|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Dec 26, 2004 22:26:04 GMT -5
BTW, if either one of you yahoos had taken the time to read the NCAA regulations, you would have seen that 90% of that stuff is ALREADY in the ruleset. If you are referring to the 4 page "Amateurism Questionnaire", 19 page NCAA Memo dated February 11, 2004 incorporating the "NCAA Volleyball Educational Document", 3 page "Questions to Send International Teams", 2 page "Checklist to Assist in Review of Prize Money Cases" or the 194 page "Guide to International Academic Standards for Athlete Eligibility", it might be in there. Lots of reading and interpretation in many of those documents. As for the FIVB writing a letter certifying an individual has not played professionally, that is just plain stupid. FIVB organizations have no impact on professional leagues. It is not their responsibility to babysit every friggin' volleyball player's professional/amateur status. Interestingly, the NCAA February 11, 2004 Memo states: "The NCAA continues to work with FIVB and international federations to assist our institutions in verifying the eligibility of international prospective student-athletes". Later on the same memo: "It is important to note that the NCAA does not issue letters of clearance in regard to verifying a student-athlete's amateur status. NCAA institutions and student athletes are responsible for verifying that a student-athlete’s eligibility had not been compromised." I interpret this as; the university can perform the recommended procedures and make a determination of eligibility because we the NCAA will not. However, if someone complains that the university that performed the check made a mistake (unknowingly or willfully); the NCAA will step in and make a determination overriding the university’s unassisted (by the NCAA) decision process. Sound right SOBB?
|
|
|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Dec 26, 2004 22:33:19 GMT -5
Yes, all you idiots who want to spend all this wasted time/effort making this big grandstand production on how to "reform" eligibility issues for men's volleyball Not a lot of time wasted, about 5 minutes (for the initial post) including correcting most of my spelling mistakes! Now that the women are done, I am bored until the men's real season begins. Or should I say when the exciting volleyball season is played? (That ought to get a few of the Women's/Girls board members going if they peek over here.)
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Dec 26, 2004 23:42:35 GMT -5
Wow, you can navigate the NCAA website. Congratulations. You still haven't shown anything that says the FIVB is responsible for babysitting athletes on professionalism/amateur status. "The NCAA continues to work with...." Fancy talk for saying "we try to contact the FIVB/National Governing Body and see if they have any clue on this guy from Brazil/Puerto Rico/Serbia/Croatia/Israel".
|
|
|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Dec 27, 2004 10:08:09 GMT -5
You still haven't shown anything that says the FIVB is responsible for babysitting athletes on professionalism/amateur status. "The NCAA continues to work with...." Fancy talk for saying "we try to contact the FIVB/National Governing Body and see if they have any clue on this guy from Brazil/Puerto Rico/Serbia/Croatia/Israel". You have a pattern on focusing on a single negative point in your responses. Perhaps that prevents you from having to put some thought into it. I didn't say anything; I just quoted what the NCAA said. What is your position on the following scenario SOBB? The school performed the checklists suggested by the NCAA. They requested written confirmation from organization but did not get a reply. The NCAA does not currently require written response (as you have pointed out several times, because the organization may not care to respond). Based on the lack of written response, the school determines the scholar-athlete was eligible. They allow the athlete to play. During the athlete’s final year of legibility, the school wins the conference or even the championship. Someone complains the school has a professional athlete. The NCAA does its own investigation, does not get any written information from the international sources, but decides that the player is ineligible anyway. The NCAA takes actions. Who was wrong and why?
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Dec 27, 2004 13:46:16 GMT -5
What is your position on the following scenario SOBB? The school performed the checklists suggested by the NCAA. They requested written confirmation from organization but did not get a reply. The NCAA does not currently require written response (as you have pointed out several times, because the organization may not care to respond). Based on the lack of written response, the school determines the scholar-athlete was eligible. They allow the athlete to play. During the athlete’s final year of legibility, the school wins the conference or even the championship. Someone complains the school has a professional athlete. The NCAA does its own investigation, does not get any written information from the international sources, but decides that the player is ineligible anyway. The NCAA takes actions. Who was wrong and why? In the case of Hawaii, the NCAA did not do the investigation. Hawaii did. And then submitted the findings to the NCAA. Costas was wrong for not fully disclosing where and who he played with prior to enrolling at UH. He has apologized. The issue has been closed and everyone involved has moved on, except for people like yourself who insist on keeping alive a subject which has no relevance and is relatively unimportant on the NCAA's radar of pressing issues.
|
|
|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Dec 27, 2004 23:29:48 GMT -5
In the case of Hawaii, the NCAA did not do the investigation. Hawaii did. And then submitted the findings to the NCAA. Costas was wrong for not fully disclosing where and who he played with prior to enrolling at UH. He has apologized. ...... You must have some interest in the issue or you wouldn't be responding to the questions presented. Perhaps this was your last posting in this thread? Regarding Hawaii's investigation, did they perform a better check than their initial investigation or did Theo just come out of nowhere and fess up that he lied? I have read the press releases regarding Lewis. Lewis did their own investigation also. Did the NCAA also perform a separate one? The press releases were vague and it was not clear who did what or didn't do what. What is your take on the Lewis situation? (If you choose to respond)
|
|