|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 3, 2019 7:57:00 GMT -5
I'm saying "he probably would not have played very much behind Pickett, LeBlanc, Mourning, Malinowski, Grayson Carter and Kaleb Johnson" is also the truth and one that probably gets him the waiver. There's usually a graceful way of dealing with things that also don't make your school look like the bad guy. This is false. That you include Malinowski and Carter is just laughable. We totally need a player like Walker even today. He is 6’9”. We sorely missed him last year. Agreed, I bet if Walker was here he would've gotten most of Trey's minutes.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Nov 3, 2019 11:40:07 GMT -5
I'm saying "he probably would not have played very much behind Pickett, LeBlanc, Mourning, Malinowski, Grayson Carter and Kaleb Johnson" is also the truth and one that probably gets him the waiver. There's usually a graceful way of dealing with things that also don't make your school look like the bad guy. This is false. That you include Malinowski and Carter is just laughable. We totally need a player like Walker even today. He is 6’9”. We sorely missed him last year. Are you really this obtuse? The above is an argument that a gracious department makes to let a kid they let go get a second chance. URI board is saying not only would the AD pick up the phone on Walker, they didn't pick up the phone when URI tried to do the due diligence on *Ernst* - the tennis coach that was selling admissions slots that Georgetown fired. If that's true, URI has a pretty legitimate beef here, and I don't doubt they'll try to screw us whenever they get a chance.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,040
|
Post by jwp91 on Nov 3, 2019 15:12:51 GMT -5
This is false. That you include Malinowski and Carter is just laughable. We totally need a player like Walker even today. He is 6’9”. We sorely missed him last year. Are you really this obtuse? The above is an argument that a gracious department makes to let a kid they let go get a second chance. URI board is saying not only would the AD pick up the phone on Walker, they didn't pick up the phone when URI tried to do the due diligence on *Ernst* - the tennis coach that was selling admissions slots that Georgetown fired. If that's true, URI has a pretty legitimate beef here, and I don't doubt they'll try to screw us whenever they get a chance. Neither of us know all the facts. Coach` has demonstrated pretty solid judgement and chose not to do what you recommended. Maybe there is a reason. Let’s just not be revisionist.
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Nov 4, 2019 13:07:55 GMT -5
This is false. That you include Malinowski and Carter is just laughable. We totally need a player like Walker even today. He is 6’9”. We sorely missed him last year. Are you really this obtuse? The above is an argument that a gracious department makes to let a kid they let go get a second chance. URI board is saying not only would the AD pick up the phone on Walker, they didn't pick up the phone when URI tried to do the due diligence on *Ernst* - the tennis coach that was selling admissions slots that Georgetown fired. If that's true, URI has a pretty legitimate beef here, and I don't doubt they'll try to screw us whenever they get a chance. If anything you're disproving your point by saying they didn't throw the tennis coach under the bus and tell URI not to hire him so that he could have a second chance. It's a weird point to begin with thinking that Gtown did any "wrong" here by not lying. As has been said none of us has the actual facts here. It's the NCAA's policy not ours
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Nov 4, 2019 14:19:51 GMT -5
If anything you're disproving your point by saying they didn't throw the tennis coach under the bus and tell URI not to hire him so that he could have a second chance. You don't see the difference between letting a 52 year old get away with millions of dollars in fraud and possibly continuing the same scheme elsewhere because Georgetown didn't report it to the feds or give URI a heads up - and a 19 year old maybe getting a fresh start and avoid a meaningless semester of ineligibility with no skin off Georgetown's back whatsoever?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 4, 2019 14:31:46 GMT -5
This thread has really gotten off course, all on the basis of a tweet that was (a) unclear to begin with and (b) we have no idea if it is even accurate. To summarize, these are the facts as we know it:
(1) Walker was dismissed from Georgetown's basketball program in October 2019, after starting the first semester. (2) Walker then transferred to the University of Rhode Island. (3) Under NCAA rules, once you have enrolled in a semester (or started classes, not sure which but here it doesn't matter since classes had started by October), that counts, and if you transfer you then need to sit out two semesters. (4) For Walker, that means he needs to sit out the Spring 2019 and Fall 2019 semesters, after having also not played the Fall of 2018. (5) Without a waiver, Walker is not eligible at URI until the end of the Fall 2019 semester, which is typically the week or so before Christmas.
