|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Nov 4, 2019 17:26:34 GMT -5
NCAA rule changes in June 2019 (the NCAA called them "minor" and "clarifications") now specifically REQUIRE that in all instances of requests for waiver, they require the AD at the original school to provide an explanation of the reason that the player is transferring. As far as I can tell, Georgetown complied. We don't know how much info they provided - maybe just that he was dismissed for violation of program (or University?) rules and then he advised that he was transferring.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 17:33:01 GMT -5
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... Well, either a) the NCAA doesn't know how to Google and had to ask Georgetown to provide the statement or b) it's simply step #4 in the NCAA waiver review process and they have to ask the previous school certain questions, most of which do not have public answers.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Nov 4, 2019 17:34:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 4, 2019 17:41:30 GMT -5
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... Again, I am saying this out of ignorance of the fine-details of the waiver process, but I would imagine it has to do with the reason for the waiver. For example, when Julian Vaughn asked for a waiver because of illness in his family or a family problem, I imagine the NCAA probably did some basic due diligence to ensure it was true, and that likely would have nothing to do with his previous anniversary. In contrast, if the basis for asking for a waiver is conduct by the player, I imagine the NCAA probably would ask the previous university and/or its staff about the reasons for a dismissal, etc. Now, whether they need to contact Georgetown for information, I do not know. But, typically, records of infractions, etc. are held pretty close-to-the-vest. I would not be surprised if Walker's official files are lean on details, which actually probably serves to protect him. And thus, the NCAA may need more information. I just see this more as a boring administrative issue, UNLESS, Georgetown went out of its way to prevent the waiver, and as I've said, I find that very hard to believe.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 17:47:28 GMT -5
Here, it appears the NCAA rigidly and textually interpreted the rule — heavily favoring the letter of the law (i.e. 2 full semesters, period) over the specific context and circumstances behind Walker’s split from the school. This is exactly my point. The NCAA rigidly follows their rules, which is probably a good thing in a vacuum. But it's not actually a good thing because the rules are faulty. I just think it's ridiculous that people here are blaming Georgetown for the NCAA's decision.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 17:51:39 GMT -5
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. If PE would have been fired, I'd have no issues with Yurtseven being allowed to play right away... I don't think so, the only way a player can truly prove that they've been run off is by the previous team being over the scholarship limit... Carter could be an example of this... The NCAA could easily research this without contacting the previous school... Neither Baker or Green are true "runoffs" from the Kentucky program seeing that Kentucky only has 10 scholarship players this season...
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 18:06:04 GMT -5
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. If PE would have been fired, I'd have no issues with Yurtseven being allowed to play right away... I don't think so, the only way a player can truly prove that they've been run off is by the previous team being over the scholarship limit... Carter could be an example of this... The NCAA could easily research this without contacting the previous school... Neither Baker or Green are true "runoffs" from the Kentucky program seeing that Kentucky only has 10 scholarship players this season... You didn't answer my question. "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?" Ewing wasn't fired, so that wasn't my question. Would you have been ok with Yurtseven transferring to Kentucky this year with Ewing still as coach? Again, I agree that I would like the rule to change so that players could transfer if there's a coaching change, but that is not the current rule. A team doesn't need to be over the scholarship limit to not renew a player's scholarship for the next year. Carter is a whole different situation, but given how much you're talking past me I don't see the conversation being productive. But since Carter didn't apply for a waiver and is red shirting this year, it certainly would seem like he made his own decision to leave Georgetown and was not run off. If he was run off then he should have applied for a waiver and the waiver should have been granted.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 18:36:52 GMT -5
