Rasheem Dunn Waiver Denied (APPEAL WON)

[quote="Moose" post=362709][quote="fordham96" post=362701]

However I do not understand the notion of simply wanting one because you were a mid-year transfer and having played little the first part of the season before you transferred. That reason is weak. That is why I don't understand the constant harping on player A getting a waiver even though he played last year and player B not even though he transferred mid year and hardly played. The waiver is not being based on how much or little they played last year since you have to sit either way.
[/quote]

Why don't you get the harping? Years ago NCAA clamped down and said they would handle cases where youre going home for sick family. Hardships. Now kids are transferring anywhere they choose after playing a full year with no hardships or coaching changes (not that it matters clearly with Dunn) and then another kid in our case played 5 minutes and 1 game and he's told no. When you grant a full year kid immediate eligibility out of thin air like that then yes a kid playing just 5 minutes in 1 game and not getting it becomes a very relevant topic.

The whole system is broken and combined with piss poor officiating is making it harder and harder to watch.[/quote]

Because it totally misses the point.

I am not arguing the harping over the inconsistency of the waiver requests but rather the grounds by which they think they are being granted or denied.

The playing time the prior year is not a basis for a waiver, never has been. So you canot compare getting a waiver for Quentin Grimes who played consistently for Kansas last year but not for Micah Potter based on playing time. You want to argue there are other factors for Potter that he should be allowed to play fine, but the idea that he should get one because he barely played and thus should not have to sit a FULL year but Grimes should because Grimes played a lot is nonsense. That is not the basis for his waiver request.
 
[quote="fordham96" post=362720]
Because it totally misses the point.

I am not arguing the harping over the inconsistency of the waiver requests but rather the grounds by which they think they are being granted or denied.

The playing time the prior year is not a basis for a waiver, never has been. So you canot compare getting a waiver for Quentin Grimes who played consistently for Kansas last year but not for Micah Potter based on playing time. You want to argue there are other factors for Potter that he should be allowed to play fine, but the idea that he should get one because he barely played and thus should not have to sit a FULL year but Grimes should because Grimes played a lot is nonsense. That is not the basis for his waiver request.[/quote]

The NCAA's founding mission is to protest students. The premise and true spirit of their being overlord is based entirely upon this. So arguing about the grounds for waivers is actually missing the point entirely when students are being hurt by the process. That is the point and if you miss that you miss everything.
 
[quote="fordham96" post=362720][quote="Moose" post=362709][quote="fordham96" post=362701]

However I do not understand the notion of simply wanting one because you were a mid-year transfer and having played little the first part of the season before you transferred. That reason is weak. That is why I don't understand the constant harping on player A getting a waiver even though he played last year and player B not even though he transferred mid year and hardly played. The waiver is not being based on how much or little they played last year since you have to sit either way.
[/quote]

Why don't you get the harping? Years ago NCAA clamped down and said they would handle cases where youre going home for sick family. Hardships. Now kids are transferring anywhere they choose after playing a full year with no hardships or coaching changes (not that it matters clearly with Dunn) and then another kid in our case played 5 minutes and 1 game and he's told no. When you grant a full year kid immediate eligibility out of thin air like that then yes a kid playing just 5 minutes in 1 game and not getting it becomes a very relevant topic.

The whole system is broken and combined with piss poor officiating is making it harder and harder to watch.[/quote]

Because it totally misses the point.

I am not arguing the harping over the inconsistency of the waiver requests but rather the grounds by which they think they are being granted or denied.

