team plays. I was never disputing the merit of their decision. They applied their rule correctly. I just disagreed with the fairness of their rule. It doesn't treat teams fairly. The rule treats teams that make the postseason differently than those who don't, but it doesn't treat teams that succeed in the postseason than those that are just one and done. They can obviously do what they want, but their rule is inconsistent. Even your hypothetical makes more sense than their rule.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 22, 2008 11:55:26 GMT -5
I agree with 0206. Obviously they applied the rule correctly as it's written. I just feel like when a player goes down like that and hasn't played a majority of the games he should get another chance. But that's just me. I think the percentage of games should be higher at least 40% especially if it's the begining of the season. I feel like they need to just look at things on a case to case basis and use their best judgement and not have a hard fast rule.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,214
|
Post by hoyarooter on Aug 22, 2008 12:34:47 GMT -5
I agree with 0206. Obviously they applied the rule correctly as it's written. I just feel like when a player goes down like that and hasn't played a majority of the games he should get another chance. But that's just me. I think the percentage of games should be higher at least 40% especially if it's the begining of the season. I feel like they need to just look at things on a case to case basis and use their best judgement and not have a hard fast rule. I'm very sympathetic toward Cook, but to me this approach is an invitation to disaster. Giving the NCAA this sort of discretion would almost certainly lead to lots of bad decisions, and much more critcism than the NCAA is receiving now for just following its rule.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Aug 23, 2008 10:01:43 GMT -5
TERRIBLE decision. I feel sorry for Cook and Pitt.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Post by lichoya68 on Aug 23, 2008 12:03:18 GMT -5
im sorta confused but on one point cant somebody remember that DEKE WAS GONNA PLAY ANOTHER YEAR IF THE WAIVER GIVEN IM pretty sure about that but heck you know me go hoyas ANYBODY REMEMBER THAT ??
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 23, 2008 13:08:39 GMT -5
I agree with 0206. Obviously they applied the rule correctly as it's written. I just feel like when a player goes down like that and hasn't played a majority of the games he should get another chance. But that's just me. I think the percentage of games should be higher at least 40% especially if it's the begining of the season. I feel like they need to just look at things on a case to case basis and use their best judgement and not have a hard fast rule. I'm very sympathetic toward Cook, but to me this approach is an invitation to disaster. Giving the NCAA this sort of discretion would almost certainly lead to lots of bad decisions, and much more critcism than the NCAA is receiving now for just following its rule. I guess you just assume they'd make the wrong decision given the chance. Whereas I believe they'd make the right one.
|
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by royski on Aug 23, 2008 15:37:59 GMT -5
I think you can't be that naive HSB.
|
|