IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 8,974
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Sept 16, 2015 8:02:44 GMT -5
There aren't hardship waivers anymore. On what basis is Siena appealing? Siena's appealing the rule because of JO's personal circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 8:21:32 GMT -5
There aren't hardship waivers anymore. On what basis is Siena appealing? Siena's appealing the rule because of JO's personal circumstances. Right. So we're appealing a rule based on special circumstances when the new NCAA trend is to disregard special circumstances. Sounds promising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 8:22:35 GMT -5
Article in today's TU www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Javion-Ogunyemi-back-on-court-for-Siena-6507344.phpI'm still struggling with the "counter" issue - the article says JO is receiving "financial aid" which is the term used for $'s coming from the institution. If Siena is giving aid the NCAA rules say he would count against the 13 scholarship limit and he'd be #14. What am I missing? If the aid is just from NYS or the Feds, why doesn't that get stated. I just don't think the issue is going to go away if the NCAA says he could play if there was a slot for him based on the appeal. MP, I admit I don't know the rules, but from a reasonableness view I believe walk-ins may also receive sort sort of "aid" (be it low interest loans, Siena giving a "discount" off the retail/gross tuition price, other aid the person qualifies for, etc.). So why couldn't JO be considered a walk-on for one season due to no more ships available? I don't know the answer but "if" Siena's successful and the NCAA agrees, I don't care to understand it. I already don't understand it when NCAA didn't grant Imoh a waiver when some dude from a Kentucky type program had similar waiver requests & they granted his. I'm just glad he's back and from the article so is his teammates. That's good enough for me. Loans are not given by the school and would not be viewed as "financial aid" - a "discount" (your words) would be a "scholarship" (my words) IMHO. An academic scholarship (and he certainly would be able to win one) is also "financial aid" and, IMO, puts him in the counter category. Yes, I am delighted that he feels welcomed back and I am not surprised at that. I too hope he gets to play right away - I'm just a little more dubious of it than most. I agree with your comments on Imoh - it was a big mistake by the NCAA - comparing us to the big-boys would likely show their compliance offices to be much deeper in staff, travel funds for eyeball to eyeball meetings, and experience and much more aggressive in pursuit of things for those institutions.
|
|
IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 8,974
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Sept 16, 2015 8:28:13 GMT -5
Siena's appealing the rule because of JO's personal circumstances. Right. So we're appealing a rule based on special circumstances when the new NCAA trend is to disregard special circumstances. Sounds promising. Just saying what the article said. It never hurts to try, beats assuming the NCAA won't grant a waiver and then not put in for it.
|
|
IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 8,974
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Sept 16, 2015 8:33:01 GMT -5
MP, I admit I don't know the rules, but from a reasonableness view I believe walk-ins may also receive sort sort of "aid" (be it low interest loans, Siena giving a "discount" off the retail/gross tuition price, other aid the person qualifies for, etc.). So why couldn't JO be considered a walk-on for one season due to no more ships available? I don't know the answer but "if" Siena's successful and the NCAA agrees, I don't care to understand it. I already don't understand it when NCAA didn't grant Imoh a waiver when some dude from a Kentucky type program had similar waiver requests & they granted his. I'm just glad he's back and from the article so is his teammates. That's good enough for me. Loans are not given by the school and would not be viewed as "financial aid" - a "discount" (your words) would be a "scholarship" (my words) IMHO. An academic scholarship (and he certainly would be able to win one) is also "financial aid" and, IMO, puts him in the counter category. Yes, I am delighted that he feels welcomed back and I am not surprised at that. I too hope he gets to play right away - I'm just a little more dubious of it than most. I agree with your comments on Imoh - it was a big mistake by the NCAA - comparing us to the big-boys would likely show their compliance offices to be much deeper in staff, travel funds for eyeball to eyeball meetings, and experience and much more aggressive in pursuit of things for those institutions. If walk-ins receive aid then they too should count towards ships, but I'm not sure it works that way. I thought I read an article awhile back (Siena in distress type article) that said that almost every student received some sort of discount off the retail tuition price. I just assumed that this also applied to athletes too. Until it's known I'm viewing JO as a walk-on for this season (if he can play).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 8:35:32 GMT -5
Right. So we're appealing a rule based on special circumstances when the new NCAA trend is to disregard special circumstances. Sounds promising. Just saying what the article said. It never hurts to try, beats assuming the NCAA won't grant a waiver and then not put in for it. I know. I'm saying it just seems like a shot in the dark. I would think they would try to approach it from a participation angle. If they can't do that, I think we're sunk unless we get really lucky.
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Sept 16, 2015 9:06:03 GMT -5
JO never suited up for BU... BU never even announced him on their website. It will come down to if the NCAA has a common sense factor. Had he played for them for a year and then wanted to come home (with the same circumstances) then I would totally agree he would have to sit out because they eliminated the hardship waiver. But this is truly a special circumstance returning to his original program without actually being part of the school that he transferred to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 9:12:19 GMT -5
JO never suited up for BU... BU never even announced him on their website. It will come down to if the NCAA has a common sense factor. Had he played for them for a year and then wanted to come home (with the same circumstances) then I would totally agree he would have to sit out because they eliminated the hardship waiver. But this is truly a special circumstance returning to his original program without actually being part of the school that he transferred to. Yes, "Participation." To what extent did he "participate." He took classes and he practiced. He was part of the program. Now do summer sessions count less towards "participation" and how much program events did he participate in? Remember a team meeting even counts. Those are the questions that I think the NCAA will probably ask based on the rules posted here. The fact that he's had family tragedies don't factor into it anymore. It sounds to me more and more like his participation was over the limit...in which case we'll likely see him in 2016-2017.
|
|
Quackman
Team Captain
Posts: 2,473
Dislikes:
|
Post by Quackman on Sept 16, 2015 9:22:36 GMT -5
The key is whether or not the NCAA will rule that what he did at BU this summer will be considered participation. He took some classes (which would not preclude him from coming back with no wait) but also was a part of their summer workouts. Question is does participation in summer workouts equal participation as defined in the rules. I have not idea and no one on this board does either.
