A kick in the Nutts

[Sluggo]

I think the ruling is dead on, I just think it is kinda shitty they waited til Aug 31 to tell the kid...something they could've done july 1st or so!

[GH2001]

But I don't buy this whole "spirit of the rule" bullshit. Either it is, or it isn't.

I'm with you here.

Not a huge fan of Masoli or Nutt but there is nothing wrong here to cause the NCAA to not grant this kid the 2010 season.

[Saniflush]

I think the ruling is dead on, I just think it is kinda shitty they waited til Aug 31 to tell the kid...something they could've done july 1st or so!

I am sure they were gauging public opinion to see which way they would look better.

[RWS]

I think the ruling is dead on, I just think it is kinda shitty they waited til Aug 31 to tell the kid...something they could've done july 1st or so!

Unless that rule says straight up this or that, and I don't think it does, the NCAA looks to be in the wrong here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5516909

He pleaded guilty in a January theft at a fraternity house and was suspended for the entire 2010 season by Oregon coach Chip Kelly. Then in June, he was cited for misdemeanor marijuana possession and dismissed from the squad.

The senior has already completed his undergraduate degree and enrolled in Mississippi's Parks and Recreation graduate program. The NCAA will sometimes waive a one-year residency requirement for athletes who are transferring but enrolling in a graduate program not offered at the previous school.

In a press release, the NCAA said Masoli's request violated the intent of the waiver: "The waiver exists to provide relief to student-athletes who transfer for academic reasons to pursue graduate studies, not to avoid disciplinary measures at the previous university."

Nutt said the NCAA should take into account that Masoli was kicked off only the football team, not the university.

"He was not dismissed from the university," Nutt said. "He was dismissed from the team. I've had players that I dismissed. I want them to go play for somebody else. I want them to learn from their mistakes."

I mean, if they're going to make this kid sit, then they need to rethink how kids that play for a D1 team and get kicked off of a team for whatever reason can go play for UNA, Jacksonville St, etc, and not have to sit out. I know it's a lower level of competition and all, but they're doing it for the same reason Masoli is, so why do they catch a break just because of a lower level of competition?

Again, this whole "intent of the waiver" issue is bullshit. It's none of the NCAA's business who a team suspends or dismisses, unless it's NCAA mandated. It doesn't matter what the NCAA's intentions were when they made the rule. All that matters is what is written in the book. If they don't like it, then they need to change it for next year.

[wesfau2]

Nutt said the NCAA should take into account that Masoli was kicked off only the football team, not the university.

"He was not dismissed from the university," Nutt said. "He was dismissed from the team."

Someone on woopig made a great point about this fallacious argument (which the OM fans have adopted).  The distinction between "institution" and "athletic program" (the rule refers consistently to dismissal from the "insitution").  When the NCAA drops the hammer for "lack of institutional control", they are referring to the athletic program.

[JR4AU]

The NCAA says that this was an attempt to circumnavigate the spirit in which the rule was created.  I wouldn't be expecting Masoli on the sideline anytime soon. 
 

I have to disagree...circumventing the spirit of the rule would be a playear acting as a free agent to t'fer his Sr. year to a better team when he had no reason to leave the team he was on.  Masoli was kicked off Oregon.   He was trying to find a home within the rules the NCAA laid out. 

You folks chortle at Nutt all you want.  The NCAA will make this kind of arbitrary 11th hour decision about an Auburn (Ark or bammer player for those fans here) and you'll be screaming bloody murder.  The NCAA needs it's hand slapped a shitload more than Nutt.

[Saniflush]

I have to disagree...circumventing the spirit of the rule would be a playear acting as a free agent to t'fer his Sr. year to a better team when he had no reason to leave the team he was on.  Masoli was kicked off Oregon.   He was trying to find a home within the rules the NCAA laid out. 

You folks chortle at Nutt all you want.  The NCAA will make this kind of arbitrary 11th hour decision about an Auburn (Ark or bammer player for those fans here) and you'll be screaming bloody murder.  The NCAA needs it's hand slapped a shitload more than Nutt.

Taylor, give this man some head.

[RWS]

I have to disagree...circumventing the spirit of the rule would be a playear acting as a free agent to t'fer his Sr. year to a better team when he had no reason to leave the team he was on.  Masoli was kicked off Oregon.   He was trying to find a home within the rules the NCAA laid out. 

You folks chortle at Nutt all you want.  The NCAA will make this kind of arbitrary 11th hour decision about an Auburn (Ark or bammer player for those fans here) and you'll be screaming bloody murder.  The NCAA needs it's hand slapped a shitload more than Nutt.

