|
|
Post by Gorf on May 17, 2004 11:39:11 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! I thought the rules changed in relation to determination of what constitutes a professional player just prior to his senior season? That may be at least in part why his earlier awards have not been affected? |
|
|
|
Post by vb on May 17, 2004 11:57:07 GMT -5
If true....... this is the stupidest rule of all time.
BTW, where is the offical NCAA ruling posted?
|
|
|
|
Post by sistahsledge on May 17, 2004 12:39:36 GMT -5
From what I remember, the original rule prohibited professional (meaning paid) players from NCAA competition. The NCAA then wised up to the fact that some players played in high-level professional leagues but claimed that they were unpaid and it would take the efforts of the CIA and INTERPOL to investigate if they actually received money "under the table". In order to simplify things, the NCAA decided to prohibit anyone who played in a professional league match with paid professionals. I think it makes sense because they don't have the resources to examine every foreign player's bank accounts. It's much easier to determine "professionalism" by where and with whom they have played.
The only exception they have made is for National Team competition. This must be upheld in order to allow for the development of our Olympians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on May 17, 2004 13:58:56 GMT -5
From what I remember, the original rule prohibited professional (meaning paid) players from NCAA competition. The NCAA then wised up to the fact that some players played in high-level professional leagues but claimed that they were unpaid and it would take the efforts of the CIA and INTERPOL to investigate if they actually received money "under the table". In order to simplify things, the NCAA decided to prohibit anyone who played in a professional league match with paid professionals. I think it makes sense because they don't have the resources to examine every foreign player's bank accounts. It's much easier to determine "professionalism" by where and with whom they have played. The only exception they have made is for National Team competition. This must be upheld in order to allow for the development of our Olympians. WOW - thanks for the insight. When did this change take affect? Also, didn't the current foreign players and coaches receive notification of this change? If so, then there is no excuse for Hawaii and possibly others. The only way around it is if there was a grandfather clause for those already playing in the NCAA. Was there one? |
|
|
|
Post by VBbeast on May 17, 2004 14:21:09 GMT -5
I believe this rule has been in place since the mid 90s. This is not a recent development by any means. They have recently rewritten the terminology, but the actual rule that stated participation with professionals was illegal has been in place for some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by lalalaluuuke on May 17, 2004 16:07:55 GMT -5
So are Kalani, UH, and company going to gripe and whine until someone else gets the same punishment? All of his articles are inferring that. Does any one else find this to be the case? |
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on May 17, 2004 16:12:07 GMT -5
I believe this rule has been in place since the mid 90s. This is not a recent development by any means. They have recently rewritten the terminology, but the actual rule that stated participation with professionals was illegal has been in place for some time. If this is so (since mid 90s) we are back to the question of why Costa only has to give up one year of awards? This is still illogical . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on May 17, 2004 16:20:48 GMT -5
So are Kalani, UH, and company going to gripe and whine until someone else gets the same punishment? All of his articles are inferring that. Does any one else find this to be the case? The way I read the article (minus the whining) is that all schools should follow the same rules and receive the same punishment if the crime is the same. I have to agree that if there is another school that is caught (or self-reports) to NCAA the same ineligibility problems they should receive the same punishment (forfeiture of player's awards, school awards, any championship, and monetary fines). Shouldn't we all follow the same rules . . . or use the same loopholes? |
|
|
|
Post by Spam I Am on May 24, 2004 0:12:30 GMT -5
I believe this rule has been in place since the mid 90s. This is not a recent development by any means. They have recently rewritten the terminology, but the actual rule that stated participation with professionals was illegal has been in place for some time. Question-So why would the NCAA re-write an existing rule? Hmm? Maybe because it was vague and open to interpretation. |
|