If PE would have been fired, I'd have no issues with Yurtseven being allowed to play right away... I don't think so, the only way a player can truly prove that they've been run off is by the previous team being over the scholarship limit... Carter could be an example of this... The NCAA could easily research this without contacting the previous school... Neither Baker or Green are true "runoffs" from the Kentucky program seeing that Kentucky only has 10 scholarship players this season... You didn't answer my question. "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?" Ewing wasn't fired, so that wasn't my question. Would you have been ok with Yurtseven transferring to Kentucky this year with Ewing still as coach? Again, I agree that I would like the rule to change so that players could transfer if there's a coaching change, but that is not the current rule. A team doesn't need to be over the scholarship limit to not renew a player's scholarship for the next year. Carter is a whole different situation, but given how much you're talking past me I don't see the conversation being productive. But since Carter didn't apply for a waiver and is red shirting this year, it certainly would seem like he made his own decision to leave Georgetown and was not run off. If he was run off then he should have applied for a waiver and the waiver should have been granted. Sorry, I missed that question... No, I wouldn't be in favor of Dunn getting the transfer in this case but I still wouldn't want Cleveland State involved at all in the process... No, in that case, I wouldn't be in favor of Yurtseven getting a waiver but I still wouldn't want Gtown weighing in on the process... If a kid's scholarship isn't renewed for non-disciplinary reasons then he/she should get a waiver no questions asked though in my view... I'm not trying to go down the Carter road either but it can't be denied that on paper Gtown was over the scholarship limit this past spring that's why I used him as an example... I fully understand there could have been circumstances we as fans don't know about the situation, I'm just looking at it from a very broad angle... Not trying to talk past you at all, we just don't agree on the role the previous school should play in the waiver process. We do agree that the NCAA has some bad rules in this process though...
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 18:43:36 GMT -5
You didn't answer my question. "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?" Ewing wasn't fired, so that wasn't my question. Would you have been ok with Yurtseven transferring to Kentucky this year with Ewing still as coach? Again, I agree that I would like the rule to change so that players could transfer if there's a coaching change, but that is not the current rule. A team doesn't need to be over the scholarship limit to not renew a player's scholarship for the next year. Carter is a whole different situation, but given how much you're talking past me I don't see the conversation being productive. But since Carter didn't apply for a waiver and is red shirting this year, it certainly would seem like he made his own decision to leave Georgetown and was not run off. If he was run off then he should have applied for a waiver and the waiver should have been granted. Sorry, I missed that question... No, I wouldn't be in favor of Dunn getting the transfer in this case but I still wouldn't want Cleveland State involved at all in the process... No, in that case, I wouldn't be in favor of Yurtseven getting a waiver but I still wouldn't want Gtown weighing in on the process... If a kid's scholarship isn't renewed for non-disciplinary reasons then he/she should get a waiver no questions asked though in my view... I'm not trying to go down the Carter road either but it can't be denied that on paper Gtown was over the scholarship limit this past spring. I fully understand there could have been circumstances we as fans don't know about the situation... Not trying to talk past you at all, we just don't agree on the role the previous school should play in the waiver process. We do agree that the NCAA has some bad rules in this process though... Where we are talking past each other is your definition of the previous school "weighing in on the process" vs my definition of the previous school answering due diligence questions from the NCAA. We are both making assumptions since neither of us work at the NCAA or at one of the schools, but I still have not seen an example where the previous school has "weighed in on the process" by giving an opinion to the NCAA on whether a waiver should be granted outside of the current rules.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Nov 4, 2019 19:46:23 GMT -5
