OT - Masoli wins appeal - will play
wow, winning an appeal for these sorts of things is rare.
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
He used the rules in place to work in his favor, even if they weren't really made for this type of situation. Hopefully, he learned a few things from his past and has matured. I wonder if this ruling will cause the NCAA to look into changing the specifications of this rule.
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
the ncaa is so dumb. If a player transfers cause he is responsible for taking care of his siblings, he has to sit out a year.
If he is kicked off the tream, but graduated from school, he gets to play right away on a loop hole as long as he enrolls in a grad school program.
the one thing i would have like if cfb ever went to 4 superconferences is that they may just tell the ncaa to take a hike.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^
I hear you. I agree with you to some extent too. The problem is, a rule is a rule. The NCAA can't play moral police. We've learned that many times already.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
...seriously?
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
Usually I go back through day old threads, just in case someone posts something new.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
Usually I go back through day old threads, just in case someone posts something new.
Nor do I. I used the search function to see if there was already a thread on this topic. There was. It's currently on the first page (and was at the time that this thread was posted). So yeah, pretty much you didn't have to "go back through day old threads". You had to look at the first page.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^
And considering there was no thread titled "Masoli ruled eligible" or "Masoli wins appeal", he probably thought he was in the clear to post it.
Something else I also don't do: go into a thread that someone dug up from page 8, because it is likely someone responding to existing comments in the thread and not new information.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
I don't disagree with you normally, but again, considering what the moderators asked this week regarding starting OT threads, I didn't think posting the information in the existing thread was unreasonable because (1) it has literally nothing to do with Michigan football and (2) I didn't want to clutter up the sidebar with OT material. If that's unreasonable, then I apologize, but I just felt that given what we'd all been asked that it was reasonable. Sorry.
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
Let the moderators moderate.
Yessh.
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
How was I not letting the moderators moderate?
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
was that I had not heard this new news on the subject, and there was no reason for me to go back to day old threads just in case there is breaking news that changed what was originally stated. So, I would have never saw that Masoli won the appeal since there was no reason for me to go back to that thread, thus the new topic created by the OP seems acceptable.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
Are you trying to tell us this is a double post? I'm glad he posted this because I wasn't going to keep checking up on a post from 2 days ago... This is relevent.
And the MGoBoard is always the place I go to for breaking news when it comes to things sports/Michigan related.
MGoBoard >Si.com>Espn.com
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
I agree with you. This is the place where I go for breaking news as well. This really isn't something that deserved its own thread, though, considering what the moderators have asked regarding OT posts this week. Thus, I posted the update in the existing thread that had over 1,500 views rather than starting a new thread to clutter up the board. My point in posting the link to the other thread was (1) look at the board and (2) use the search function.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
NCAA rules that #JeremiahMasoli won't be able to play this season at Ole Miss. Rebels say they plan to appeal.
This is about said appeal. He won it and will now play. This isn't the same story.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
Read the last reply to the thread
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
He followed the rules (which should be changed), so it makes sense that he'd win the appeal.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
Do they usually consider new evidence on an appeal? Normally an appeal is for a misapplication of the standard, not to introduce new evidence.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
AFAIC, it does deserve its own thread, at least as much as myriad "how do I watch the game in BFE" threads or "M jersey in church." Nothing against those threads, but if they belong here, so does this one.
I think this thread is actually very relevant to Michigan because it is a case of the NCAA deciding not to abuse their power and not be pricks as a default position concerning all disagreements. Since Michigan is waiting for the NCAA to show that it is cabable of not abusing its power and not being pricks as a default position concerning all disagreements, I find this news to be heartening, despite my cynicism toward Masoli's summer epiphany.
I wonder if getting a favorable ruling from the NCAA on a loophole will henceforth be known as "Masoli Oil?"
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
I'm really surprised he won the appeal so quickly, normally the NCAA takes forever but this just took a couple of days.
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
does he have a schollie for this season? I wonder, if he was offered one wouldnt it be better for him to have to sit out a year? that way he could have his grad school paid for.
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^
1. The fact we're having a double-post war over NEW news on a topic shows that some people here have way too much invested in being vigilante post police.
2. I don't have a real problem with this ruling. The Auburn (or was it Clemson?) kid who was taking care of his family was different than Masoli in that he was not graduating. The NCAA should have made an exception, but in this case Masoli graduated, albeit decided to leave not so much to get more "education" but because he was ejected from the team, and so he falls within the rule. In effect, the rule closes a loophole where one's final year of eligibility is useless if you want to transfer before it.
That the rescidivist was immediately accepted by Houston Nutt onto the Ole Miss team says bad things about Houston Nutt and Ole Miss, but the NCAA has never pretended to regulate eligibility vis a vis one's criminal rap sheet - and it doesn't want to, first because it would get too legally and ethically complicated, secondly because it would kill the NCAA's cash cow.
3. I thought the NCAA was going to get rid of that "grad-school rule?"
September 3rd, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^
Small correction, I think the taking care of the family bit was talking about McGuffie
September 3rd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
He's cheating the system, but the NCAA shouldn't be able to sit back and judge his intentions, then say "sorry, you can't play." We all know he's there to play football, but the NCAA just can't go around their rules when they feel like it.