|
Post by pedro el leon on Aug 15, 2007 23:57:42 GMT -5
^Yes, she has graduated... Fall 2006.
And Stanford fan, with all due respect to BearClause because he knows the NCAA better than anyone here... but he lives in the Bay Area, not the Puget Sound. He bases his opinion on what he has read in a few news articles and that is very little information in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by StanfordFan on Aug 16, 2007 0:46:33 GMT -5
Feel free to educate me otherwise. You shouldn't come on here and belittle other people's information unless you're prepared to offer some of your own. ^Yes, she has graduated... Fall 2006. And Stanford fan, with all due respect to BearClause because he knows the NCAA better than anyone here... but he lives in the Bay Area, not the Puget Sound. He bases his opinion on what he has read in a few news articles and that is very little information in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 16, 2007 0:59:25 GMT -5
^Yes, she has graduated... Fall 2006. And Stanford fan, with all due respect to BearClause because he knows the NCAA better than anyone here... but he lives in the Bay Area, not the Puget Sound. He bases his opinion on what he has read in a few news articles and that is very little information in the scheme of things. I know a little more than what I just read in news articles; I'm guessing you're referring to that one particular Seattle Times article (Oct 4, 2004). I actually read that article during the 2004 season, and before the request to waive the 21st birthday rule. seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2002056184_blai07.htmlExactly what is the spirit of the rule? It's that players who possess both physical maturity and longer playing experience will have reduced eligibility. The letter of the rule is that one year of eligibility is docked for every year of pre-college playing experience past the 21st birthday. Sounds pretty simple. It's not as if Tomasevic was unable to play volleyball for two years, although I understand there was a period of a few months where it was impractical for her to practice and a short period of injury when she started thinking an American college might be in her future. What I've heard through "other channels" is that the Washington athletic dept thought it was a long shot, and that the NCAA probably wishes they could have taken that ruling back. I've never blamed the UW athletic dept for trying, or the team for accepting the NCAA's ruling. Sometimes it's just better to accept that one received a "gift" like Maradona's "Hand of God" and not trying to convince everyone that somehow everything was kosher.
|
|
|
Post by pedro el leon on Aug 16, 2007 4:07:09 GMT -5
Oh I know it was a gift, I've never said otherwise. But StanfordFan was basing his opinion on your opinion (which for all we know is someone else's opinion.) When that happens, facts - if there were any to begin with - start to become diluted.
And what's worse is that he's basing his opinion on the ethnics of a person on what he believes (not knows) on that particular situation. But then again, what StanfordFan and I think are ethical can vary greatly from subject matter to subject matter. But would Dunning try to get an extra year for Sanja if she had gone to Stanford? Maybe our opinions would be reversed? Dunno.
But whatever, you right it's not my job to convince everybody that everything is kosher. But these past few months *many* posters have been bashing Mclaughlin and the Washington program for situations that no one here truly knows all the facts about and that is NOT kosher to me. It's getting old.
|
|
|
Post by StanfordFan on Aug 16, 2007 4:31:54 GMT -5
Ok, here's the thing--People are going to believe what they want to believe. You can argue with them, sometimes you can persuade them otherwise, but sometimes you have to agree to disagree. You're right, I don't have personal knowledge of what McLaughlin did in Sanja's case, in Salvo's case, or in anyone else's case. All you can do is take what you hear and form your own opinions on it. Everyone works with the inputs they have and use those to reach their own opinions. As I've said, if you can give me another set of facts to work with, it's more that I'll consider. I think that's more than reasonable, and more than most people would do. Based on what I've heard, I think McL's conduct with Sanja was borderline ethical. I'm not advocating he gets disciplined or Washington get stripped of its title. I'm just voicing my personal opinion. I don't know for sure what Dunning would do in the same situation. I would like to think that from what I've seen and heard from/about him, he wouldn't stretch to do something like that. If he did, I'd have to reconsider my opinion as well. So can we let this go? If you want to snipe at people who are accusing McL of various misconduct, fine. But you're not going to sway my opinion unless you can give me a good reason other than you're in Seattle and BearClause is in the Bay Area. Oh I know it was a gift, I've never said otherwise. But StanfordFan was basing his opinion on your opinion (which for all we know is someone else's opinion.) When that happens, facts - if there were any to begin with - start to become diluted. And what's worse is that he's basing his opinion on the ethnics of a person on what he believes (not knows) on that particular situation. But then again, what StanfordFan and I think are ethical can vary greatly from subject matter to subject matter. But would Dunning try to get an extra year for Sanja if she had gone to Stanford? Maybe our opinions would be reversed? Dunno. But whatever, you right it's not my job to convince everybody that everything is kosher. But these past few months *many* posters have been bashing Mclaughlin and the Washington program for situations that no one here truly knows all the facts about and that is NOT kosher to me. It's getting old.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Aug 16, 2007 19:18:12 GMT -5
From what I understand talking to UW coaches and others that were around the decision to ask for the NCAA ruling: when Sanja originally came to UW, UW looked at her stuff and said "OK, looks like you will be a Sophomore athletically". After her "Senior" season was over, Sanja went to the coaches and asked if they could get a ruling from the NCAA. Technically it was an appeal of the UW ruling saying the UW Compliance Department (which was in total disrepute and disarray over the UW football program and the hatchet job they did on that) got it wrong. The coaches told Sanja it was a very long shot (I think the figure quoted to me was "95% chance of being denied") but told her it would not hurt to ask. So they filled out the paperwork, sent it in and were totally shocked when it was approved.
There is nothing unethical in asking for a ruling from the NCAA. As my Dad would say "If you don't ask, then the answer is definitely No". There have been far more questionable rulings made by the NCAA just in other PAC-10 programs, much less across the country.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 16, 2007 19:41:29 GMT -5
There is nothing unethical in asking for a ruling from the NCAA. As my Dad would say "If you don't ask, then the answer is definitely No". There have been far more questionable rulings made by the NCAA just in other PAC-10 programs, much less across the country. What I would add is that some of the rumblings (by detractors) were that they got **ahem** creative with their petition. There were public statements by the UW athletic dept that she delayed college because she was living a war zone for some period. I've read that she stayed away from practice for a few months because communications were next to impossible; regardless, she did end up playing at a very high level. I believe her national team won a junior world championship in '99. However - she's been interviewed indicating that she didn't consider college until two years after high school. If the basis of the petition is that she delayed college due to reasons beyond her control, then it would be an extremely flimsy argument for granting her a fourth season of eligibility. I don't think for once that the NCAA looked at this in depth. From what I gather, there must have been a lot of complaints after the fact. A few details that the NCAA eligibility committee weren't presented might have easily derailed this petition.
|
|
|
Post by Ye Olde Dawg on Aug 16, 2007 20:15:49 GMT -5
It seems like every conversation about the Huskies ends up spiraling around this business with Tomasevic. I was all ready to take StandfordFan's suggestion and just let it go. Oh well, since it's come back to life: I'm curious. I believe I've also read that after Tomasevic had accepted the offer, she delayed coming because (in that war zone) she couldn't take her SATs. I can't confirm that, or course. It does seem that SATs would be a little less under her control, and I believe they're a requirement before qualifying, right? But was that claim part of the petition?
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Aug 17, 2007 10:22:58 GMT -5
. There is nothing unethical in asking for a ruling from the NCAA. As my Dad would say "If you don't ask, then the answer is definitely No". There have been far more questionable rulings made by the NCAA just in other PAC-10 programs, much less across the country. The NCAA made its decision.......to let her play another year......why are people still upset.....The NCAA is not known as a push-over.
|
|