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 1, 2019 15:53:37 GMT -5
I am presuming that a "run off" means that the only reason he left is because he wasn't going to play and we wanted his scholarship (i.e. Robby Benson in One On One!). Certainly every indication there was more involved here. The term "run off" is making it sound like Walker could have been reinstated at some point and time. I have no idea if that was the case. If it was, wouldn't Coach Ewing just suspend him instead of using the language dismissed. Was there ever a statement from Coach Ewing & the Georgetown athletics department on Walker's dismissal? If there was, the verbiage used in that statement will go along way in deciding his appeal...
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Nov 1, 2019 16:30:20 GMT -5
Georgetown has no obligation to publicly state why Walker was dismissed. Don’t think he would want it public either, certainly wouldn’t help to court favor.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 1, 2019 16:43:04 GMT -5
247sports.com/college/georgetown/Article/Georgetown-Sophomore-Forward-Antwan-Walker-Dismissed-From-Team-123185338/I am not sure why some are acting like this is a mystery. This is not an example of Walker being pushed off the team because of a scholarship, etc. He already had a scholarship, and Georgetown had no need for it. When guys are nudged out the door because of scholarship room, etc., the program rarely says a kid was "dismissed." And it doesn't happen in October after the kid has already started the semester. If this was simply a change of environment, Walker would have transferred, and likely before the start of the first semester (which is the whole reason he's not eligible until December).
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,908
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 1, 2019 16:47:12 GMT -5
I have no idea whether it's true or not but I do know that the NCAA shouldn't be relying on what a previous program has to say on the matter... I disagree, I think they have to ask the former coaching staff of the student athlete why the player left as well as interview the student athlete. If Walker wanted a change of environment that's one thing i.e. what we know of Ian Steere situation with NC State, now at St. John's. Walker was dismissed for allegedly multiplied fights. At the end, I do think he should be eligible to start this season since he didn't play a game his sophomore year at Georgetown. It feels as if the NCAA is suspending him for 10 games on top of his dismissal from Georgetown and that's not fair. Same goes for Ian Steere... But if a school is salty about the kid leaving(See the AD from Cleveland State) they can hinder his/her chance to play immediately... Players shouldn't be at the mercy of a former program imo...
|
|
hoyaduck
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Hoya Saxa
Posts: 1,447
|
Post by hoyaduck on Nov 1, 2019 16:54:20 GMT -5
I like this response by rjsuperfly66 on their board: "The sense I get is that it has to do with the reasons for the dismissal. If a player is "run-off," it's a mutual benefit. Team gets scholarship, player gets to go play right away. Win win all the way around. If a player is dismissed due to discipline, the coach may have no choice but to come to that conclusion. It's a self-inflicted "dismissal." Yes, the player is forced to transfer to continue his D1 career, but does that warrant an exception to play earlier than you should? I'm sure that was along the lines of what Georgetown said when asked, that "Look, if it wasn't for X and Y, we would hope Antwan was still with us. We didn't have a choice given his behavior." As others have indicated, what advantage is there for Georgetown to play nice? Gtown and URI are competing for bids and recruits. If Walker had chosen North Dakota St., maybe they don't put up as big of a counter-offensive. But I also don't think that makes them wrong. I think if URI (or PC) had a talented player on the roster who a coach was forced to dismiss due to discipline, the thought wouldn't be "What can we do to get that player to play faster" and I also don't think many fans want to be pushing for earlier eligibility. Just a hunch, maybe I'm speaking for myself on that one." keaneyblue.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8173&sid=cc0c36289fc6e2b4356eada874df9faa&start=150
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,205
|
Post by hoya9797 on Nov 1, 2019 17:17:53 GMT -5
At least according to media reports, Walker was dismissed as of October 11, 2018. I realize that the reason he is ineligible is because he was enrolled at Georgetown for the fall semester 2018, which is what matters for eligibility, but I think this is a silly rule (and generally speaking, I think the one year sit-out rule should stay in place). If you don't play at all during a season and you transfer and/or are dismissed, you should not have to wait a third semester (essentially 1.5 years), to play again. Why?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,451
