|
Post by BearClause on Sept 12, 2007 17:03:57 GMT -5
Stuffu, that was my speculation that would give green light to the two girls playing in NCAA. If they were not considered different, OTOH, it would appear to be inconsistent application of rules. However, UCSB Fan isolated the specific criteira: acceptance of payment, whether for self or for club fees. I was of the original impression that playing alone, not only payments, was disqualifying. Apparently, I was mistakened. Going back to that Minnesota case, I don't recall that they accepted payment above and beyond actual expenses - or even payment at all. I thought it was that they played with partners who accepted prize money beyond actual expenses. The NCAA frankly is way inconsistent on how they approach these penalties. Also - my reading was that it was a "sand volleyball" tournament that got them in trouble with the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 12, 2007 17:16:43 GMT -5
Now if so, it makes things more suspenseful. It's going to be interesting how things turn out for the two girsl.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Sept 12, 2007 18:49:35 GMT -5
Is Beach Volleyball considered the "same" sport as Indoor Volleyball by the NCAA? I have heard a Div 1 head coach say that the NCAA does not consider beach volleyball to be the same game as the indoor game.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Sept 12, 2007 18:54:32 GMT -5
What about grass volleyball?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 12, 2007 18:56:15 GMT -5
Stuffu, that was my speculation that would give green light to the two girls playing in NCAA. If they were not considered different, OTOH, it would appear to be inconsistent application of rules. However, UCSB Fan isolated the specific criteria: acceptance of payment, whether for self or for club fees. I was of the original impression that playing alone, not only payments, was disqualifying. Apparently, I was mistakened. Going back to that Minnesota case, I don't recall that they accepted payment above and beyond actual expenses - or even payment at all. I thought it was that they played with partners who accepted prize money beyond actual expenses. The NCAA frankly is way inconsistent on how they approach these penalties. Also - my reading was that it was a "sand volleyball" tournament that got them in trouble with the NCAA. AFAIK it was 3 players on a team and it was grass volleyball. Marci Peniata, Kelly Bowman as active players in the upcoming season. Jen Bowman as the just player having graduated at the end of the previous season. The problem as I understand it is that Jen accepted the entire check for winning the tournament while Kelly and Marci accepted nothing. The NCAA claims that Jen should only accepted 1/3rd of the winning. Kelly was suspended for 2 matches I believe and Marci was suspended for 4 matched (2 extra because she participated in the same tournament the previous year - even though she apparently received no money from that previous year.) In addition both Kelly and Marci were required to "pay back" something like a few hundred dollars each even though neither accepted any payments and the money couldn't come from Jen. The NCAA ought to make their rules regarding such things more consistent, more easily understood regarding the various interpretations and situations, and with better explanations as to why they are applied so (seemingly) different to different players and different institutions.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Sept 12, 2007 18:58:38 GMT -5
What about grass volleyball? I don't know. It didn't come up at the time.
|
|
|
Post by hwy101 on Sept 13, 2007 2:17:04 GMT -5
What about grass volleyball? I don't know. It didn't come up at the time. Grass volleyball is closer to beach volleyball because grass is a medium hard surface while indoor is hard surface! Hay, Bobindranath.
|
|
|
Post by hwy101 on Sept 13, 2007 2:19:06 GMT -5
And peace will guide the planet...
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 13, 2007 10:20:47 GMT -5
It's interesting that you post 5th dimension lyric(s) since 101 in binary is 5 in base 10.
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Sept 13, 2007 10:28:50 GMT -5
My understanding was that a player could play on a team if the other players were not being paid, essentially. So, for example, if Falyn and Jupiter had played together, just because they 'won' money, does not mean that either accepted the money above and beyond the cost of the entry fee. If both rejected the money, then all should be fine.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 13, 2007 10:32:12 GMT -5
Her partner earned the same amount of money as Alex for the matches they played together, plus she earned like an additional 5-6 hundred in previous years playing on the AVP tour.
Her partner for all of the AVP tournament where is listed as having earning money was Leilani Kamahoahoa who is 27 years old and already a college graduate so there is no reason for Leilana to not accept her share of their earnings.
Falyn Fonoimoana played with Alex in only two AVP tournaments where they had no earnings.
|
|
|
Post by inomothanu on Sept 13, 2007 10:43:32 GMT -5
speaking of her beach dreams...there has been talk about Clearinghouse issues and that makes a "directly to the beach" strategy a nice default option. Stevenson at Cal Poly has been helping out a number of beach players - he has worked with Mike Dodd (who coaches Rosenthal/Gibb) and was on the beach in July with Holly McPeak. Grades could be the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Mix Breed-TEXAS,HI,LBSU on Sept 13, 2007 12:23:37 GMT -5
Does anyone know if they took the money or not?.....I really would love to see Jupiter in a Wahine uniform....She'll do great things in Hawai'i. Falyn would of been great too if she had chose Hawai'i over USC....She'll do fine there anyways.....Best of Luck to both Falyn and Jupiter.
Does anyone know where Colleen Ward and Rachel Adams are heading too?....Or who might be in the running for these young ladies?.....
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Sept 13, 2007 12:39:03 GMT -5
My understanding was that a player could play on a team if the other players were not being paid, essentially. So, for example, if Falyn and Jupiter had played together, just because they 'won' money, does not mean that either accepted the money above and beyond the cost of the entry fee. If both rejected the money, then all should be fine. With more info.... I think I get it now. They forwarded their share of the prize money to a teammate rather than decline it outright. Sorry about the "sand volleyball" thing. I read that in a Minnesota Daily article I dug up. www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/09/05/68784
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 13, 2007 13:33:07 GMT -5
It may well have been a sand tournament, there were multiple stories going around at the time and I thought they said it was it was a grass tournament.
I'd heard / read, other than what's mentioned in that article Marci and Kelly had to also pay back their share of the winnings out of their own pockets even though they hadn't actually accepted any money and they weren't allowed to accept the money from Jen to pay for that penalty. Meaning (if true) that they ended up being fined the amount they would have earned had they not still been amateur NCAA athletes.
Alex played with a professional player based on her own decisions. Her teammate gratuated from college ~5 years ago so it makes no sense for her to have not been accapting her share of the team's earnings.
If Alex does become alowed to play collegiately at a D1 school without at least similar number of match suspensions as Marci's 6 matches then it just shows yet another case of the NCAA enforcing their rules differently to different players / teams on an apparent whim.
|
|