The playing time the prior year is not a basis for a waiver, never has been. So you canot compare getting a waiver for Quentin Grimes who played consistently for Kansas last year but not for Micah Potter based on playing time. You want to argue there are other factors for Potter that he should be allowed to play fine, but the idea that he should get one because he barely played and thus should not have to sit a FULL year but Grimes should because Grimes played a lot is nonsense. That is not the basis for his waiver request.[/quote]

I'm don't see how you can't think that is exactly the point. No PT has never been the basis of a transfer. Ironic though since medical hardships are based on PT and how much you play but I digress. We don't know why official reason anyone including Steere mentioned in their transfer request. (Also interesting nothing has ever leaked or been posted after the fact about the 'process') but the point I am making is the fact he only played 5 minutes in 1 game should assist in his case. I know you have often posted about Steere getting the year back and how that might be an even bigger issue but that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not a lawyer (thank god) and again I don't know the official reasons all these kids put down for leaving but seeing literally the vast majority get approved without any hardship mentioned (and lets be fair its 2020 now. Everything comes to the surface) it's disgusting to me that 5 minutes in 1 game and he has to sit a 'semester'. Be original and say maybe he has to serve 2 games. But again this is the NCAA.
 
[quote="Moose" post=362722][quote="fordham96" post=362720][quote="Moose" post=362709][quote="fordham96" post=362701]

However I do not understand the notion of simply wanting one because you were a mid-year transfer and having played little the first part of the season before you transferred. That reason is weak. That is why I don't understand the constant harping on player A getting a waiver even though he played last year and player B not even though he transferred mid year and hardly played. The waiver is not being based on how much or little they played last year since you have to sit either way.
[/quote]

Why don't you get the harping? Years ago NCAA clamped down and said they would handle cases where youre going home for sick family. Hardships. Now kids are transferring anywhere they choose after playing a full year with no hardships or coaching changes (not that it matters clearly with Dunn) and then another kid in our case played 5 minutes and 1 game and he's told no. When you grant a full year kid immediate eligibility out of thin air like that then yes a kid playing just 5 minutes in 1 game and not getting it becomes a very relevant topic.

The whole system is broken and combined with piss poor officiating is making it harder and harder to watch.[/quote]

Because it totally misses the point.

I am not arguing the harping over the inconsistency of the waiver requests but rather the grounds by which they think they are being granted or denied.

The playing time the prior year is not a basis for a waiver, never has been. So you canot compare getting a waiver for Quentin Grimes who played consistently for Kansas last year but not for Micah Potter based on playing time. You want to argue there are other factors for Potter that he should be allowed to play fine, but the idea that he should get one because he barely played and thus should not have to sit a FULL year but Grimes should because Grimes played a lot is nonsense. That is not the basis for his waiver request.[/quote]

I'm don't see how you can't think that is exactly the point. No PT has never been the basis of a transfer. Ironic though since medical hardships are based on PT and how much you play but I digress. We don't know why official reason anyone including Steere mentioned in their transfer request. (Also interesting nothing has ever leaked or been posted after the fact about the 'process') but the point I am making is the fact he only played 5 minutes in 1 game should assist in his case. I know you have often posted about Steere getting the year back and how that might be an even bigger issue but that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not a lawyer (thank god) and again I don't know the official reasons all these kids put down for leaving but seeing literally the vast majority get approved without any hardship mentioned (and lets be fair its 2020 now. Everything comes to the surface) it's disgusting to me that 5 minutes in 1 game and he has to sit a 'semester'. Be original and say maybe he has to serve 2 games. But again this is the NCAA.[/quote]

I won't be able to win with you.

Medical hardships are not a reason for transfer waiver though, they are the basis for getting the year back for eligibility.

I think the best argument is inconsistency. The article make sit sound like the inconsistency is based on awarding some waivers where the kid played last year a lot and others like Potter a no. I just think they are missing the point based on a bad faith argument. They do a disservice to the inconsistency argument because of that. That is my point.
 
[quote="Paul Massell" post=362721][quote="fordham96" post=362720]
Because it totally misses the point.

I am not arguing the harping over the inconsistency of the waiver requests but rather the grounds by which they think they are being granted or denied.