|
Post by TC on Nov 1, 2019 17:19:58 GMT -5
As others have indicated, what advantage is there for Georgetown to play nice? There's no advantage in doing the right thing and not punishing some kid that you've already kicked out further, but the fact that you're looking for an advantage in some recruiting turf war in the unrelated punishment of a 19 year old is pretty much proof how corrupt this sport is. I hope there's some other reason here that actually has to do with Antwan Walker other than we have some weird problem with a former assistant recruiting in DC.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 1, 2019 17:34:31 GMT -5
At least according to media reports, Walker was dismissed as of October 11, 2018. I realize that the reason he is ineligible is because he was enrolled at Georgetown for the fall semester 2018, which is what matters for eligibility, but I think this is a silly rule (and generally speaking, I think the one year sit-out rule should stay in place). If you don't play at all during a season and you transfer and/or are dismissed, you should not have to wait a third semester (essentially 1.5 years), to play again. Why? I know I have discussed this at length on here, so I won't give a hugely long response (and I acknowledge there are counter arguments that make sense, even if I disagree). But, in bullet form: - Most importantly, free transferring without limits would make the entire college basketball sport a constant free-for-all of recruiting. For example, would you want Calipari coming and trying to get transfers from Akinjo, LeBlanc, or whoever our best players are? Basically, nearly everything bad about college basketball involves recruiting, and free transfers would just make that problem even worse. - I think there's something to be said for commitment. And yes, I realize coaches can come and go as they please. Maybe the rules can be relaxed in those situations, but I don't think it's helpful to anybody for guys to make decisions on a whim. All that being said, I do think universities should guarantee a 4 year scholarship. I do not think people should be recruited over or kicked out and forced to transfer (though sometimes it's mutually beneficial). And, I realize that's not in place now, it's a flaw in the system. I could say a lot more but these are the major factors, I think.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,205
|
Post by hoya9797 on Nov 1, 2019 18:20:42 GMT -5
I know I have discussed this at length on here, so I won't give a hugely long response (and I acknowledge there are counter arguments that make sense, even if I disagree). But, in bullet form: - Most importantly, free transferring without limits would make the entire college basketball sport a constant free-for-all of recruiting. For example, would you want Calipari coming and trying to get transfers from Akinjo, LeBlanc, or whoever our best players are? Basically, nearly everything bad about college basketball involves recruiting, and free transfers would just make that problem even worse. - I think there's something to be said for commitment. And yes, I realize coaches can come and go as they please. Maybe the rules can be relaxed in those situations, but I don't think it's helpful to anybody for guys to make decisions on a whim. All that being said, I do think universities should guarantee a 4 year scholarship. I do not think people should be recruited over or kicked out and forced to transfer (though sometimes it's mutually beneficial). And, I realize that's not in place now, it's a flaw in the system. I could say a lot more but these are the major factors, I think. Regular students on scholarship are free to transfer and find the best possible situation for themselves. Why should scholarship athletes be treated differently? I’m pretty sure this rule is not for the benefit of the student.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,486
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 1, 2019 18:48:41 GMT -5
Agreed. The rule stinks.
That said, until it is changed, players should not expect waivers.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Nov 1, 2019 19:14:01 GMT -5
1. We should not be afraid of recruiting battles with URI 2. If we got in the way of the waiver Pat or whomever made that decision looks like a crazy bitter ex girlfriend. 3. If you are kicked off before your previous teams season starts you shouldn’t have to sit a 3rd semester. 4. The whole idea of having a guy sit out a fall semester is just dumb because they will never get a chance to play their 8th allowed semester.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 1, 2019 20:15:21 GMT -5
speculation on my part: Likely the reason why Georgetown didn't admit to "running off" Walker is likely that Ewing probably set forth some requirements to be reinstated down the line and rather than do what was required of him Walker chose to transfer instead. If that were the case, then I don't think there's an issue.
