|
Post by Smooth "954" Mike on May 12, 2004 16:23:39 GMT -5
Warriors denied <br>Men's volleyball team must forfeit 2002 national championship <br>
May 10, 2004
By Stefanie Nakasone Ka Leo O Hawaii (U.Hawaii)
(U-WIRE) HONOLULU, Hawaii - The University of Hawai'i men's volleyball team will have to vacate the 2002 national championship after the NCAA turned down the university's appeal filed in October 2003.
The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions, which has deliberated over the university's appeal of the removal of the Warriors' championship due to the use of an ineligible player, mandated that the original ruling would stand.
"This is the end," UH Athletics Director Herman Frazier said Tuesday of the year-long issue, adding that the university has "exhausted all our appeals."
Frazier said that he considers the matter "completely closed."
On May 7, 2003, the NCAA notified the University of a possible infraction of eligibility rules concerning one of its players on the championship squad. The university then conducted its own investigation and reported its findings to the NCAA on July 9.
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 12, 2004 18:25:31 GMT -5
This was a sidebar story to the Honolulu Advertiser story about the NCAA stripping the 2002 title from UH: the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/May/12/sp/sp02a.htmlI like the last two paragraphs of the story best. Glad to see Costas came back to Hawaii to live and is on his way to a successful career. Like teammate Dejan Miladinovich, and former players Naveh Milo and Sivan Leoni, these guys stayed for there degrees and continue to live in their adopted home of Hawaii, and are on their way to succesful careers and are contributing to society in a postive way.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 12, 2004 20:35:20 GMT -5
I have all the Men's Final Four matches from 2002. Does this ruling mean I have to erase the Hawaii vs. Pepperdine match? I'm in a pickle as to what course of action I should take. On the plus side, it would free up a tape for other uses. On the minus side, Delano Thomas's spike down the middle was smashingly tasty but the ruling would now nullify the existence of said spike! What am I to do?
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 12, 2004 20:43:23 GMT -5
Actually, I thought the best hit of the match was Tony Ching's line shot that almost took out Beau Daniels.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 12, 2004 20:48:58 GMT -5
Actually, I thought the best hit of the match was Tony Ching's line shot that almost took out Beau Daniels. I don't remember Beau Daniels but a lot of Ching's line shots were beyond belief. The one night he decided to have a great and consistently high level match and this was it!
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 12, 2004 20:57:22 GMT -5
When Pat Powers was still at USC, and they had just stomped UH out of the MPSF playoffs in their first-round match at North Gym in 2000, he said "Watch this guy Ching, he's gonna be really good". We thought Pat was off his rocker, as Ching was backing up Zimet and Costas on the left (and playing sparingly), and Stanley was playing OPP.
But it turned out he was right, at least for that championship match.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 13, 2004 1:21:49 GMT -5
It's really too bad that this has happened to the Hawaii guys who won that championship. I think folks here in the US don't understand the club system in Europe.
I lived in Istanbul for three years when I was a teenager. I was a member of a sports club there and competed in basketball and track and field. (I remember seeing some pretty good volleyball being played there too.) There are no sports teams associated with schools at any level in Europe. Sports are done in clubs. The better clubs have teams all the way from young juniors up to the top professional teams. In Europe, Istanbul-based clubs like Galatasaray, Fenerbahce and Besiktas are well known (because of their soccer teams). I used to play against them in junior competition.
If you are really good, like Theocharidis, the only way to play at a high level is to play with a top club team. Some of the players may get paid, while others may not be paid. I would call a lot of this "semi-pro".
I do agree that "professional" players should not be competing in NCAA competition. I don't think it would the right thing for our collegiate sports to have players go off and play for a couple of years at the highest level, getting paid, and then go back and play in college in the US.
But this isn't what Theocharidis did. The problem is defining professional. Intertwined in all this is the age issue.
I think a simple way to do this would be based on age. You finish high school (wherever you are), and the clock starts ticking. Hey, if someone actually got paid at 16 or 17 years of age to play in a club somewhere, how different is that from kids playing on Jr National Teams in International competition? Just don't even worry too much what they did at 16 or 17 years of age.
But not to worry, the NCAA folks don't give a hoot about what us volleyball afficionados have to say, and we can count on them to continue to be inept and corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by vb on May 13, 2004 1:30:41 GMT -5
Kinda like the pro-am in golf?
I wonder how many other sports like golf can be played with professionals and the players still retain the right to play college.
|
|
|
Post by benwhipdrofn on May 13, 2004 10:01:24 GMT -5
It's too bad, but I'm glad that get to keep the rings.
|
|
|
Post by gobears on May 13, 2004 10:31:02 GMT -5
I would also vote for starting the clock of eligibility when one graduates from H.S. You have 6 years, with 4 years of play allowed during that period.