A few more things: (1) When he transferred, Walker knew all of the above, or should have known all of the above. (2) The only way he could be eligible for fall 2019 was a waiver, and he did not get one like some other players who have in similar circumstances.
So, I think acting like Walker is a victim of some sort here is disingenuous. He got dismissed, he transferred, he needs to serve the consequences. To be clear, the rule leads to stupid and unfair circumstances, and it is certainly unfair in this instance. I disagree with the rule, it's silly that if you don't play for an entire season, that you then need sit out the functional equivalent of 1.5 seasons. But, it's the rule.
In my mind, given that Georgetown dismissed Walker, they really are under no moral or other obligation to advocate for Walker to get a waiver. It's not their fault that Walker did things that got himself dismissed. Should Georgetown answer any questions or provide input? Absolutely, and I would be really shocked if they did not do that. But, I also don't think Georgetown should go out of their way given the circumstances.
Contrarily, if Georgetown really did run someone off (which does not seem to be the case here, since Walker's dismissal was related to conduct, not getting recruited over), then I do think they'd have a moral obligation to do as much as they could to facilitate a kid's transfer and help him as much as possible.
I would propose an easy rule change, which is that if you don't play for 2 semesters under the circumstances outlined above, you just sit out 2 semesters, and then play at your new university. I don't see why that should be controversial.
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Nov 4, 2019 14:48:01 GMT -5
If anything you're disproving your point by saying they didn't throw the tennis coach under the bus and tell URI not to hire him so that he could have a second chance. You don't see the difference between letting a 52 year old get away with millions of dollars in fraud and possibly continuing the same scheme elsewhere because Georgetown didn't report it to the feds or give URI a heads up - and a 19 year old maybe getting a fresh start and avoid a meaningless semester of ineligibility with no skin off Georgetown's back whatsoever? I'm clearly not saying that. Just pointing out you were contradicting yourself regardless of the perceived severity. Certainly way different scenarios with much higher stakes. However, you're making some pretty big leaps as to Georgetown being complicit in that specific case is all I'm going to say. Bring me actual evidence instead of conjecture to the contrary and we can talk, but until then we have 0 idea as to Gtown's role in either of these instances.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 14:59:23 GMT -5
This thread has really gotten off course, all on the basis of a tweet that was (a) unclear to begin with and (b) we have no idea if it is even accurate. To summarize, these are the facts as we know it: (1) Walker was dismissed from Georgetown's basketball program in October 2019, after starting the first semester. (2) Walker then transferred to the University of Rhode Island. (3) Under NCAA rules, once you have enrolled in a semester (or started classes, not sure which but here it doesn't matter since classes had started by October), that counts, and if you transfer you then need to sit out two semesters. (4) For Walker, that means he needs to sit out the Spring 2019 and Fall 2019 semesters, after having also not played the Fall of 2018. (5) Without a waiver, Walker is not eligible at URI until the end of the Fall 2019 semester, which is typically the week or so before Christmas. A few more things: (1) When he transferred, Walker knew all of the above, or should have known all of the above. (2) The only way he could be eligible for fall 2019 was a waiver, and he did not get one like some other players who have in similar circumstances. So, I think acting like Walker is a victim of some sort here is disingenuous. He got dismissed, he transferred, he needs to serve the consequences. To be clear, the rule leads to stupid and unfair circumstances, and it is certainly unfair in this instance. I disagree with the rule, it's silly that if you don't play for an entire season, that you then need sit out the functional equivalent of 1.5 seasons. But, it's the rule. In my mind, given that Georgetown dismissed Walker, they really are under no moral or other obligation to advocate for Walker to get a waiver. It's not their fault that Walker did things that got himself dismissed. Should Georgetown answer any questions or provide input? Absolutely, and I would be really shocked if they did not do that. But, I also don't think Georgetown should go out of their way given the circumstances. Contrarily, if Georgetown really did run someone off (which does not seem to be the case here, since Walker's dismissal was related to conduct, not getting recruited over), then I do think they'd have a moral obligation to do as much as they could to facilitate a kid's transfer and help him as much as possible. I would propose an easy rule change, which is that if you don't play for 2 semesters under the circumstances outlined above, you just sit out 2 semesters, and then play at your new university. I don't see why that should be controversial. Why do you think Gtown should be involved in the waiver process for a player who's no longer in their program? Also, you're ignoring how arbitrary these waiver decisions are...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Nov 4, 2019 14:59:36 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 4, 2019 15:13:16 GMT -5
