Update on Homeless Baylor Player - NCAA Twitter says he was NOT ruled ineligible
So...that's something.
The NCAA did not declare Silas Nacita ineligible and Baylor has not requested a waiver for him.
— NCAA (@NCAA) February 25, 2015
Update from comments: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/baylor-rb-silas-nacita-says-ncaa-ruled-him-ineligible--but-the-story-has-holes-193612512.html
Nacita may have deliberately ignored NCAA-compliant alternative options.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:04 PM ^
be getting hammered with angry calls, emails, tweets, and whatever else the kids are using these days.
Wonder what the real story is here? Either way, the NCAA can die in a fire.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:05 PM ^
Dave Brandon found a job, everybody!
February 25th, 2015 at 3:19 PM ^
We'll have confirmation if the NCAA tweets at 1am that the player was, in fact, ruled ineligible.
February 26th, 2015 at 12:22 AM ^
I was thinking the same thing.
1. Do something asinine.
2. Get surprised by back lash
3. Back-pedal and deny
February 25th, 2015 at 3:10 PM ^
SI has the statement - some of it anyway - from Baylor's AD - LINK
Max Olson, who covers the BIg XII for ESPN, had it on Twitter too:
Baylor AD Ian McCaw's statement regarding Silas Nacita ineligibility pic.twitter.com/N6Gd7Nb4Kk
— Max Olson (@max_olson) February 25, 2015
February 25th, 2015 at 3:12 PM ^
But it's so much easier to rage on the NCAA!
February 25th, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 3:22 PM ^
Does Baylor not have dorms for its players? Why was he ever homeless?
February 25th, 2015 at 3:26 PM ^
Supposedly he was a walk-on, thus no housing, grant-in-aid, etc.
That being said. I don't know how a head coach, position coach, his teammates, team managers, etc. couldn't figure out his situation almost instantaneously. There's no way, in a situation as tight as a college football team, that this kid was homeless for any period of time without someone knowing something.
This whole thing doesn't add up.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:29 PM ^
otherwise, here is a baby seal for you to club Baylor.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
Failed retail activtation or something of that nature.....
February 25th, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
What I'm wondering about is, first, if he really is/was homeless, there's got to be an NCAA waiver. Second, there has to be housing available through the university for homeless/low income students. Third, if, as in the original article, he took housing from an old friend, the pre-existing relationship makes it not an NCAA violation. Baylor has a huge compliance department. Maybe a bad assumption, but I would think Baylor would do their due diligence before declaring him ineligable. I'm starting to think there's more going on that Baylor/NCAA just isn't/won't talk about. We'll see I guess.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:16 PM ^
There's really no excuse for any student to be homeless. Most/all schools have emergency funds any student can access, basically a short-term loan, if something like a housing emergency is involved. We're talking a few thousand bucks. It has to be paid back, but it's enough to get you through, and the interest rates are normally 0%, IIRC. All three institutions I've attended had them, and I know students who have taken advantage of it.
If this kid didn't have somewhere to live, all he had to do was dial up the university, explain his situation, and as a student, he'd have access to help to at least put down a down payment and/or first month's rent to buy some time. And there shouldn't be an NCAA issue, because it's something available to any student in dire, emergent need.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 4:31 PM ^
You can absolutely go around making exceptions all the time. Just use your head and don't follow dumb rules blindly.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:21 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 6:14 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 6:17 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 5:50 PM ^
As someone who has worked in the medical field (specifically the OR) and is a current a medical student, I find it absolutely disgusting that you wouldn't send flower's to a Doctor if her husband dies. I am well aware of the many limitations that are placed upon reps with regards to what they can give to doctors, but at the end of the day, there is right and there is wrong. I know that if we worked together and my wife died, and you didn't at the very least send flowers, I'd never spend another dime using one of your or your company's products. You're absolutely sickening.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:15 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 7:11 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 8:09 PM ^
Also, there's an avenue that most other students take to pay for things like rent and food: it's called a FAFSA loan. If his financial condition is that dire, he can do what the rest of us have to do and simply apply for a student loan. I've never understood why it's good enough for the rest of us, but not for the athletes, especially the ones on scholarship (as tuition is the largest part of any loan).