The playing time the prior year is not a basis for a waiver, never has been. So you canot compare getting a waiver for Quentin Grimes who played consistently for Kansas last year but not for Micah Potter based on playing time. You want to argue there are other factors for Potter that he should be allowed to play fine, but the idea that he should get one because he barely played and thus should not have to sit a FULL year but Grimes should because Grimes played a lot is nonsense. That is not the basis for his waiver request.[/quote]

The NCAA's founding mission is to protest students. The premise and true spirit of their being overlord is based entirely upon this. So arguing about the grounds for waivers is actually missing the point entirely when students are being hurt by the process. That is the point and if you miss that you miss everything.[/quote]

Paul, is that a typo or is my pal Sigmund taking control of your hands?
 
[quote="fordham96" post=362723][quote="Moose" post=362722][quote="fordham96" post=362720][quote="Moose" post=362709][quote="fordham96" post=362701]

However I do not understand the notion of simply wanting one because you were a mid-year transfer and having played little the first part of the season before you transferred. That reason is weak. That is why I don't understand the constant harping on player A getting a waiver even though he played last year and player B not even though he transferred mid year and hardly played. The waiver is not being based on how much or little they played last year since you have to sit either way.
[/quote]

Why don't you get the harping? Years ago NCAA clamped down and said they would handle cases where youre going home for sick family. Hardships. Now kids are transferring anywhere they choose after playing a full year with no hardships or coaching changes (not that it matters clearly with Dunn) and then another kid in our case played 5 minutes and 1 game and he's told no. When you grant a full year kid immediate eligibility out of thin air like that then yes a kid playing just 5 minutes in 1 game and not getting it becomes a very relevant topic.

The whole system is broken and combined with piss poor officiating is making it harder and harder to watch.[/quote]

Because it totally misses the point.

I am not arguing the harping over the inconsistency of the waiver requests but rather the grounds by which they think they are being granted or denied.

The playing time the prior year is not a basis for a waiver, never has been. So you canot compare getting a waiver for Quentin Grimes who played consistently for Kansas last year but not for Micah Potter based on playing time. You want to argue there are other factors for Potter that he should be allowed to play fine, but the idea that he should get one because he barely played and thus should not have to sit a FULL year but Grimes should because Grimes played a lot is nonsense. That is not the basis for his waiver request.[/quote]

I'm don't see how you can't think that is exactly the point. No PT has never been the basis of a transfer. Ironic though since medical hardships are based on PT and how much you play but I digress. We don't know why official reason anyone including Steere mentioned in their transfer request. (Also interesting nothing has ever leaked or been posted after the fact about the 'process') but the point I am making is the fact he only played 5 minutes in 1 game should assist in his case. I know you have often posted about Steere getting the year back and how that might be an even bigger issue but that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not a lawyer (thank god) and again I don't know the official reasons all these kids put down for leaving but seeing literally the vast majority get approved without any hardship mentioned (and lets be fair its 2020 now. Everything comes to the surface) it's disgusting to me that 5 minutes in 1 game and he has to sit a 'semester'. Be original and say maybe he has to serve 2 games. But again this is the NCAA.[/quote]

I won't be able to win with you.

Medical hardships are not a reason for transfer waiver though, they are the basis for getting the year back for eligibility.

I think the best argument is inconsistency. The article make sit sound like the inconsistency is based on awarding some waivers where the kid played last year a lot and others like Potter a no. I just think they are missing the point based on a bad faith argument. They do a disservice to the inconsistency argument because of that. That is my point.[/quote]

Win with me? I've known you for a long time. Not sure why this is a winning situation.

Also I never said a medical hardship was a reason for a waiver. I just pointed out the irony they used games played to determine that but as has been pointed out plenty that doesnt apply in any way shape or form to a Steere like transfer.

I get it. You have been firmly speaking on the Steere transfer for a long time. I've also recently been speaking on it after seeing this rampant hypocrisy when I saw all these kids getting eligible with no hardships. I just hope this is the last year we hear about this crap but thats fruitless on my part. Nobody seems willing to stand up and combat the NCAA here.
 
I seem to remember a time where the amount of games you played was the amount of games you had to sit out the next season up to a mid year transfer. Example: player plays in 6 games transfers mid year obviously sits second semester of that year and then the first 6 games of the following season. Granted was a long time ago if it was even ever the case. Anyone else remember this? I think in this age of massive amount of transfers and the loosening of the rules on transfers that it would be the right way to handle it.
 