This thread has really gotten off course, all on the basis of a tweet that was (a) unclear to begin with and (b) we have no idea if it is even accurate. To summarize, these are the facts as we know it: (1) Walker was dismissed from Georgetown's basketball program in October 2019, after starting the first semester. (2) Walker then transferred to the University of Rhode Island. (3) Under NCAA rules, once you have enrolled in a semester (or started classes, not sure which but here it doesn't matter since classes had started by October), that counts, and if you transfer you then need to sit out two semesters. (4) For Walker, that means he needs to sit out the Spring 2019 and Fall 2019 semesters, after having also not played the Fall of 2018. (5) Without a waiver, Walker is not eligible at URI until the end of the Fall 2019 semester, which is typically the week or so before Christmas. A few more things: (1) When he transferred, Walker knew all of the above, or should have known all of the above. (2) The only way he could be eligible for fall 2019 was a waiver, and he did not get one like some other players who have in similar circumstances. So, I think acting like Walker is a victim of some sort here is disingenuous. He got dismissed, he transferred, he needs to serve the consequences. To be clear, the rule leads to stupid and unfair circumstances, and it is certainly unfair in this instance. I disagree with the rule, it's silly that if you don't play for an entire season, that you then need sit out the functional equivalent of 1.5 seasons. But, it's the rule. In my mind, given that Georgetown dismissed Walker, they really are under no moral or other obligation to advocate for Walker to get a waiver. It's not their fault that Walker did things that got himself dismissed. Should Georgetown answer any questions or provide input? Absolutely, and I would be really shocked if they did not do that. But, I also don't think Georgetown should go out of their way given the circumstances. Contrarily, if Georgetown really did run someone off (which does not seem to be the case here, since Walker's dismissal was related to conduct, not getting recruited over), then I do think they'd have a moral obligation to do as much as they could to facilitate a kid's transfer and help him as much as possible. I would propose an easy rule change, which is that if you don't play for 2 semesters under the circumstances outlined above, you just sit out 2 semesters, and then play at your new university. I don't see why that should be controversial. Why do you think Gtown should be involved in the waiver process for a player who's no longer in their program? Also, you're ignoring how arbitrary these waiver decisions are...IMO, this is a huge part of the problem as is typically the case with the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 4, 2019 15:53:07 GMT -5
This thread has really gotten off course, all on the basis of a tweet that was (a) unclear to begin with and (b) we have no idea if it is even accurate. To summarize, these are the facts as we know it: (1) Walker was dismissed from Georgetown's basketball program in October 2019, after starting the first semester. (2) Walker then transferred to the University of Rhode Island. (3) Under NCAA rules, once you have enrolled in a semester (or started classes, not sure which but here it doesn't matter since classes had started by October), that counts, and if you transfer you then need to sit out two semesters. (4) For Walker, that means he needs to sit out the Spring 2019 and Fall 2019 semesters, after having also not played the Fall of 2018. (5) Without a waiver, Walker is not eligible at URI until the end of the Fall 2019 semester, which is typically the week or so before Christmas. A few more things: (1) When he transferred, Walker knew all of the above, or should have known all of the above. (2) The only way he could be eligible for fall 2019 was a waiver, and he did not get one like some other players who have in similar circumstances. So, I think acting like Walker is a victim of some sort here is disingenuous. He got dismissed, he transferred, he needs to serve the consequences. To be clear, the rule leads to stupid and unfair circumstances, and it is certainly unfair in this instance. I disagree with the rule, it's silly that if you don't play for an entire season, that you then need sit out the functional equivalent of 1.5 seasons. But, it's the rule. In my mind, given that Georgetown dismissed Walker, they really are under no moral or other obligation to advocate for Walker to get a waiver. It's not their fault that Walker did things that got himself dismissed. Should Georgetown answer any questions or provide input? Absolutely, and I would be really shocked if they did not do that. But, I also don't think Georgetown should go out of their way given the circumstances. Contrarily, if Georgetown really did run someone off (which does not seem to be the case here, since Walker's dismissal was related to conduct, not getting recruited over), then I do think they'd have a moral obligation to do as much as they could to facilitate a kid's transfer and help him as much as possible. I would propose an easy rule change, which is that if you don't play for 2 semesters under the circumstances outlined above, you just sit out 2 semesters, and