Because it “didn’t count” those non-Ivy guys didn’t get a “5th” season. They got the 4 they were supposed to get, PLUS the covid season that the ncaa didn’t count.
Chris Ledlum
- Thread starter paultzman
- Start date
Exactly
Yes, and I happen to think they have a decent shot at getting that 5th year.
Again that is fine and maybe the NCAA changes its mind or perhaps they threaten a lawsuit.
But this was already attempted by Jimmy Boeheim and it was essentially the SAME argument and he was denied.
Yes, attempted and declined by more than just Boeheim. That said, it is my perception that a legal argument would be an uphill battle for the NCAA.
They are saying "it's not a fifth year", but kids are playing five years and had more access to compensation than this small group of excluded players (Ivy League). The exclusion occurred due to a decision that was made for them. The other kids played in front of fans during the 20-21 season and everybody made money (the NCAA, the schools, the arenas, etc). They can say it's not a 5th year all they want, but that's going to be tough legal argument.
The Ivy League players are being treated differently based on arbitrary and capricious reasons. And, that inequity is having a fiscal impact. Good luck in court.
Of course I’m on Dingle and Ledlum and the Ivy League guys side. But weren’t there no fans that season?
Again you are assuming that there will be legal action.
Also it is fair to say those same arguments were made on behalf of Boeheim and the NCAA did not find them very persuasive.
Every player and coach and administrator knew the rules going into the 20-21 season. You don't play for whatever reason, fine. But you don't simply get that free 5th year anytime you want to have it.
Also the 20-21 season for the most part was played in empty arenas.
Guys I will conclude with this, a lot of your post about how you think "they will win their petition.." is wish-casting.
Do you honestly believe that? Or do you hope that will happen?
I think you need to start with the realistic premise that it is unlikely but anything is possible.
Do you honestly believe that? Or do you hope that will happen?
I think you need to start with the realistic premise that it is unlikely but anything is possible.
Regardless of the merits and ultimate NCAA decision, hard to understand why they (players & SJU) waited until now to make this appeal. Why not do it during the season if there was any thought at all to their returning so you might have decision by now and could factor that decision into recruiting the 2024-2025 team? They are very unlikely to have a decision in time to pivot if the appeal is denied so will have to recruit as if they were not coming back.
Their status was regulated by the NCAA with their transfer guidelines. The status of college sports has changed.
MugCostanza
Well-known member
Probably the right mindset but as others mentioned it's a completely different landscape now than when Buddy lost his appeal on a similar case. The NCAA has effectively been castrated. There was little to no reason to be optimistic that 2 time undergrad transfers would be able to play this season until the courts overruled the NCAA.
We're far closer to permanent eligibility than we are to the NCAA actually being able to decide who's eligible and who isn't.
The fact that they filed a waiver is acknowledgement they are playing by NCAA rules and it is not a given.
Also the transfer rules on multi transfers being immediately eligible is not done being litigated.
That was before they lost court cases including the one where they had to grant immediate eligibility to undergrad transfers though they had already transferred once.
We shall see.
It is patently unfair to deny Ivy players the extra year. In the age of NIL, they are also being denied a year of payment as well.
Most of these kids were forced to sit out in order to obtain their degree — which is supposed to be the #1 goal of college athletics.
It’s a shitty situation for these kids and even the NCAA will get this right in the end.
That's a good explanation that I learned something from. Thanks
I don't think NCAA thinks in terms of fair vs. unfair. PS It's been noted Dingle didn't even go to school that year, I assume to maintain his eligibility. Not sure if that's a positive or negative in his process.
I was referring to the timing of their appeals.
L J S A
Well-known member
I think it's a negative, because guys who started in D1 but dropped to juco that year before returning don't seem to be viewed at earning that year. Had to be IN school.
You assume other players even go to school