If that's not the case and we kicked him off the team and then didn't support him playing right away at another school, even if we had no intention of letting him back into the program with good behavior. Then yeah that's not a great look.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,352
|
Post by calhoya on Nov 1, 2019 20:18:09 GMT -5
I know I have discussed this at length on here, so I won't give a hugely long response (and I acknowledge there are counter arguments that make sense, even if I disagree). But, in bullet form: - Most importantly, free transferring without limits would make the entire college basketball sport a constant free-for-all of recruiting. For example, would you want Calipari coming and trying to get transfers from Akinjo, LeBlanc, or whoever our best players are? Basically, nearly everything bad about college basketball involves recruiting, and free transfers would just make that problem even worse. - I think there's something to be said for commitment. And yes, I realize coaches can come and go as they please. Maybe the rules can be relaxed in those situations, but I don't think it's helpful to anybody for guys to make decisions on a whim. All that being said, I do think universities should guarantee a 4 year scholarship. I do not think people should be recruited over or kicked out and forced to transfer (though sometimes it's mutually beneficial). And, I realize that's not in place now, it's a flaw in the system. I could say a lot more but these are the major factors, I think. Often agree with your perspective but the transfer rules are really unfair. A basketball player on scholarship is subject to the restrictions of these transfer rules. A soccer player on scholarship is not. Same for baseball. So it’s not about enforcing a rule that applies to college athletes. It’s about imposing barriers to certain athletes in two sports because this is what coaches want. Let’s impose the same rule on coaches and administrators and require them to sit out a year. It’s wrong. It’s not about commitment either since it is not a two-way street and scholarships can be revoked or withdrawn without cause. Any system that imposes transfer restrictions on students, but which allows the one and done system or allows a player to essentially play a year with little or no regard to class attendance is premised upon hypocrisy and it is difficult to accept any justifications for self-serviig restrictions on students.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 20:56:34 GMT -5
I like this response by rjsuperfly66 on their board: "The sense I get is that it has to do with the reasons for the dismissal. If a player is "run-off," it's a mutual benefit. Team gets scholarship, player gets to go play right away. Win win all the way around. If a player is dismissed due to discipline, the coach may have no choice but to come to that conclusion. It's a self-inflicted "dismissal." Yes, the player is forced to transfer to continue his D1 career, but does that warrant an exception to play earlier than you should? I'm sure that was along the lines of what Georgetown said when asked, that "Look, if it wasn't for X and Y, we would hope Antwan was still with us. We didn't have a choice given his behavior." As others have indicated, what advantage is there for Georgetown to play nice? Gtown and URI are competing for bids and recruits. If Walker had chosen North Dakota St., maybe they don't put up as big of a counter-offensive. But I also don't think that makes them wrong. I think if URI (or PC) had a talented player on the roster who a coach was forced to dismiss due to discipline, the thought wouldn't be "What can we do to get that player to play faster" and I also don't think many fans want to be pushing for earlier eligibility. Just a hunch, maybe I'm speaking for myself on that one." keaneyblue.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8173&sid=cc0c36289fc6e2b4356eada874df9faa&start=150Ladies and gentlemen, the current state - and (not incorrect) public perception of your Georgetown Hoyas ...
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 1, 2019 21:01:16 GMT -5
I know I have discussed this at length on here, so I won't give a hugely long response (and I acknowledge there are counter arguments that make sense, even if I disagree). But, in bullet form: - Most importantly, free transferring without limits would make the entire college basketball sport a constant free-for-all of recruiting. For example, would you want Calipari coming and trying to get transfers from Akinjo, LeBlanc, or whoever our best players are? Basically, nearly everything bad about college basketball involves recruiting, and free transfers would just make that problem even worse. - I think there's something to be said for commitment. And yes, I realize coaches can come and go as they please. Maybe the rules can be relaxed in those situations, but I don't think it's helpful to anybody for guys to make decisions on a whim. All that being said, I do think universities should guarantee a 4 year scholarship. I do not think people should be recruited over or kicked out and forced to transfer (though sometimes it's mutually beneficial). And, I realize that's not in place now, it's a flaw in the system. I could say a lot more but these are the major factors, I think. Often agree with your perspective but the transfer rules are really unfair. A basketball player on scholarship is subject to the restrictions of these transfer rules. A soccer player on scholarship is not. Same for baseball. So it’s not about enforcing a rule that applies to college athletes. It’s about imposing barriers to certain athletes in two sports because this is what coaches want. Let’s impose the same rule on coaches and administrators and require them to sit out a year. It’s wrong. It’s not about commitment either since it is not a two-way street and scholarships can be revoked or withdrawn without cause. Any system that imposes transfer restrictions on students, but which allows the one and done system or allows a player to essentially play a year with little or no regard to class attendance is premised upon hypocrisy and it is difficult to accept any justifications for self-serviig restrictions on students. That's not true I believe college soccer players do have to sit out a year if they transfer.