That allows for missions or time off for whatever, or focusing on studies or what all for a year or two. That means that by age 24/25 the 6 years would be up and you wouldn't have even older players. Yes, players at age 24/25 are much better than 19 year olds but so are seniors at 22/23 better than frosh at 18/19.
There is no perfect system, but 6 years of eligibility with 4 years of play permitted during that time would handle a lot of the problems. And the play counts whether you are in NCAA or club. A bunch of the men's club teams are as good or near as good as some of the Div. I/II/III NCAA teams. Only players on the better club teams would be interested/able to transfer to NCAA teams... and not many of them do that.
It would be nice if NCAA and club ball had that same rule. Right now club allows 6 years of eligibility/play if one wishes, and the clock starts the first year you are on a roster(NCAA or Club; redshirt on an NCAA team counts a year used up). Some club players do play 5 years. A very few play 6. They must be verified by the school registrar as students with at least 9 units. Do some sign up for classes to play, and then drop after the vb season....I suppose a few do, but the majority play 4 and occasionally 5 years.
Would be much better if the clock starts as soon as one has graduated from H.S.
|
|
|
Post by jbspaw on May 13, 2004 10:43:46 GMT -5
I read the article with quotes from Theo, and there are different opinions on what makes a pro player, however My question is, was this what he told Hawaii when he wanted to come to Hawaii? or did he hide these facts? ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on May 13, 2004 11:58:56 GMT -5
My questions are - 1) Since Hawaii lost their championship and Costas had to return his awards from that year, what about all the other years when he won awards? Does he have to return those AA awards as well? Since they have determined that he was a professional (or guilty by association) and it was prior to attending UH, it would only seem logical that he was ineligible for his whole carreer at UH. Right?
2) Why does it take four years to figure it out? Is a school only investigated when they win the championship?
|
|
|
Post by roy on May 13, 2004 13:23:18 GMT -5
These are some really good questions. I think Costas did deceive the staff. He said he wasn't professional and he wasn't but I don't think he was completely willing to give out all of his information that he played in a few professional matches. It wasn't meant with malice and I honestly believe that he figured it wasn't a big deal.
I also have some major questions regarding this ruling. It doesn't seem like the punishment is fitting the crime. If he is a professional, shouldn't everything be taken away? He should have been stripped of all of his awards and every stat in every game he played. We would expect that if a team used a professional player in a sport like basketball or football. And if it just a matter of sitting out games, why is it being taken away during his junior year? If anything should be taken away, it should be from his freshman year.
This sets a really nasty precedent. If someone wanted to be really nasty, they could question a lot of past teams that won titles. Like McGown said, if Hawaii loses their title, BYU's 1999 and 2001 title might also be in danger.
|
|
|
Post by VBbeast on May 13, 2004 14:15:41 GMT -5
www1.ncaa.org/membership/enforcement/amateurism/legislation/div_I_haveThe above link will take you to the NCAA web page that deals with the definition of a professional team. Im reading a lot of people talking about how UH and Theo got the shaft because he (according to him) never accepted money to play. Let's assume he is telling the truth. If you read the rule you will see that participation with a team on which ANY player accepts money as compensation over and above what is referred to as "necessary and actual expenses" puts at risk an individual's eligibility. There is nothing ambiguous about the rule. Whether or not Theo thought it was a big deal or not he should have put that information down when he filled out his eligibility paper work at the beginning of each of the years he competed at Hawaii. If he had undoubtedly the UH compliance people would have checked into it, and been able to be proactive about either filing an appeal to have his eligibility restored or preventing him from playing, and therefore avoided having the current situation. Whether or not you believe the rule to be fair is not relevent in this situation. The rule is there, it is clear, and if you don't abide by it there are consequences. With the NCAA finally making a ruling here, it would seem inevitable that once they complete their investigation into Lewis that we will be hearing about a 2nd stripped title in the next few months. ...of course with the NCAA the concept of timely resolution seems to be middling to low on the list of priorities.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on May 13, 2004 18:14:30 GMT -5
I am not saying anything in support of the player . . . a ruling is a ruling.
Again, why isn't he stripped of ALL awards during his whole college career since the incident(s) occured prior to playing in the NCAA? He was a four time all-american. It should be a zero time all-american with the ruling.
The other question - why did it take over four years to figure it out?
Rules are rules . . .
I hate to say it, but having foreign players could be a liability to any team - IF you WIN! That is the only time the NCAA will step in and investigate. And, the NCAA is only looking at information being provided to them. If UH self-reported and lost their championship then Lewis will probably lose theirs.
Rules are rules . . . like them or not . . . or find the loopholes!
|
|