A kick in the Nutts

[JR4AU]

As long as you recognize that the two scenarios are completely incomparable.

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? 

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.

As I've read the rule, and comment on the rule, really both our arguments are off.  The NCAA has written in it's own "arbitrary decision clause" in to the waiver rule...where they say the transfer must be "academically motivated"...so they basically get to decide whether a kid simply wants to play sports, or play sports while getting a graduate degree he couldn't get at the other institution. 

[JR4AU]

The waiver is a waiver of the one year "sit out" rule...

This is a comment about the Bball player kid that t'fered from Duke to Syracuse to play football.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2009/official+statements/20090416_gradtransferrules_rls.html

[Snaggletiger]

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? 

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.

The rule specifically refers to suspension from the institution, which Masoli was not.

[AUTailgatingRules]

The rule was put in to place to allow an athlete the ability to transfer if a school did not offer the masters program that the athlete wanted to pursue.  One of the problems here is that Masoli was already enrolled in the Masters program of his choice at Oregon.  He left that program and found one that was not offered at Oregon and now has to claim his transfer is strictly due to the fact that Oregon does not offer a Parks and Rec masters program so he must transfer to Ole Miss to have access to said curriculum.

Well I'm calling bullshit and say the NCAA made the right decision here

[JR4AU]

The rule specifically refers to suspension from the institution, which Masoli was not.

Yep!  Anyway, it matters not...

[RWS]

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.


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

The fact that he still has another year of eligibility means dick. It's not like a free ticket for the NCAA to be able to say "Screw it, the kid has another year anyway." I would be pissed if it happened to Alabama. You would be pissed if it happened to AU. Nobody really cares for Nutt or Ole Miss, it's just the fact that the NCAA is being so flagrant about it. You can't change the rule written in the book in the middle of the game. You can't on the fly subject it to "Well, that's not what we really meant."

My point is, apparently it's just a matter of time until the NCAA decides to snatch the rug out from under Alabama or Auburn on something like this on a whim. I'm not OK with them just changing the rules right then and there because they feel like it.

[JR4AU]

The rule was put in to place to allow an athlete the ability to transfer if a school did not offer the masters program that the athlete wanted to pursue.  One of the problems here is that Masoli was already enrolled in the Masters program of his choice at Oregon.  He left that program and found one that was not offered at Oregon and now has to claim his transfer is strictly due to the fact that Oregon does not offer a Parks and Rec masters program so he must transfer to Ole Miss to have access to said curriculum.

Well I'm calling bullshit and say the NCAA made the right decision here

Actually, I'd have to agree now that I've more closely looked at the rule, AND the comments. 

[Snaggletiger]

I actually think the NCAA did in fact make the right decision based on the rule.  My beef is strictly with the timing and how they could have stopped this entire situation with a couple of phone calls.  I'm like Chad said earlier...have no problem pointing and laughing at the misfortunes of an SEC West rival.  I just hate the NCAA with a passion.

[JR4AU]

I actually think the NCAA did in fact make the right decision based on the rule.  My beef is strictly with the timing and how they could have stopped this entire situation with a couple of phone calls.  I'm like Chad said earlier...have no problem pointing and laughing at the misfortunes of an SEC West rival.  I just hate the NCAA with a passion.

The problem I have is that if he were looking around because Oregon had been put on probation, the whole "academically motivated" deal wouldn't even be considered.  Under this criteria, few would actually be eligible for the waiver. 

[AUTailgatingRules]

The problem I have is that if he were looking around because Oregon had been put on probation, the whole "academically motivated" deal wouldn't even be considered.  Under this criteria, few would actually be eligible for the waiver.

That is correct, only a few would be eligible for the waiver.  The rule was never meant to be used by a large amount of players.  It was intended for a very few who truly are in a position that they must transfer to further their education. 

Here is a good example of how the rule is supposed to work:

Let's say an AU player graduated in criminal justice, wants to go to law school, and still has a year of eligibility left.  Because AU does not have a law school, this player would be allowed to go to the law school of his choice and play out his 1 year of eligibility.

