NCAA denies waivers for Clayton, Ezzard; Sims granted immediate eligibility

[Adadu]

Damn. Hopefully we have enough weapons to still be competitive this year. Just lost Brad Morgan too, medically retiring.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Therein lies another problem. You can't tighten the rules during a transition period. Basically you are letting everyone up to that point get by with the lenient rules, then everybody thereafter is subject to more strict policy. If a rule change was to be made, they should have said it will take effect after this football season.
And again, it's the high profile cases that seem to all get approved. You can't do that just because those are the ones you have more eyes on. You can't be consistent on everybody "except the high profile cases." That is the very definition of being inconsistent.

They are consistent except for the glaring examples where they aren't.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

No. The Fields and Martells are news because they are high profile athletes, not because they are exceptions.

If they had been denied waivers, they wouldn't be newsworthy, but merely high profile recruits who transferred, like Jacob Eason.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

If you're going to reference statistics in your argument, I would recommend showing the statistics.

I have been searching for stats that I am almost certain are not easily found. But here's the reality: the transfer portal sees hundreds of kids transfer every year. Many transfer to fellow FBS programs and have to sit a year. You can glean from there the fact that few players are granted an immediate play waiver. Over the years at GT we've seen a handful of our transfers get a waiver. It's not a common occurrence.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Sims confirms his denial but indicates hope for his appeal.
Given that Ezzard made no mention of an appeal and seems resigned to sitting out, he is either not appealing or was already denied.

 

[85Escape]

The 'travesty' of Martel's granted waiver is the reason our young men's waivers were denied and yet the very basis by which the approvals should have been granted.

If they entered the portal before the guidelines were adjusted (and I believe they did but I'm not sure), then it is inherently unfair to grant Martel's waiver (establishing precedence) and then apply a different set of guidelines to students who entered the portal based on that handling of a case.

Sounds like the basis for a lawsuit to me.

I'd love to see the NCAA have to pay a few hundred students a few million.

 

[tmhunter52]

The 'travesty' of Martel's granted waiver is the reason our young men's waivers were denied and yet the very basis by which the approvals should have been granted.

If they entered the portal before the guidelines were adjusted (and I believe they did but I'm not sure), then it is inherently unfair to grant Martel's waiver (establishing precedence) and then apply a different set of guidelines to students who entered the portal based on that handling of a case.

Sounds like the basis for a lawsuit to me.

I'd love to see the NCAA have to pay a few hundred students a few million.

A smart lawyer might get rich with a BIG class action lawsuit against the NCAA...

 

[wgardiner3]

 

[smokey_wasp]

Michigan possibly torpedoed Sims' waiver? I figured Miami did that to Ezzard's. But it kinda sounds like some wires got crossed and Michigan's AD spoke out of turn. They should stick up for him on his appeal.

 

[RyanS12]

Michigan possibly torpedoed Sims' waiver? I figured Miami did that to Ezzard's. But it kinda sounds like some wires got crossed and Michigan's AD spoke out of turn. They should stick up for him on his appeal.

My hatred for Ann Arbor grows. **** Michigan and Harbaugh!

 

[smokey_wasp]

My hatred for Ann Arbor grows. **** Michigan and Harbaugh!

It sounds like it wasn't Harbaugh's doing. But otherwise, yes!

 

[gtwcf]

Michigan possibly torpedoed Sims' waiver? I figured Miami did that to Ezzard's. But it kinda sounds like some wires got crossed and Michigan's AD spoke out of turn. They should stick up for him on his appeal.

There was an article on the Athletic about a Michigan transfer to Cincinnati and Michigan basically pulled the same stuff. Harbaugh is a POS. And a weird one at that.

 

[gtwcf]

First article

https://theathletic.com/1134683/201...nati-remain-at-odds-in-the-james-hudson-saga/
Second Article

https://theathletic.com/1139643/201...esponds-to-jim-harbaugh-in-james-hudson-saga/

 

[lv20gt]

So just a collection of assorted thoughts.

In regards to Sims, I'm not entirely sure what to make of the situation. One one hand they say they submitted documentation from doctors supporting the cause, and we have no reason to believe they didn't. On the other hand it seems very odd to me that you have a coach, Harbaugh who is a pretty big proponent of students being able to transfer, and you don't give him a reason more than just personal reasons. Then, in an article designed to drum up public support to try and pressure the NCAA that way, which I am 100% in favor of, not providing anything more as well. Just seems odd to me, and doesn't leave us with much information to really judge the situation.