Bingo. I remember a time or two an AU player being held up in the clearing house and it taking forever for them to get cleared. Or in the case of Deion Belue, where he was 3 days into fall camp and the NCAA decided there was a problem with a course he took, as where they originally cleared him.

Nutt seems to have a fairly strong case. The NCAA can't just come up and say "Well, that's not really how we wanted the rule used, so we're not letting him do it." Can coaches start having referees waive off false start penalties because the OL didn't really mean to move? How about offsides penalties? The NCAA expects schools to follow every letter of the rule book. They should practice what they preach.

[wesfau2]

I have to disagree...circumventing the spirit of the rule would be a playear acting as a free agent to t'fer his Sr. year to a better team when he had no reason to leave the team he was on.  Masoli was kicked off Oregon.   He was trying to find a home within the rules the NCAA laid out. 

Does it make a difference to you that Masoli has not taken a RS year and still has eligibility to spare?

You folks chortle at Nutt all you want.  The NCAA will make this kind of arbitrary 11th hour decision about an Auburn (Ark or bammer player for those fans here) and you'll be screaming bloody murder.  The NCAA needs it's hand slapped a shitload more than Nutt.

This happens all the time.  Attempts to exploit loopholes are made and the NCAA makes what appears to be a decision contrary to the language of the rule only to go back and revise said rule (See: Nutt/oversigning rule; Saban/bump rule)

[GH2001]

Does it make a difference to you that Masoli has not taken a RS year and still has eligibility to spare?

This happens all the time.  Attempts to exploit loopholes are made and the NCAA makes what appears to be a decision contrary to the language of the rule only to go back and revise said rule (See: Nutt/oversigning rule; Saban/bump rule)

Then they should change the rule to spell it out clearly....not retrofit a new interpretation of it to the past.

[RWS]

Does it make a difference to you that Masoli has not taken a RS year and still has eligibility to spare?

Well, of course he has eligibility left. If he didn't, then he couldn't play. What does that have to do with anything?

This happens all the time.  Attempts to exploit loopholes are made and the NCAA makes what appears to be a decision contrary to the language of the rule only to go back and revise said rule (See: Nutt/oversigning rule; Saban/bump rule)

And what did the NCAA do with those two examples? They identified a weak point in the rule, and they fixed it for the next year. They didn't just make some shit up right then and there and say "Well, we didn't mean for that to happen, so now you're in deep shit." And that's the way this should be handled as well. A weak point has been found in the rule. Fine, lesson learned. Fix it next season.

[AUChizad]

Well, of course he has eligibility left. If he didn't, then he couldn't play. What does that have to do with anything?
And what did the NCAA do with those two examples? They identified a weak point in the rule, and they fixed it for the next year. They didn't just make some shit up right then and there and say "Well, we didn't mean for that to happen, so now you're in deep shit." And that's the way this should be handled as well. A weak point has been found in the rule. Fine, lesson learned. Fix it next season.

I've got to agree with the bammer on this one.

I don't necessarily disagree that Nutt was violating the "spirit of the rule", but as it stands now, it's not against the rule. Make it against the rules if you're not going to clear someone in that situation.

And on top of all of that, to do this two days before College football kicks off? That's a hell of a low blow...

That being said, I will chortle at an SEC West opponent's misfortune with no remorse.

[wesfau2]

Well, of course he has eligibility left. If he didn't, then he couldn't play. What does that have to do with anything?

If his eligibility was running (and it would if he transferred schools and was not allowed to play...or if he stayed at UO and could not play), then he would not be able to play ever again unless he was granted this waiver.  With this result, he will still be afforded the opportunity to play.

Masoli was asking for a waiver of the rule.  He wanted special dispensation. Without it, and because he has an extra year of eligibility (in contrast to a kid on his last year seeking to transfer), he will be eligible to play next year.

And on top of all of that, to do this two days before College football kicks off? That's a hell of a low blow...

They have always dragged their feet (as previously pointed out by said bammer).  Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this?

[JR4AU]

Does it make a difference to you that Masoli has not taken a RS year and still has eligibility to spare?

Not unless the rule says something about that.  Otherwise, Masoli, or players on teams such as USC are the exact reason the rule was created.

This happens all the time.  Attempts to exploit loopholes are made and the NCAA makes what appears to be a decision contrary to the language of the rule only to go back and revise said rule (See: Nutt/oversigning rule; Saban/bump rule)

The Masoli deal isn't nearly as blatantly taking advantage of a rule as the two you mention. 

[wesfau2]

The Masoli deal isn't nearly as blatantly taking advantage of a rule as the two you mention. 

You don't think so?

Nutt is on record stating that Masoli was simply casting about for ANY grad program that UO didn't offer so that he could play football this year instead of sitting out like every other (non-waived) transfer.