It was never written for a player to be able to shop around for a school with an obscure masters program that is not offered at his current school in order to play so that he does not have to live out a suspension on his current team.  This situation is simply ludicrous.

[JR4AU]

That is correct, only a few would be eligible for the waiver.  The rule was never meant to be used by a large amount of players.  It was intended for a very few who truly are in a position that they must transfer to further their education. 

Here is a good example of how the rule is supposed to work:

Let's say an AU player graduated in criminal justice, wants to go to law school, and still has a year of eligibility left.  Because AU does not have a law school, this player would be allowed to go to the law school of his choice and play out his 1 year of eligibility.

It was never written for a player to be able to shop around for a school with an obscure masters program that is not offered at his current school in order to play so that he does not have to live out a suspension on his current team.  This situation is simply ludicrous.

According to the way I read what they consider when granting or denying the waiver, the fact that your current team is on probation, or just changed coaches isn't even part of the deal...yet, that's the reasons or two of the major reasons most folks assumed the rule was put in place.

[RWS]

It was never written for a player to be able to shop around for a school with an obscure masters program that is not offered at his current school in order to play so that he does not have to live out a suspension on his current team.  This situation is simply ludicrous.

But, unless the rule specifically states you cannot do it for that reason, isn't that the NCAA's fault for not being specific? I understand what you're saying here, but what I'm saying is if the NCAA didn't specify and made an ambiguous rule, why should they be allowed to change that rule on the fly just because they didn't mean for it to encompass a situation like this?

[AUTailgatingRules]

But, unless the rule specifically states you cannot do it for that reason, isn't that the NCAA's fault for not being specific? I understand what you're saying here, but what I'm saying is if the NCAA didn't specify and made an ambiguous rule, why should they be allowed to change that rule on the fly just because they didn't mean for it to encompass a situation like this?

Because if you don't make common sense judgements on a situation like this, you open up the possibility of "recruiting" graduated players.  I'm sure there are many NCAA rules that are up for interpretation and to expect them to write specific language for every unforseen circumstance is simply not possible.  As much as we may or may not like it, these kids are supposed to be student athletes.  Student first, athlete second.  This ruling does nothing to stop Masoli from pursuing his education, does nothing to take away hos last year of eligibility, it simply says: Hey Jeremiah, you have to sit out a year and you can play at Ole Miss next year.

[JR4AU]

But, unless the rule specifically states you cannot do it for that reason, isn't that the NCAA's fault for not being specific? I understand what you're saying here, but what I'm saying is if the NCAA didn't specify and made an ambiguous rule, why should they be allowed to change that rule on the fly just because they didn't mean for it to encompass a situation like this?

It's not really a "rule" in and of itself but a rule that says you can seek a waiver of the existing rule about sitting out a year. 

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2009/official+statements/20090416_gradtransferrules_rls.html

NCAA issues waiver decision for Ole Miss student-athlete
The NCAA staff has granted a graduate student transfer waiver for University of Mississippi football student-athlete Jeremiah Masoli, but he must wait until the 2011-12 academic year to compete. Mr. Masoli can continue to pursue his academic career, is eligible to receive athletics aid, and may practice with the team.

In its decision, the staff noted the student-athlete was unable to participate at the University of Oregon based on his dismissal from the team, which is contrary to 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.

According to NCAA rules, created by member schools, football graduate student-athletes must receive a waiver in order to compete if they enroll in a university other than where they received their undergraduate degree.

After receiving information from both universities and the student-athlete, the NCAA staff obtained the final piece of information yesterday evening from the University of Mississippi and issued its decision today. The university may appeal this staff decision to the Subcommittee for Legislative Relief, an independent group comprised of representatives from NCAA member colleges, universities and athletic conferences.

[djsimp]

Good fucking grief guys, give this shit a rest. I could care less if the Hawaiian duck plays or not. The only thing I was looking forward to seeing is the Pac-10 quack sucker come to the SEC and get hit so hard snot bubbles come from his nose.