You didn't answer my question. "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?" Ewing wasn't fired, so that wasn't my question. Would you have been ok with Yurtseven transferring to Kentucky this year with Ewing still as coach? Again, I agree that I would like the rule to change so that players could transfer if there's a coaching change, but that is not the current rule. A team doesn't need to be over the scholarship limit to not renew a player's scholarship for the next year. Carter is a whole different situation, but given how much you're talking past me I don't see the conversation being productive. But since Carter didn't apply for a waiver and is red shirting this year, it certainly would seem like he made his own decision to leave Georgetown and was not run off. If he was run off then he should have applied for a waiver and the waiver should have been granted. Sorry, I missed that question... No, I wouldn't be in favor of Dunn getting the transfer in this case but I still wouldn't want Cleveland State involved at all in the process... No, in that case, I wouldn't be in favor of Yurtseven getting a waiver but I still wouldn't want Gtown weighing in on the process... If a kid's scholarship isn't renewed for non-disciplinary reasons then he/she should get a waiver no questions asked though in my view...I'm not trying to go down the Carter road either but it can't be denied that on paper Gtown was over the scholarship limit this past spring that's why I used him as an example... I fully understand there could have been circumstances we as fans don't know about the situation, I'm just looking at it from a very broad angle... Not trying to talk past you at all, we just don't agree on the role the previous school should play in the waiver process. We do agree that the NCAA has some bad rules in this process though... Etomic you're all over the place. Now your arguing against yourself. So wouldn't this point by you disqualify Antwan Walker from being granted eligibility this semester? His scholarship was taken away allegedly for disciplinary reasons. Wouldn't the NCAA have to talk to the previous school to garner the nature of the dismissal?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Nov 4, 2019 20:05:23 GMT -5
Where we are talking past each other is your definition of the previous school "weighing in on the process" vs my definition of the previous school answering due diligence questions from the NCAA. We are both making assumptions since neither of us work at the NCAA or at one of the schools, but I still have not seen an example where the previous school has "weighed in on the process" by giving an opinion to the NCAA on whether a waiver should be granted outside of the current rules. I don't completely know how this works, but I was under the impression that a written statement of support was one of the requirements. I'm totally with Etomic in not understanding why that should be a factor whatsoever. static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/rules/2017srw/coxb5h.pdf
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 20:29:48 GMT -5
Sorry, I missed that question... No, I wouldn't be in favor of Dunn getting the transfer in this case but I still wouldn't want Cleveland State involved at all in the process... No, in that case, I wouldn't be in favor of Yurtseven getting a waiver but I still wouldn't want Gtown weighing in on the process... If a kid's scholarship isn't renewed for non-disciplinary reasons then he/she should get a waiver no questions asked though in my view... I'm not trying to go down the Carter road either but it can't be denied that on paper Gtown was over the scholarship limit this past spring. I fully understand there could have been circumstances we as fans don't know about the situation... Not trying to talk past you at all, we just don't agree on the role the previous school should play in the waiver process. We do agree that the NCAA has some bad rules in this process though... Where we are talking past each other is your definition of the previous school "weighing in on the process" vs my definition of the previous school answering due diligence questions from the NCAA. We are both making assumptions since neither of us work at the NCAA or at one of the schools, but I still have not seen an example where the previous school has "weighed in on the process" by giving an opinion to the NCAA on whether a waiver should be granted outside of the current rules.Seems to me we're getting into a semantics debate now... I get that rules are rules but the only reason the Kentucky kids got their waivers is that Calipari was contacted by the NCAA though right? If that rule was removed neither kid would have a leg to stand on imo especially Green who left mid-year... If that rule was removed Walker still doesn't get the waiver however Gtown isn't accused of being petty by folks who support the URI program right? My point all along has been that the NCAA rule that involves them "doing their due diligence" by contacting the former school or allowing previous schools to "weigh-in" on the waiver process creates way too many hard feelings for the kids who get denied... The same goes for the fans of that school as well...
