|
Post by eyeroll2021 on May 9, 2024 15:05:22 GMT -5
All of this you and slxpress is indeed true, however, this hitch in the plan i'm trying to point out is that Whitney did not miss time while she was pregnant. She played through and finshed the end of the season for Nebraska in 2022 dring the initial months of her pregnancy. She then had her kid in june (i'm pretty sure), and then was not part of the Nebraska team 3 months later when the season started. I'm trying to point out that I have no idea if being 3 months post-delivery really qualifies for the conventional "medical redshirt" an athlete would get. 3 months is typically enough to return to normal activities. So did she miss the year because of the baby, or because she was quietly kicked off the team? It's not cut and dry to me (but i'm out of my depth) like it would be if she was 6 months pregnant at the start of the season. So she's not "redshirting" unless Texas compliance is sure that it will. I'm not familiar with the details of the "pregnancy exception" (my wording) except that I believe it is for a year and it applies similar to the one for mission trips (which is up to two years) In practical terms, the athlete's eligibility clock is increased from five years to six. To qualify for it, I don't think the requirements are similar to the medical waiver. I believe it has it's own set of requirements. I would also think it doesn't require you to be in school during that time. Athletes on mission trips are not enrolled in school. I'm not concerned about it because I feel certain her status was already clear when she selected Texas as this doesn't appear to be a complicated process. If she qualified for the exception, she has three years left to play two. If she didn't qualify, she has two left to play two. I would lean heavily toward she qualified for it as the exception is likely for pregnancy & early months post-pregnancy and likely not dependent on your physical ability to play. I bet she gets the exception. The NCAA is in no position to evaluate physical recovery from pregnancy. Plus it would be a PR disaster if they denied it. Let's put it this way: - Approving the exception: zero liability for NCAA, no one is in a position to complain - Denying the exception: possible lawsuit, getting involved in thorny judgment issues about womens' health, bad press etc etc
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on May 9, 2024 15:21:29 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with the details of the "pregnancy exception" (my wording) except that I believe it is for a year and it applies similar to the one for mission trips (which is up to two years) In practical terms, the athlete's eligibility clock is increased from five years to six. To qualify for it, I don't think the requirements are similar to the medical waiver. I believe it has it's own set of requirements. I would also think it doesn't require you to be in school during that time. Athletes on mission trips are not enrolled in school. I'm not concerned about it because I feel certain her status was already clear when she selected Texas as this doesn't appear to be a complicated process. If she qualified for the exception, she has three years left to play two. If she didn't qualify, she has two left to play two. I would lean heavily toward she qualified for it as the exception is likely for pregnancy & early months post-pregnancy and likely not dependent on your physical ability to play. I bet she gets the exception. The NCAA is in no position to evaluate physical recovery from pregnancy. Plus it would be a PR disaster if they denied it. Let's put it this way: - Approving the exception: zero liability for NCAA, no one is in a position to complain - Denying the exception: possible lawsuit, getting involved in thorny judgment issues about womens' health, bad press etc etc I suspect she already has the exception and likely has since last spring because I would think that was the timeframe when they made application and received a decision. I think the exception exists so that pregnant athletes can take up to a year off for pregnancy and early baby care without penalty. Somewhat similar to the decision making for COVID.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on May 9, 2024 15:33:31 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with the details of the "pregnancy exception" (my wording) except that I believe it is for a year and it applies similar to the one for mission trips (which is up to two years) In practical terms, the athlete's eligibility clock is increased from five years to six. To qualify for it, I don't think the requirements are similar to the medical waiver. I believe it has it's own set of requirements. I would also think it doesn't require you to be in school during that time. Athletes on mission trips are not enrolled in school. I'm not concerned about it because I feel certain her status was already clear when she selected Texas as this doesn't appear to be a complicated process. If she qualified for the exception, she has three years left to play two. If she didn't qualify, she has two left to play two. I would lean heavily toward she qualified for it as the exception is likely for pregnancy & early months post-pregnancy and likely not dependent on your physical ability to play. I bet she gets the exception. The NCAA is in no position to evaluate physical recovery from pregnancy. Plus it would be a PR disaster if they denied it. Let's put it this way: - Approving the exception: zero liability for NCAA, no one is in a position to complain - Denying the exception: possible lawsuit, getting involved in thorny judgment issues about womens' health, bad press etc etc This is what I found in the NCAA Manual. 12.8.1.5 Pregnancy Exception. A member institution may approve a one-year extension of the five-year period of eligibility for a female student-athlete for reasons of pregnancy. (Revised: 7/31/14) So it reads that the school, not the NCAA, makes the decision. Also doesn't have any requirements other than being pregnant. In Whitney's case, I now wonder if Nebraska approved the extension. Sounded like she didn't leave on the best of terms and one could speculate that not granting the extension would cause her to leave the program and school. If Nebraska didn't approve it, I wonder if Texas would be allowed to approve it (somewhat after the fact). If not allowed, I bet they would appeal a negative decision to the NCAA on her behalf.