In regards to Clayton, he did give a reason, sick mother, which should probably warrant a waiver. I believe the issue is that his home lays outside of the 100 mile distance that the NCAA set? If that is the case then at least it is some known measure rather than a vacuous reason. I've heard some people call this a punishment, but when having to sit out a year is teh baseline, I don't really think you can call having to sit out a year. While it can be discussed whether the distance should be 100 miles or not, the real question is if anyone received a waiver to be close to sick family member this cycle that went beyond the 100 mile mark. As I understand it the 100 mile thing was viewed as a clarification rather than an actual rule change. If nobody outside the 100 mile thing was granted a waiver before the clarification then it makes sense. If not it doesn't. Don't know which situation it is.

For Ezzard, it sounds like the argument is that he is in the same situation as Martell but he got denied while Martell didn't. The only possible difference I can find is that Martell argued that it wasn't just a coaching change but that he was also run off and the OSU staff didn't contest. I don't know if Ezzard did the same. Either way this is the one that really annoys me because it seems like the two had the same situation but got different results. If both got the waiver, or both were denied it would be fine with me, but that the results were different just isn't right. The others have some frustrating aspects, but this is the one that sticks out to me.

Overall I wish they would just get rid of the waiver and have transfers not lose a year of eligibility when they transfer. So like Clayton would have to sit a year but would automatically get a 6th year to use up his last two years of eligibility. On a separate note I would also combine this with removing the ability for coaches to block or restrict transfers if that is even still a thing.

 

[Beerbrewingjacket]

I think athletes should get a freebie. Then after that no transfers until after graduation or subject to a loss of eligibility for a year. This is too subjective to the point that it’s hurting student athletes.

 

[GoGATech]

While it can be discussed whether the distance should be 100 miles or not, the real question is if anyone received a waiver to be close to sick family member this cycle that went beyond the 100 mile mark.

I don't think it matters whether or not one was granted to anyone outside that 100 mile "rule." The thing is they need to look at the purpose of the rule. It's to keep people from just moving a little ways but still being ridiculously far from home and using the sick relative excuse. I know Clayton is only moving 70 miles closer to home but again as pointed out, there are no schools within that range for him, so the rule isn't being used as it was intended.

 

[lv20gt]

I don't think it matters whether or not one was granted to anyone outside that 100 mile "rule." The thing is they need to look at the purpose of the rule. It's to keep people from just moving a little ways but still being ridiculously far from home and using the sick relative excuse. I know Clayton is only moving 70 miles closer to home but again as pointed out, there are no schools within that range for him, so the rule isn't being used as it was intended.

There are schools within that range. Just not FBS schools. Even so, we aren't the closest FBS school.

Anyways, the purpose of that rule is that even if you are moving closer, if you aren't close enough to realistically do anything, then the argument doesn't really hold. If the nearest college is 500 miles, then does transferring to that school actually allow you to be close enough to the sick relative for it to be a factor? To me that just doesn't make much sense. IMO the idea of the waiver is to allow athlete who are needed, or potentially so, on a daily basis to be able to be there. Also, if 130 miles is close enough for one player, it should be the case for everyone. It wouldn't be right to say that some get 130 miles. That why I think it comes down to determining what that distance is.

 

[deeeznutz]

No. I'm not glossing it over. The rule is the rule unless it is changed... Is it arbitrary? Yes. That's beyond the point. Work to change the rule.

Is the “100 mile” rule sometimes ignored? If yes (and without thinking too hard, Fields shows that it very obviously is), then it’s not so much a “rule” as a “guideline”. If it’s just a guideline, they should definitely stick with the spirit of the rule instead.

 

[deeeznutz]

I’m glad to see this, and I hope GT and the players’ families keep up the public pressure on the NCAA through the appeals process. Clearly, negative publicity is the NCAA’s kryptonite. We have some really social media savvy folks on staff, let’s get them mobilized to force their hand.

 

[lv20gt]

Is the “100 mile” rule sometimes ignored? If yes (and without thinking too hard, Fields shows that it very obviously is), then it’s not so much a “rule” as a “guideline”. If it’s just a guideline, they should definitely stick with the spirit of the rule instead.

The 100 miles thing is a clarification the NCAA made over the summer to a rule that already existed pertaining to granting waivers to SAs transferring to be closer to a sick family member (or similar). It isn't a requirement on all waivers. I believe Fields was going for a waiver under the argument that he transferred because racial slurs were made against him when he was at UGA, or stte. The 100 mile thing wouldn't be a factor in that case. Now that situation is a whole different can of worms.