More N.C.A.A. ‘Justice’
January 15th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^
public pressure on St. Joe's to grant him his release, like with the Free Arnett situation, that could tip the scales for this guy
January 16th, 2012 at 12:24 AM ^
The school is my alma mater and I am quite embarassed this is happening. They solicit me for donations all the time and I recently told them to not bother until they do the right thing here. They sent me a lame email from the President's Office where he hides behind his legal teams advice not to speak publicly about it. It's not like I have money to give right now, but at least now I have absolutely no desire to give it.
January 16th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^
Or is the real problem with an inexcusably bad decision by one person?
Of course, if the student athlete in question really wants to attend grad school, there is nothing that is stopping him. This is only about basketball. (And perhaps a scholarship for a year.)
I just don't see Joe Nocera's point that the NCAA is somehow responsible for a bad decsion by an official who doesn't work for the NCAA. It's like somebody being wrongly convicted of fraud by an incompetent judge and being sent to prison for a year, and the response is to do away with the law against fraud. I don't mind being "that guy," to remind everybody that a couple of weeks ago, Joe Nocera was giving us Leigh Steinberg (lulz) as his expert on the state of collegiate player dissatisfaction. A couple of days before Steinberg's personal collapse became news, with Steinberg admitting that he had been "checking out" professionally and had been on the steps of an indigent substance abuse facility.
I expect that there are plenty of plausible structural reasons for these rules; such that if properly administered, the rules can prevent other undesirable outcomes such as wholesale transfers to create superteams, etc.
January 16th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^
Well, O'Brien appealed the the NCAA to overrule SJU and they instead upheld SJU's decision. The only rationale they gave was that SJU's opposition was the critical factor. Using your metaphor, that's like a guy being wrongly convicted of fraud by an incompetant judge and his only chance for appeal being denied because the incompetant judge still thinks he's guilty. I think the point of the article is that in this case, the institution acted in a vengeful manner, and on appeal NCAA sided with the institution over the athlete.
Comments