[CCTAU]

It's not like the guy just got pissed and up and transferred. HE GOT HIS DEGREE. He has proven that he can handle the academic side well. And the NCAA is always spouting off out the blowhole about academics. Here you have a player who has gotten his degree while still having eligibility left. So what if he changed masters. Does not a fair percentage of grad change their masters? So now the NCAA can look into young men's minds an KNOW what they are thinking?

And will this not help the future of one of their young men and maybe help the future of one of their institutions as well?

The bottom line is that the NCAA did not foresee something like this happening and now they are changing the rules mid-game. It has been their way for a while now. They have unlimited power and DO NOT care for the individuals that they so adamantly claim to be there for. If they are going to allow just one grad to transfer and use their remaining eligibility at other institutions, then this should be allowed also. Until they actually ARE GOD and  can know without a doubt what someone is thinking, then this rule is flawed.
Do I care if he plays? No. But I hate the way the NCAA loves to make everyone BEG to them.

Like I said earlier, I wish the SEC and a few more conferences would get together and create their own governing body and kick the NCAA to the curb.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

You guys can continue to quote scripture if you want, but it comes down to the rule being prescriptive, or open to interpretation.  It can be used to determine a proper course based on the specifics involved.  In this case, the decision to suspend Masoli was NOT an NCAA punishment, but one given by Oregon itself. True.  However, the punishment was rendered to satisfy the NCAA, and thus the NCAA didn't pursue it further.

My statement in which the NCAA feels that Masoli was transferring and utilizing this rule against the spirit in which it was intended, meant that the NCAA felt that Masoli was skirting his punishment at Oregon and simply said that he's not going to receive the special permission necessary to play this year at Ole Miss.  They did not, as many did not believe that this was purely an academic move.

With all that said, I agree with Chizad, that this matter certainly could have been handled cleaner and quicker, but it is what it is.   

Fuck Ole Miss.

[JR4AU]

You guys can continue to quote scripture if you want, but it comes down to the rule being prescriptive, or open to interpretation.  It can be used to determine a proper course based on the specifics involved.  In this case, the decision to suspend Masoli was NOT an NCAA punishment, but one given by Oregon itself. True.  However, the punishment was rendered to satisfy the NCAA, and thus the NCAA didn't pursue it further.

My statement in which the NCAA feels that Masoli was transferring and utilizing this rule against the spirit in which it was intended, meant that the NCAA felt that Masoli was skirting his punishment at Oregon and simply said that he's not going to receive the special permission necessary to play this year at Ole Miss.  They did not, as many did not believe that this was purely an academic rule.

With all that said, I agree with Chizad, that this matter certainly could have been handled cleaner and quicker, but it is what it is.   

Fuck Ole Miss.

I agree with all but one point.  The NCAA had nothing to do with Masoli being suspended at Oregon.  The NCAA doesn't involve itself in player's off field behavior.  A school can play convicted felon parolee if he has eligibility and meets academic guidelines. 

[Sluggo]

I actually think the NCAA did in fact make the right decision based on the rule.  My beef is strictly with the timing and how they could have stopped this entire situation with a couple of phone calls.  I'm like Chad said earlier...have no problem pointing and laughing at the misfortunes of an SEC West rival.  I just hate the NCAA with a passion.

what he said ^

[Godfather]

One thing I will add, is that everyone comes down on the NCAA, and I don't particularly care for them either.

However, we live in a society where a lot of superstar athletes believe they can get away with anything, and time has proven that some of them have.  We tend to forget that this kid is not Mr. Innocent, we all know why he was transferring and we all know what Nutt was trying to do.  From the arguments it doesn't seem if this "rule" is clear cut, therefore the NCAA has the ability to make determinations based on circumstance.  In this case, I think they got it right.

Like Wes said, it is not like he doesn't get to play, he just has to sit out like everyone elsewho transfers.  Awww pour kid, he will still probably end up making millions.