|
|
|
Post by katn on May 9, 2024 16:54:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by katn on May 9, 2024 16:57:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on May 9, 2024 17:17:41 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with the details of the "pregnancy exception" (my wording) except that I believe it is for a year and it applies similar to the one for mission trips (which is up to two years) In practical terms, the athlete's eligibility clock is increased from five years to six. To qualify for it, I don't think the requirements are similar to the medical waiver. I believe it has it's own set of requirements. I would also think it doesn't require you to be in school during that time. Athletes on mission trips are not enrolled in school. I'm not concerned about it because I feel certain her status was already clear when she selected Texas as this doesn't appear to be a complicated process. If she qualified for the exception, she has three years left to play two. If she didn't qualify, she has two left to play two. I would lean heavily toward she qualified for it as the exception is likely for pregnancy & early months post-pregnancy and likely not dependent on your physical ability to play. I bet she gets the exception. The NCAA is in no position to evaluate physical recovery from pregnancy. Plus it would be a PR disaster if they denied it. Let's put it this way: - Approving the exception: zero liability for NCAA, no one is in a position to complain - Denying the exception: possible lawsuit, getting involved in thorny judgment issues about womens' health, bad press etc etc Another technicality, but it's not always a NCAA decision. It's mostly an Athletic Department Compliance Officer's decision. Most eligibilty decisions are just compliance officers telling the NCAA that they certify everyone's eligibilty. edit: kind of what stevehorn alluded to
|
|
|
Post by ndrew62 on May 9, 2024 17:34:03 GMT -5
I apologize if this has been posted numerous times but, what are the dates for the team trip to Europe?
|
|
|
Post by blackiechan1999 on May 9, 2024 17:45:54 GMT -5
I apologize if this has been posted numerous times but, what are the dates for the team trip to Europe? I think that hornfanaustin has the dates.
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on May 9, 2024 18:40:42 GMT -5
I bet she gets the exception. The NCAA is in no position to evaluate physical recovery from pregnancy. Plus it would be a PR disaster if they denied it. Let's put it this way: - Approving the exception: zero liability for NCAA, no one is in a position to complain - Denying the exception: possible lawsuit, getting involved in thorny judgment issues about womens' health, bad press etc etc Another technicality, but it's not always a NCAA decision. It's mostly an Athletic Department Compliance Officer's decision. Most eligibilty decisions are just compliance officers telling the NCAA that they certify everyone's eligibilty. edit: kind of what stevehorn alluded to NCAA or university, it's basically the same analysis in terms of liability and PR
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on May 9, 2024 20:31:28 GMT -5
Another technicality, but it's not always a NCAA decision. It's mostly an Athletic Department Compliance Officer's decision. Most eligibilty decisions are just compliance officers telling the NCAA that they certify everyone's eligibilty. edit: kind of what stevehorn alluded to NCAA or university, it's basically the same analysis in terms of liability and PR Liabilty for what? No one's contested the limits on eligibilty like that in court. That's actually one aspect that the NCAA would almost certainly win.
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on May 9, 2024 21:03:06 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. If the NCAA rule says the school decides, you can bet Texas will grant the extension (is Nebraska hasn't already) and no one will have standing to challenge it
|
|
|
Post by hornfanaustin on May 10, 2024 10:09:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on May 10, 2024 20:39:20 GMT -5
Watching TX women's softball in the Big 12 championship semifinal. . Horns up 12-0 vs. Baylor and it's only the bottom of the 2nd. . . it's a bit like watching a snuff film
|
|
|
Post by katn on May 10, 2024 20:41:24 GMT -5
Watching TX women's softball in the Big 12 championship semifinal. . Horns up 12-0 vs. Baylor and it's only the bottom of the 2nd. . . yikes i'm watching too...they are awesome this season...total domination...hook'em
|
|
|
Post by katn on May 10, 2024 20:45:43 GMT -5
bella dayton has a triple & home run so far (in the 3rd inning) & just now she made this crazy sliding catch in the outfield...i'm sure it will be on sports center tonite
|
|