then play at your new university. I don't see why that should be controversial. Why do you think Gtown should be involved in the waiver process for a player who's no longer in their program? Also, you're ignoring how arbitrary these waiver decisions are... I am not ignoring that the waivers are arbitrary. Of course they are. I mean, hell, Josh Smith got a waiver under similar circumstances AND he even played the first semester. That's why the rule should be changed so that if you don't play 2 semesters, you can play in the third semester. Then there'd be no need for a waiver for early first semester transfers. It gets dicier once you play games, but here that's not an issue. And, I absolutely do not think Georgetown should be involved in the waiver process unless asked. I have no idea how the process works. Georgetown should only be playing a reactive role; why would they actively participate in a process that does not affect them at all? I can't imagine why Georgetown or anybody at the university would waste their time on it unless asked.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 16:00:26 GMT -5
This thread has really gotten off course, all on the basis of a tweet that was (a) unclear to begin with and (b) we have no idea if it is even accurate. To summarize, these are the facts as we know it: (1) Walker was dismissed from Georgetown's basketball program in October 2019, after starting the first semester. (2) Walker then transferred to the University of Rhode Island. (3) Under NCAA rules, once you have enrolled in a semester (or started classes, not sure which but here it doesn't matter since classes had started by October), that counts, and if you transfer you then need to sit out two semesters. (4) For Walker, that means he needs to sit out the Spring 2019 and Fall 2019 semesters, after having also not played the Fall of 2018. (5) Without a waiver, Walker is not eligible at URI until the end of the Fall 2019 semester, which is typically the week or so before Christmas. A few more things: (1) When he transferred, Walker knew all of the above, or should have known all of the above. (2) The only way he could be eligible for fall 2019 was a waiver, and he did not get one like some other players who have in similar circumstances. So, I think acting like Walker is a victim of some sort here is disingenuous. He got dismissed, he transferred, he needs to serve the consequences. To be clear, the rule leads to stupid and unfair circumstances, and it is certainly unfair in this instance. I disagree with the rule, it's silly that if you don't play for an entire season, that you then need sit out the functional equivalent of 1.5 seasons. But, it's the rule. In my mind, given that Georgetown dismissed Walker, they really are under no moral or other obligation to advocate for Walker to get a waiver. It's not their fault that Walker did things that got himself dismissed. Should Georgetown answer any questions or provide input? Absolutely, and I would be really shocked if they did not do that. But, I also don't think Georgetown should go out of their way given the circumstances. Contrarily, if Georgetown really did run someone off (which does not seem to be the case here, since Walker's dismissal was related to conduct, not getting recruited over), then I do think they'd have a moral obligation to do as much as they could to facilitate a kid's transfer and help him as much as possible. I would propose an easy rule change, which is that if you don't play for 2 semesters under the circumstances outlined above, you just sit out 2 semesters, and then play at your new university. I don't see why that should be controversial. Why do you think Gtown should be involved in the waiver process for a player who's no longer in their program? Also, you're ignoring how arbitrary these waiver decisions are... I get that you're convinced that the NCAA is asking the former school their opinion about the waiver, but if the NCAA is just doing their due diligence to understand the circumstances around the transfer/waiver then there's no problem with information gathering.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 16:17:24 GMT -5
Why do you think Gtown should be involved in the waiver process for a player who's no longer in their program? Also, you're ignoring how arbitrary these waiver decisions are... I am not ignoring that the waivers are arbitrary. Of course they are. I mean, hell, Josh Smith got a waiver under similar circumstances AND he even played the first semester. That's why the rule should be changed so that if you don't play 2 semesters, you can play in the third semester. Then there'd be no need for a waiver for early first semester transfers. It gets dicier once you play games, but here that's not an issue. And, I absolutely do not think Georgetown should be involved in the waiver process unless asked. I have no idea how the process works. Georgetown should only be playing a reactive role; why would they actively participate in a process that does not affect them at all? I can't imagine why Georgetown or anybody at the university would waste their time on it unless asked. Fair enough with the 1st part of your post... As for the 2nd part, I read your initial post to mean that the NCAA should be reaching out to the previous schools for their input. I get where you're coming from now though but I still agree with TC's take. If a school is going to take part in the waiver process why not do all you can to help the kid out?