I just don't get why this needs to be constantly debated. Either he is allowed to play this year (great) or is not allowed to but remains at the school. All the complaining about Jimmy is not going to change that.
To kk, they got rid of the hardship waiver because too many schools were playing games with it. Doesn't mean they gave up on all waivers. (in fact, redshirting is considered a waiver)
Why not just let the process play out. Siena has a compliance person who is responsible for dealing with the ncaa, let them do their job.
|
|
|
Post by saintsandeagles on Sept 16, 2015 9:22:55 GMT -5
JO never suited up for BU... BU never even announced him on their website. It will come down to if the NCAA has a common sense factor. Had he played for them for a year and then wanted to come home (with the same circumstances) then I would totally agree he would have to sit out because they eliminated the hardship waiver. But this is truly a special circumstance returning to his original program without actually being part of the school that he transferred to. It sounds to me more and more like his participation was over the limit...in which case we'll likely see him in 2016-2017. Based on what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 9:50:55 GMT -5
It sounds to me more and more like his participation was over the limit...in which case we'll likely see him in 2016-2017. Based on what? 1st it was he didn't take classes, then it was he didn't practice...the stories keep changing from the grapevine. Patsos says a waiver is required which means he's ineligible now. So, as it stands, he's considered a transfer. Now, they may be required to submit something just for the fact that he took classes...but they say he practiced. So now the only chance is if the amount he practiced and participated is not significant enough to consider him a transfer. If they rule he's considered a transfer after all that research and he's not granted an exception, then I would think the only basis is hardship...which doesn't exist anymore due to schools taking advantage. I doubt the NCAA would make an exception on that grounds. At least, that's my understanding based on what rules people have posted. So either he was over the 14 days ...or he wasn't. * 14.5.5.1 General Rule. A transfer student from a four-year institution shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition at a member institution until the student has fulfilled a residence requirement of one full year (two full semesters or three full quarters) at the certifying institution. * 14.5.5.2.8 Return to Original Institution Without Participation or With Minimal Participation EXCEPTION. The student transfers to a second four-year collegiate institution, does not compete at the second institution and does not engage in other countable athletically related activities in the involved sport at the second institution beyond a 14-consecutive-day period and returns to the original institution. The 14-consecutive-day period begins with the date on which the student-athlete first engages in any countable athletically related activity (see Bylaw 17.02.1). A student may use this exception even if he or she has an unfulfilled residence requirement at the institution from which he or she is transferring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 10:20:53 GMT -5
Also, the most telling thing may be how JO spoke in the article...almost as if he was preparing himself to be sitting out.
"I know if I was at a bigger school, the chances (of playing right away) would probably be a little bit higher," he said. "But I'm just waiting here. Hopefully, I get good news, but if not, I understand. I left and if I have to sit out, I should be ready to accept my responsibility and contribute to the team."
|
|
SIENA1971
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,698
Dislikes:
|
Post by SIENA1971 on Sept 16, 2015 10:57:59 GMT -5
Also, the most telling thing may be how JO spoke in the article...almost as if he was preparing himself to be sitting out. "I know if I was at a bigger school, the chances (of playing right away) would probably be a little bit higher," he said. "But I'm just waiting here. Hopefully, I get good news, but if not, I understand. I left and if I have to sit out, I should be ready to accept my responsibility and contribute to the team."Reading between the lines . . . if he was at a BCS school the waiver would be granted . . . after all it's the NCAA making the decision
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Sept 16, 2015 11:55:04 GMT -5
I think he has to prepare himself for the worst case scenario. And he is right BCS schools play with different rules he's a lock to be playing if this was a Big 10 or ACC school.
For MP forget the scholarship thing. I know you guys want to nail Jimmy for Cam (and I agree it was stupid) but the NCAA and not the scholarship will determine if Javion can play this year.
|
|
siena95
Sophomore
Posts: 755
Dislikes:
|
Post by siena95 on Sept 16, 2015 12:14:10 GMT -5
JO never suited up for BU... BU never even announced him on their website. It will come down to if the NCAA has a common sense factor. Had he played for them for a year and then wanted to come home (with the same circumstances) then I would totally agree he would have to sit out because they eliminated the hardship waiver. But this is truly a special circumstance returning to his original program without actually being part of the school that he transferred to. Tell that to the BU staff who put the time, energy and money to bring JO aboard and use a scholarship that most likely won't be filled at this late date.... it isn't all about how this impacts Siena or JO. BU can't get "whole" from this in the short term. And YES JO was part of school.. he was on campus, took classes paid for by BU, most likely ate food paid for by BU.... no idea what the NCAA will decide, but it is not as black and white as some want it to be. Also, i believe if a player was ever recruited to play a sport and given or offered a scholarship, any assistance given after the fact would fall under the scholarship realm. So unless JO has student loans acquired on his own and $$ to pay on his own, any assistance from the school (be it merit based, academic based etc) would count on the 13 scholarship limit in the NCAA's eyes.
|
|