|
|
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 1, 2019 22:41:40 GMT -5
I disagree, I think they have to ask the former coaching staff of the student athlete why the player left as well as interview the student athlete. If Walker wanted a change of environment that's one thing i.e. what we know of Ian Steere situation with NC State, now at St. John's. Walker was dismissed for allegedly multiplied fights. At the end, I do think he should be eligible to start this season since he didn't play a game his sophomore year at Georgetown. It feels as if the NCAA is suspending him for 10 games on top of his dismissal from Georgetown and that's not fair. Same goes for Ian Steere... But if a school is salty about the kid leaving(See the AD from Cleveland State) they can hinder his/her chance to play immediately... Players shouldn't be at the mercy of a former program imo... I never said the NCAA should base their decision on what the previous school/AD said but they do have to inquire. Like I said in my previous statement, both Walker & Steere should be allowed to play otherwise they are being penalized a semesters worth (10 games or so) of games. In Steere's case, since he played a game at NC State, suspend him for the first game at St. John's to even it out. No need to penalize the student athletes x amount of games. Having to transfer and not play a season is penalty enough.
|
|
|
Post by HamptonHoya on Nov 2, 2019 5:51:27 GMT -5
Perhaps I am reading with my paranoya glasses on this morning, but I am get the feeling someone is saying the Hoyas didn't do something ethically or morally correct. I am sure the investigating committee didn't ask the Hoyas for a recommendation for the penalty/punishment, simply their version of what occurred. Goodman is looking for a smoking gun where one simply does not exist (and I was just starting to tolerate the guy). The season can't start fast enough!
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,352
|
Post by calhoya on Nov 2, 2019 7:39:33 GMT -5
Often agree with your perspective but the transfer rules are really unfair. A basketball player on scholarship is subject to the restrictions of these transfer rules. A soccer player on scholarship is not. Same for baseball. So it’s not about enforcing a rule that applies to college athletes. It’s about imposing barriers to certain athletes in two sports because this is what coaches want. Let’s impose the same rule on coaches and administrators and require them to sit out a year. It’s wrong. It’s not about commitment either since it is not a two-way street and scholarships can be revoked or withdrawn without cause. Any system that imposes transfer restrictions on students, but which allows the one and done system or allows a player to essentially play a year with little or no regard to class attendance is premised upon hypocrisy and it is difficult to accept any justifications for self-serviig restrictions on students. That's not true I believe college soccer players do have to sit out a year if they transfer. If the rules are different now then I apologize for misstating the facts. However 8 years ago, my son transferred after his freshman year from one Division I soccer program back East to another here in the West. He played immediately as a sophomore and there were no extenuating circumstances for the transfer other than wanting to get back to warmer weather and closer to home. He did not have a scholarship for the first semester at his new school but that was simply a matter of that school having used up all of the money before the transfer and not as a result of any penalty for transferring. He transferred to a stronger program and his former coach actually helped facilitate the entire process and was very helpful. Again if that is no longer the case I did not know of the change.
|
|
|
Post by HamptonHoya on Nov 2, 2019 8:21:42 GMT -5
speculation on my part: Likely the reason why Georgetown didn't admit to "running off" Walker is likely that Ewing probably set forth some requirements to be reinstated down the line and rather than do what was required of him Walker chose to transfer instead. If that were the case, then I don't think there's an issue. If that's not the case and we kicked him off the team and then didn't support him playing right away at another school, even if we had no intention of letting him back into the program with good behavior. Then yeah that's not a great look. You are correct and we will never know. The Program will never dignify naysayers with a response.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,451
|
Post by TC on Nov 2, 2019 8:43:17 GMT -5
Perhaps I am reading with my paranoya glasses on this morning, but I am get the feeling someone is saying the Hoyas didn't do something ethically or morally correct. Sometimes you can do something ethically or morally correct and still come off as a complete turd. It sounds like Georgetown told the truth from their side of it and wouldn't budge. Morally and ethically correct in a vacuum? Yes. Morally and ethically correct in an NCAA waiver system that is completely inconsistent and favors power schools in every respect and that punishes 19 year old kids but never institutions? Debatable. As far as I understand the situation from reading the URI board, the grey area is over the waiver rule where the previous school has to engage in "egregious" behavior, like running a kid off a team because they were over-recruited or there being no playing time for him whatsoever. From reading their board, it sounds like Georgetown was pretty firm that "Hey, we didn't do anything wrong, we kicked this kid off the team for getting in fights" and URI kinda wanted them to play ball and just say he was run off or that he wouldn't have gotten any playing time (which probably is true).
|
|