Crentski

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.

Joined: 12/17/2009

MGoPoints: 502

DenverRob

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.

Joined: 08/05/2010

MGoPoints: 2339

Clarence Beeks

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.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22728

joeyb

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.

Joined: 10/12/2008

MGoPoints: 16845

Clarence Beeks

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.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22728

Hail-Storm

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.

Joined: 06/07/2010

MGoPoints: 9749

Clarence Beeks

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.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22728

JRell

September 3rd, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^

What new evidence was there for them to overturn this? Why didn't they just approve him to play from the beginning if all it takes is a day for it to be appealed and overturned? The NCAA makes no sense with a lot of the things they do.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 3807

Tater

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?"

 

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

Topher

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?"

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 742

jrt336

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.

Joined: 01/16/2009

MGoPoints: 4498