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 16:38:24 GMT -5
I am not ignoring that the waivers are arbitrary. Of course they are. I mean, hell, Josh Smith got a waiver under similar circumstances AND he even played the first semester. That's why the rule should be changed so that if you don't play 2 semesters, you can play in the third semester. Then there'd be no need for a waiver for early first semester transfers. It gets dicier once you play games, but here that's not an issue. And, I absolutely do not think Georgetown should be involved in the waiver process unless asked. I have no idea how the process works. Georgetown should only be playing a reactive role; why would they actively participate in a process that does not affect them at all? I can't imagine why Georgetown or anybody at the university would waste their time on it unless asked. Fair enough with the 1st part of your post... As for the 2nd part, I read your initial post to mean that the NCAA should be reaching out to the previous schools for their input. I get where you're coming from now though but I still agree with TC's take. If a school is going to take part in the waiver process why not do all you can to help the kid out? What could Georgetown do in this situation to help Walker out besides lie? Again, there was already a public statement saying he was dismissed from the team that wasn't related to being over-recruited, run off the team, or not having his scholarship renewed.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 16:38:28 GMT -5
Why do you think Gtown should be involved in the waiver process for a player who's no longer in their program? Also, you're ignoring how arbitrary these waiver decisions are... I get that you're convinced that the NCAA is asking the former school their opinion about the waiver, but if the NCAA is just doing their due diligence to understand the circumstances around the transfer/waiver then there's no problem with information gathering. The Dunn kid from St. John's transferred because the coach/staff he waited a year to play for was fired in mid-July by the AD... What facts can the NCAA get from Cleveland State to understand the circumstances better? Reports are the Cleveland State AD told the NCAA he would have been able to play this year if he stayed so the NCAA denied Dunn. Who thinks that's fair? The Baker kid from UK says he was hurt by injuries in 2017-18(even though he played 28 games in 2018-19) and "over-recruited"... The NCAA calls Kentucky, Calipari gives positive feedback and Baker gets approved... Same goes for Quade Green btw... Who thinks that's fair? To me asking a previous program about a former player's waiver request can too easily taint the process...
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 16:43:07 GMT -5
Fair enough with the 1st part of your post... As for the 2nd part, I read your initial post to mean that the NCAA should be reaching out to the previous schools for their input. I get where you're coming from now though but I still agree with TC's take. If a school is going to take part in the waiver process why not do all you can to help the kid out? What could Georgetown do in this situation to help Walker out besides lie? Again, there was already a public statement saying he was dismissed from the team that wasn't related to being over-recruited, run off the team, or not having his scholarship renewed. Isn't dismissing a kid from the program very similar to a run-off? Either way, you're saying you don't want him to be a part of your program any longer so why push back about whether he was run off as the rumors are saying they did in this case?