[quote="bamafan" post=362737]I seem to remember a time where the amount of games you played was the amount of games you had to sit out the next season up to a mid year transfer. Example: player plays in 6 games transfers mid year obviously sits second semester of that year and then the first 6 games of the following season. Granted was a long time ago if it was even ever the case. Anyone else remember this? I think in this age of massive amount of transfers and the loosening of the rules on transfers that it would be the right way to handle it.[/quote]

That was for injuries and medical redshirts.
 
[quote="Moose" post=362709][quote="fordham96" post=362701]

However I do not understand the notion of simply wanting one because you were a mid-year transfer and having played little the first part of the season before you transferred. That reason is weak. That is why I don't understand the constant harping on player A getting a waiver even though he played last year and player B not even though he transferred mid year and hardly played. The waiver is not being based on how much or little they played last year since you have to sit either way.
[/quote]

Why don't you get the harping? Years ago NCAA clamped down and said they would handle cases where youre going home for sick family. Hardships. Now kids are transferring anywhere they choose after playing a full year with no hardships or coaching changes (not that it matters clearly with Dunn) and then another kid in our case played 5 minutes and 1 game and he's told no. When you grant a full year kid immediate eligibility out of thin air like that then yes a kid playing just 5 minutes in 1 game and not getting it becomes a very relevant topic.

The whole system is broken and combined with piss poor officiating is making it harder and harder to watch.[/quote]

Personally, I don't think that amount of playing time should have any bearing when looking at these cases. If the player was practicing with the team at any point during a semester, that should count as playing and should use eligibility. The fact that Steere only appeared in one game for 5 minutes is completely irrelevant.
 
[quote="Eric Williamson" post=362739][quote="Moose" post=362709][quote="fordham96" post=362701]

However I do not understand the notion of simply wanting one because you were a mid-year transfer and having played little the first part of the season before you transferred. That reason is weak. That is why I don't understand the constant harping on player A getting a waiver even though he played last year and player B not even though he transferred mid year and hardly played. The waiver is not being based on how much or little they played last year since you have to sit either way.
[/quote]

Why don't you get the harping? Years ago NCAA clamped down and said they would handle cases where youre going home for sick family. Hardships. Now kids are transferring anywhere they choose after playing a full year with no hardships or coaching changes (not that it matters clearly with Dunn) and then another kid in our case played 5 minutes and 1 game and he's told no. When you grant a full year kid immediate eligibility out of thin air like that then yes a kid playing just 5 minutes in 1 game and not getting it becomes a very relevant topic.

The whole system is broken and combined with piss poor officiating is making it harder and harder to watch.[/quote]

Personally, I don't think that amount of playing time should have any bearing when looking at these cases. If the player was practicing with the team at any point during a semester, that should count as playing and should use eligibility. The fact that Steere only appeared in one game for 5 minutes is completely irrelevant.[/quote]

Ok thats fine. I respect that and you did mention before you are very much cut and dry. Then lets find out why so many other players are getting immediate eligibility because that's making it the wild wes out there.
 
[quote="Moose" post=362732][quote="fordham96" post=362723][quote="Moose" post=362722][quote="fordham96" post=362720][quote="Moose" post=362709][quote="fordham96" post=362701]

However I do not understand the notion of simply wanting one because you were a mid-year transfer and having played little the first part of the season before you transferred. That reason is weak. That is why I don't understand the constant harping on player A getting a waiver even though he played last year and player B not even though he transferred mid year and hardly played. The waiver is not being based on how much or little they played last year since you have to sit either way.
[/quote]

Why don't you get the harping? Years ago NCAA clamped down and said they would handle cases where youre going home for sick family. Hardships. Now kids are transferring anywhere they choose after playing a full year with no hardships or coaching changes (not that it matters clearly with Dunn) and then another kid in our case played 5 minutes and 1 game and he's told no. When you grant a full year kid immediate eligibility out of thin air like that then yes a kid playing just 5 minutes in 1 game and not getting it becomes a very relevant topic.