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 4, 2019 20:32:02 GMT -5
Where we are talking past each other is your definition of the previous school "weighing in on the process" vs my definition of the previous school answering due diligence questions from the NCAA. We are both making assumptions since neither of us work at the NCAA or at one of the schools, but I still have not seen an example where the previous school has "weighed in on the process" by giving an opinion to the NCAA on whether a waiver should be granted outside of the current rules. I don't completely know how this works, but I was under the impression that a written statement of support was one of the requirements. I'm totally with Etomic in not understanding why that should be a factor whatsoever. static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/rules/2017srw/coxb5h.pdfI’m assuming you’re referring to 13b3 for run offs. I agree that I would not be in favor of anything more than confirmation of 13b1 from the previous institution. But again, Walker was not run off so that bylaw is not applicable to him.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 4, 2019 20:36:55 GMT -5
Sorry, I missed that question... No, I wouldn't be in favor of Dunn getting the transfer in this case but I still wouldn't want Cleveland State involved at all in the process... No, in that case, I wouldn't be in favor of Yurtseven getting a waiver but I still wouldn't want Gtown weighing in on the process... If a kid's scholarship isn't renewed for non-disciplinary reasons then he/she should get a waiver no questions asked though in my view...I'm not trying to go down the Carter road either but it can't be denied that on paper Gtown was over the scholarship limit this past spring that's why I used him as an example... I fully understand there could have been circumstances we as fans don't know about the situation, I'm just looking at it from a very broad angle... Not trying to talk past you at all, we just don't agree on the role the previous school should play in the waiver process. We do agree that the NCAA has some bad rules in this process though... Etomic you're all over the place. Now your arguing against yourself. So wouldn't this point by you disqualify Antwan Walker from being granted eligibility this semester? His scholarship was taken away allegedly for disciplinary reasons. Wouldn't the NCAA have to talk to the previous school to garner the nature of the dismissal? Absolutely it would and I wouldn't have a problem with that... We all knew why Walker wasn't with the team, to me the NCAA could have easily known that as well which means there'd be no need for them to bring Gtown into it... They could have just told Walker no due to his previous dismissal from Gtown, clean & easy in my view... I'll say it again my only point here is that the NCAA process of involving the previous school is horrible and unnecessary...
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Nov 4, 2019 23:43:24 GMT -5
Etomic you're all over the place. Now your arguing against yourself. So wouldn't this point by you disqualify Antwan Walker from being granted eligibility this semester? His scholarship was taken away allegedly for disciplinary reasons. Wouldn't the NCAA have to talk to the previous school to garner the nature of the dismissal? Absolutely it would and I wouldn't have a problem with that...
We all knew why Walker wasn't with the team, to me the NCAA could have easily known that as well which means there'd be no need for them to bring Gtown into it...They could have just told Walker no due to his previous dismissal from Gtown, clean & easy in my view... I'll say it again my only point here is that the NCAA process of involving the previous school is horrible and unnecessary... Even your answer contradicts itself. Your first two paragraphs contradict each other... While you say we all know why Walker was no longer with the team (which is false, we have an alleged reason/rumors but no concrete evidence), you believe that the NCAA keeps immediate tabs on every player in their 1268 schools and counting (that can have as many as 24 sports teams each) that are dismissed from a program and why. With all those schools and sports programs they have to legislate over, you expect them to keep track and know why Antwan Walker was dismissed from Georgetown's basketball team in October 2018. And before you reply they can Google it, the release by the school doesn't state the exact reason why Walker was dismissed. So yes, most people on this board have an idea why Walker was dismissed, but most people on here are only focused on Georgetown's basketball program. The NCAA has to focus on the 1268 plus athletic programs and their teams...
|
|
|
Post by HamptonHoya on Nov 12, 2019 6:54:54 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 12, 2019 7:47:55 GMT -5
What are the extenuating circumstances? There aren't any. Per the article, he appeared in 25 games last season.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 12, 2019 10:33:37 GMT -5
From what I’ve read he asked for a waiver due to the stress he endured due to the accusations and scrutiny his family went through during the bribery scandal... Quinerly didn’t claim he was “run off” by the Villanova staff as Walker reportedly did...
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Nov 12, 2019 10:57:25 GMT -5
Quinerly didn’t claim he was “run off” by the Villanova staff as Walker reportedly did... Speculation on your part that Walker claimed he was run off. For all we know, Walker could have just tried to get a waiver based on the fact that he didn't play in any games last season.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by drquigley on Nov 12, 2019 11:21:04 GMT -5
I think only GU grads could devote this much energy to such an arcane topic. Look, Walker would have been a huge addition to our team last year. The fact that PE dismissed him is a testament, in my mind, to PE's and GU's integrity. You can be sure other programs would have found ways to keep him. It is pretty obvious that Walker has some serious personal issues. Hopefully he has put them behind him and will have a productive year at URI. Let's get back to arguing about this year's GU team and why they can't play defense.
|
|