[JR4AU]

You don't think so?

Nutt is on record stating that Masoli was simply casting about for ANY grad program that UO didn't offer so that he could play football this year instead of sitting out like every other (non-waived) transfer.

As I stated, he was a player looking for a home when he was without one.  Under your logic, players stuck on teams like USC would be "casting about" looking for any program not on probation.  Which, by the way, the NCAA allows.  Masoli wasn't looking for special dispensation.  As I understand it the "waiver" is stated in the rule for the purpose of making sure that the chosen curriculum isn't offered at the school the player is leaving.  The NCAA has made an arbitrary decision despite the rule, and you're letting your hate for Nutt color your argument. 

[wesfau2]

As I stated, he was a player looking for a home when he was without one.  Under your logic, players stuck on teams like USC would be "casting about" looking for any program not on probation.  Which, by the way, the NCAA allows. 

Whooooooooooaaaa.  Apples and fucking rutabagas.  The program is on probation, punishing kids who did not participate in the wrongdoing leading to the punishment, and they are allowed to leave.  That is entirely different than letting a kid whose own actions led to his dismissal from the team simply transfer schools and play immediately.  The punishment (losing a year of playing time) is unfairly avoided in the Masoli scenario.

Masoli wasn't looking for special dispensation.  As I understand it the "waiver" is stated in the rule for the purpose of making sure that the chosen curriculum isn't offered at the school the player is leaving.  The NCAA has made an arbitrary decision despite the rule, and you're letting your hate for Nutt color your argument.

I love a technical argument as much as the next guy, I hate the NCAA and Nutt, and we are still going to disagree here.

[JR4AU]

Whooooooooooaaaa.  Apples and fucking rutabagas.  The program is on probation, punishing kids who did not participate in the wrongdoing leading to the punishment, and they are allowed to leave.  That is entirely different than letting a kid whose own actions led to his dismissal from the team simply transfer schools and play immediately.  The punishment (losing a year of playing time) is unfairly avoided in the Masoli scenario.

I love a technical argument as much as the next guy, I hate the NCAA and Nutt, and we are still going to disagree here.

Apples and oranges my friend.  Masoli's "punishment" was an Oregon issue, not an NCAA issue.  Had Oregon chosen to, they could have let Masoli stay and play, and the NCAA has no rule against it.  He's eligible under this rule to play this year (under it's current letter AND spirit) or it would have never come up.  The NCAA isn't, and never has been involved in player off the field conduct outside of that affecting eligibility such as agent contact or special benefits.  This is no circumventing of any rule in that respect. 

I'll be that if Neil Caudle decided to transfer under this rule this year, he'd be allowed to without any arbitrary negative treatment.

[Snaggletiger]

I hate rutabagas.  Not fond of artichokes either; however, artichoke and spinach dip is pretty tasty.

Heard our local sports talk guy reading some quotes this morning on this.  Not sure where from but the jist of what was said was that the NCAA based their decision strictly on their determination that the move was made for football reasons only and had zero to do with akeydemiks.  I know, that's what's being argued here but ulitimately, the NCAA knew about this transfer long before it happened. Hell, the possibility of it was being discussed on national talk shows a week before he made the move.  Why would the NCAA not look at the situation and give a thumbs up or down before the guy moved his shiot across the country, enrolled in school and participated in practice.  That could be determined in one phone call.  But then, we are talking about the NCAA.

[wesfau2]

Apples and oranges my friend.  Masoli's "punishment" was an Oregon issue, not an NCAA issue.  Had Oregon chosen to, they could have let Masoli stay and play, and the NCAA has no rule against it.  He's eligible under this rule to play this year (under it's current letter AND spirit) or it would have never come up.  The NCAA isn't, and never has been involved in player off the field conduct outside of that affecting eligibility such as agent contact or special benefits.  This is no circumventing of any rule in that respect. 

As long as you recognize that the two scenarios are completely incomparable. [edit: just saw the bold portion of your post was the apples/orange comment.  I'll let my dumas stand]

Let's further muddy the waters with another NCAA by-law:

14.5.1.3 Disciplinary Suspension. A student who transfers to any NCAA institution from a collegiate institution
while the student is disqualified or suspended from the previous institution for disciplinary reasons (as
opposed to academic reasons) must complete one calendar year of residence at the certifying institution.

Does this play into Masoli's situation? 

I'll be that if Neil Caudle decided to transfer under this rule this year, he'd be allowed to without any arbitrary negative treatment.

Perhaps.  But, then, Neil doesn't come with the baggage that Masoli does.  Call it arbitrary or call it taking into account all the factors in the equation.