-
BoulderFish ●
- 5 stars Rating: 89
1730 votes total - (1735)
- 30 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
PSUjosh11 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
3316 votes total - (9599)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
NotoriousGMan
- 5 stars Rating: 96
691 votes total - (885)
- 20 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
NotoriousG-Man said...
I sure don't want to make it look like i am in favor of the sanctions, or justifying the NCAA rulings... But I believe the "rationale" they used to allow the transfers into next season, there was simply not enough time for some kids to look around from the time the announcement was made until the start of most camps. Kids are recruited in high school for 1-2 years, and sometimes it takes them that long to make a decision. For someone to do an about face, and decide to move in two weeks, and find a good fit, it's asking a lot. I even heard one story of a player who had just signed a year long lease for an off campus house, and didnt want to screw his roommates by bailing on it, so he stayed. Had he not been locked in with a lease, he likely would have at least looked around a little bit. These kids, are allowed to take unlimited official visits, etc... in the time the NCAA came down, to the start of camps, there just wasn't the time to approach the process with any careful planning by coaches or players.
-
NotoriousG-Man said...
I sure don't want to make it look like i am in favor of the sanctions, or justifying the NCAA rulings... But I believe the "rationale" they used to allow the transfers into next season, there was simply not enough time for some kids to look around from the time the announcement was made until the start of most camps. Kids are recruited in high school for 1-2 years, and sometimes it takes them that long to make a decision. For someone to do an about face, and decide to move in two weeks, and find a good fit, it's asking a lot. I even heard one story of a player who had just signed a year long lease for an off campus house, and didnt want to screw his roommates by bailing on it, so he stayed. Had he not been locked in with a lease, he likely would have at least looked around a little bit. These kids, are allowed to take unlimited official visits, etc... in the time the NCAA came down, to the start of camps, there just wasn't the time to approach the process with any careful planning by coaches or players.
-
psubills62 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 93
8511 votes total - (15339)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
NotoriousGMan
- 5 stars Rating: 96
691 votes total - (885)
- 20 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
BoulderFish ●
- 5 stars Rating: 89
1730 votes total - (1735)
- 30 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
BoulderFish said...
And as much as I LOVE smart-a$$ NCAA/Erickson/BoT bashing, I'm not looking for it here.
Yes, I know that EVERY sanction is a "head-scratcher," but there are a few of the sanctions that are EXTRA head-scratchers (i.e. wins vacated back to 1998, even though the 1998 incident was reported and fully investigated by the Police).
Here is the other one that I *really* don't get. Okay, players were allowed to transfer without penalty after the sanctions were released -- but what is the logic for allowing that to flow all the way through the NEXT off-season? Amongst all the other BS, I get the BS that players were allowed to transfer after the sanctions came down. But once players decided to stay and play the season, it's obvious that if they want to leave, it's not because of the sanctions.
So, can anyone seriously get in the heads of the NCAA and figure out the logic in the transfer-wthout-penalty sanction lasting all the way up until the beginning of NEXT season?
-
NotoriousG-Man said...
I sure don't want to make it look like i am in favor of the sanctions, or justifying the NCAA rulings... But I believe the "rationale" they used to allow the transfers into next season, there was simply not enough time for some kids to look around from the time the announcement was made until the start of most camps. Kids are recruited in high school for 1-2 years, and sometimes it takes them that long to make a decision. For someone to do an about face, and decide to move in two weeks, and find a good fit, it's asking a lot. I even heard one story of a player who had just signed a year long lease for an off campus house, and didnt want to screw his roommates by bailing on it, so he stayed. Had he not been locked in with a lease, he likely would have at least looked around a little bit. These kids, are allowed to take unlimited official visits, etc... in the time the NCAA came down, to the start of camps, there just wasn't the time to approach the process with any careful planning by coaches or players.
BoulderFish ●
- 5 stars Rating: 89
1730 votes total - (1735)
- 30 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
BoulderFish said...
That's a good point, and raises another question of logic (yes yes, I know, "no logic" blah blah -- but SOME calculations must have been made, right?)...
IF they're going to sanction us to 65 scholarships, then why ALSO the 15/year max? Why both? One or the other, I get (as much as it is possible to "get" these sanctions). But, what is the logic to putting both in place?
-
BoulderFish ●
- 5 stars Rating: 89
1730 votes total - (1735)
- 30 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
BoulderFish said...
That's a good point, and raises another question of logic (yes yes, I know, "no logic" blah blah -- but SOME calculations must have been made, right?)...
IF they're going to sanction us to 65 scholarships, then why ALSO the 15/year max? Why both? One or the other, I get (as much as it is possible to "get" these sanctions). But, what is the logic to putting both in place?
"I believe in what Coach Paterno set forth.”- Garrett Sickels "A bowl game ain't nothing but a vacation."- Gerald Hodges
fortheglory94
- 5 stars Rating: 88
1537 votes total - (1158)
- 23 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
BoulderFish said...
Dude!? I get that. Jesus.
I'm looking past that.
I'm asking, if they were asked in an open, public forum, to explain the logic -- What would it be? Their answer can't just be "we want to reduce them to rubble." As weak as it might be, there has to be SOME -- even if false -- logic.
psubills62 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 93
8511 votes total - (15339)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
fortheglory94 said...
It's a real head scratcher. The combination of those two things realistically make reaching 65 a veritable impossibility. So the NCAA, which supposedly puts student athletes welfare above all else, will likely create a situation where kids who shouldn't be on the field in a BCS conference such as the Big Ten are playing key roles. Let their potential injuries be Emmert's, et al. hands.
psubills62 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 93
8511 votes total - (15339)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
fortheglory94
- 5 stars Rating: 88
1537 votes total - (1158)
- 23 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
leftcoastlion ●
- 4 stars Rating: 76
2828 votes total - (2223)
- 16 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
BoulderFish said...
Dude!? I get that. Jesus.
I'm looking past that.
I'm asking, if they were asked in an open, public forum, to explain the logic -- What would it be? Their answer can't just be "we want to reduce them to rubble." As weak as it might be, there has to be SOME -- even if false -- logic.








Question about the sanctions....