The whole system is broken and combined with piss poor officiating is making it harder and harder to watch.[/quote]

Because it totally misses the point.

I am not arguing the harping over the inconsistency of the waiver requests but rather the grounds by which they think they are being granted or denied.

The playing time the prior year is not a basis for a waiver, never has been. So you canot compare getting a waiver for Quentin Grimes who played consistently for Kansas last year but not for Micah Potter based on playing time. You want to argue there are other factors for Potter that he should be allowed to play fine, but the idea that he should get one because he barely played and thus should not have to sit a FULL year but Grimes should because Grimes played a lot is nonsense. That is not the basis for his waiver request.[/quote]

I'm don't see how you can't think that is exactly the point. No PT has never been the basis of a transfer. Ironic though since medical hardships are based on PT and how much you play but I digress. We don't know why official reason anyone including Steere mentioned in their transfer request. (Also interesting nothing has ever leaked or been posted after the fact about the 'process') but the point I am making is the fact he only played 5 minutes in 1 game should assist in his case. I know you have often posted about Steere getting the year back and how that might be an even bigger issue but that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not a lawyer (thank god) and again I don't know the official reasons all these kids put down for leaving but seeing literally the vast majority get approved without any hardship mentioned (and lets be fair its 2020 now. Everything comes to the surface) it's disgusting to me that 5 minutes in 1 game and he has to sit a 'semester'. Be original and say maybe he has to serve 2 games. But again this is the NCAA.[/quote]

I won't be able to win with you.

Medical hardships are not a reason for transfer waiver though, they are the basis for getting the year back for eligibility.

I think the best argument is inconsistency. The article make sit sound like the inconsistency is based on awarding some waivers where the kid played last year a lot and others like Potter a no. I just think they are missing the point based on a bad faith argument. They do a disservice to the inconsistency argument because of that. That is my point.[/quote]

Win with me? I've known you for a long time. Not sure why this is a winning situation.

Also I never said a medical hardship was a reason for a waiver. I just pointed out the irony they used games played to determine that but as has been pointed out plenty that doesnt apply in any way shape or form to a Steere like transfer.

I get it. You have been firmly speaking on the Steere transfer for a long time. I've also recently been speaking on it after seeing this rampant hypocrisy when I saw all these kids getting eligible with no hardships. I just hope this is the last year we hear about this crap but thats fruitless on my part. Nobody seems willing to stand up and combat the NCAA here.[/quote]

You're right Moose, nobody has the balls to fight the ncaa, just lay down while they screw small schools over, while doing doing favors for elite conference schools. I serious wonder if they're paying the ncaa under the table for favs, they paid top recruits right?
Would love for the fbi to investigate the ncaa, we know they're corrupt. Now that would be interesting.
 
[quote="AJ Hidell" post=362892]The article says he must sit 2019-20 season.[/quote]

That was original article when he transferred. He was ruled eligible this week
 
Watched Butler a bit last night and their guards can be very physical, especially Kamar Baldwin. My good friend JPM114,who knows Dunn’s game well, tells me his physicality and not backing down from anyone is where he’ll really help on D. Not a shooter, but can also score and draw fouls.

Getting him cleared will be a real positive in several respects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote="Paultzman" post=362903]Watched Butler a bit last night and their guards can be very physical, especially Kamar Baldwin. My good friend JPM114,who knows Dunn’s game well, tells me his physicality and not backing down from anyone is where he’ll really help on D. Not a shooter, but can also score and draw fouls.

Getting him cleared will be a real positive in several respects.[/quote]
We are ST John's where seldom does good luck appear so I am not as positive he gets cleared as some.Though he absolutely should.
With that being said if cleared does he eventually take Rutherford starting spot? Not an offensive option but I really like Rutherford. Or do we go small and bring Champagnie-who I also like btw off the bench?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top