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 17:00:30 GMT -5
What could Georgetown do in this situation to help Walker out besides lie? Again, there was already a public statement saying he was dismissed from the team that wasn't related to being over-recruited, run off the team, or not having his scholarship renewed. Isn't dismissing a kid from the program very similar to a run-off? Either way, you're saying you don't want him to be a part of your program any longer so why push back about whether he was run off as the rumors are saying they did in this case? It's not similar in that dismissing a player for disciplinary reasons means that the player did something to cause the dismissal, as opposed to a run-off where the coach decides the player is no longer needed on the team. It's like the difference between being fired for cause vs a layoff. Again, where is the "push back"? If the NCAA asked Georgetown why Walker was no longer on the team, and Georgetown said he was dismissed for discipline, how is that push back? That's just stating the facts. You're saying they should lie despite the public statement and say Walker was run off because that would look better. I would say lying looks worse, and saying that Georgetown would run off a player would look much worse.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Nov 4, 2019 17:12:25 GMT -5
For a school infraction it may go above Pat or even Lee to decide. The administration would step in.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 17:16:40 GMT -5
I get that you're convinced that the NCAA is asking the former school their opinion about the waiver, but if the NCAA is just doing their due diligence to understand the circumstances around the transfer/waiver then there's no problem with information gathering. The Dunn kid from St. John's transferred because the coach/staff he waited a year to play for was fired in mid-July by the AD... What facts can the NCAA get from Cleveland State to understand the circumstances better? Reports are the Cleveland State AD told the NCAA he would have been able to play this year if he stayed so the NCAA denied Dunn. Who thinks that's fair? The Baker kid from UK says he was hurt by injuries in 2017-18(even though he played 28 games in 2018-19) and "over-recruited"... The NCAA calls Kentucky, Calipari gives positive feedback and Baker gets approved... Same goes for Quade Green btw... Who thinks that's fair? To me asking a previous program about a former player's waiver request can too easily taint the process... Again, it comes down to the NCAA having bad rules. All of these examples can be easily explained within the rules. I don't think any of it's fair. I don't think Walker sitting out another semester is fair. My whole argument is that it's idiotic to paint Georgetown as the enemy, and due diligence is important when the reason for transfer is part of the waiver process. For Dunn/Cleveland State, yes Dunn could have theoretically stayed at Cleveland State. He was not run off and his scholarship had been renewed. I personally think the NCAA rules should allow for a player to transfer without sitting out a year if there is a coaching change. But that is not part of the rule right now. Similarly, while Dunn already sat out a year, Cleveland State invested a scholarship, resources, and coaching to Dunn for a year. If there wasn't a coaching change at Cleveland State and Dunn had transferred to St. John's, would you have been in favor of a wavier? What if Yurtseven decided this summer to transfer to Kentucky after sitting out a year learning from Ewing? For Kentucky, if Calipari ran off Baker and Green, then that is within the waiver criteria. It's a win win for the coach and player. I don't think it's fair, but those are the rules right now. Again, I wouldn't want the previous institution giving opinion, I would only want the previous institution to provide facts regarding the transfer. This due diligence is needed given the current rules around transfers and waivers. Otherwise, every player that transfers would just claim they were run off so they could get a waiver. In case it wasn't clear, I don't like the rules as they are, and I don't think it's fair in every situation. But as the rules are, all of these examples follow the NCAA rules.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 17:25:23 GMT -5
Isn't dismissing a kid from the program very similar to a run-off? Either way, you're saying you don't want him to be a part of your program any longer so why push back about whether he was run off as the rumors are saying they did in this case? It's not similar in that dismissing a player for disciplinary reasons means that the player did something to cause the dismissal, as opposed to a run-off where the coach decides the player is no longer needed on the team. It's like the difference between being fired for cause vs a layoff. Again, where is the "push back"? If the NCAA asked Georgetown why Walker was no longer on the team, and Georgetown said he was dismissed for discipline, how is that push back? That's just stating the facts. You're saying they should lie despite the public statement and say Walker was run off because that would look better. I would say lying looks worse, and saying that Georgetown would run off a player would look much worse. Fair enough but since it’s already in the public record that Walker was dismissed for disciplinary reasons so why did the NCAA need to ask Gtown anything? Again this is why I don’t like this part of the waiver process...
|
|