February 25th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^
As others have pointed out, there are legitimate ways to receive necessary assistance, which do not break the rules. The Sunshine Act doesn't say you can't send flowers to a doctor whose husband died. It does say you/your employer must report it.
February 25th, 2015 at 5:17 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 5:56 PM ^
your example is over something as silly as a medical product. As a medical student and future doctor, I can absolutely guarantee you that I would never do business with you. I want my business to go towards a company and rep that do what's right (such as giving a homeless Baylor student a house live in or sending flowers in the event of a death) and not to the "law-abiding" companies. your company and your business practices at the end of the day (and this is just my opinion) absolutely disgust and sicken me.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:13 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 6:20 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 8:15 PM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 6:49 AM ^
What drives me nuts are the inflated costs, that make better quality unaffordable.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:37 PM ^
Nick Saban just got a genius new idea for oversigning.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:44 PM ^
More reporting: Link
So reportedly there were NCAA-legal options that he knew about, but chose to go with other housing, instead.
February 25th, 2015 at 6:37 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^
Ah, who cares at this point. Just fix the damn problem. And honestly, I'm not sure what the problem is right now. Seems more info is coming out and it's not as clear cut NCAA IS BAD as initially presented. Either way, I hope he gets to play, gets housing, and finishes his degree. And whatever the problem in this whole fiasco is/was gets fixed and prevented in the future.
February 25th, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^
Sincerely,
Baylor
February 25th, 2015 at 3:56 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^
Silas claims to have run more than 100 yards and scored a touchdown as a freshman football player at Cornell. Thing is, Cornell and the other Ivies do not permit freshmen to play football. Frosh can train but their exposure to football is limited and intercollegiate competition is barred. So ...
February 25th, 2015 at 4:09 PM ^
Well, 99 is not more than 100, so he slightly exaggerated!
February 25th, 2015 at 4:10 PM ^
Uh, they are permitted to play. Check your facts there.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:24 PM ^
February 25th, 2015 at 4:33 PM ^
http://www.goprincetontigers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209519375&DB_O…
Princeton does play freshman so it's not even just a Princeton rule.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:53 PM ^
You've corrected four years of erroneous perception. Outstanding. Unfortunately I'm now left with some family questions.
February 26th, 2015 at 7:24 AM ^
The Ivy presidents approved freshman eligibility in 1993, but not all members took advantage. Since the Ivies don't allow regular redshirting or grad students to be eligible, some schools would have had freshmen on the roster who weren't permitted to play or have a fifth year.
February 25th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
I think that Baylor realized they would or could be hammered by the NCAA. When this became obvious, they released the statement, insuring that they stayed in compliance with NCAA rules and guidelines. I completely understand, if that is the case. Baylor would not have taken this action except for the NCAA rules. The NCAA had nothing to do with declaring him ineligible. Baylor was proactive in staying in compliance with the NCAA.
Now, if the NCAA is proactive, and tells Baylor that Baylor would receive an exception and be allowed to give a scholarship in this particular case, then the plot would thicken. The NCAA could call Baylor's bluff, so to speak. That would put it back on Baylor. If that happened, Baylor would look pretty bad not to take the young man on. Although, I suppose he could look to go to a team somewhere, anywhere, that wanted his talents on their squad. (provided, again, they hadn't run afoul of NCAA rules and guidelines.)
What a tangled web we weave.
February 25th, 2015 at 8:02 PM ^
If he had an established prior relationship with this person I do not believe it to be a violation to stay with him or her. Show me where the rules say he couldn't live with a family friend he knew prior to graduating high school?
In the article he mentions academic scholarship money that he earned to attend Baylor (unless he meant academic aid to attend the JUCO prior to Baylor?) in my day, you cannot take academic aid and play on the football team. You either have an athletic scholarship or you pay your own way. Any academic or financial aid counts against the 85 scholarships.
My guess is this kid is ineligible for reasons that have nothing to do with being homeless. Either he didn't really know the booster who took him in, or he was illegally recruited or he took money he shouldn't have either cash or scholarship.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad