|
|
Post by willtalk on Aug 21, 2019 7:17:11 GMT -8
Sounds good on paper and I get what your saying but I don't think it works quite that way. Perhaps not generally, but a good argument could be made for it. It only makes sense. One has to look at the intent of granting an extra year as opposed to not. The point to setting a criteria on the number of games played implies that one intent is not to give a player more than their allotted season. If you are dealing with a number that is close then why is that number even chosen? If a player is not going to be ready the next season for the fully allotted number then not giving them another season means they lose out a significant number of games through no fault of their own. Granted the NCAA makes decisions in an arbitrary fashion, but they are more likely to be more equitable if they feel their decisions will be challenged in court. If both Kat and the girl from Utah missed the same number of game then their should really be no question as to that they should be treated equally. What the NCAA needs to understand is that eligibility is not only relevant to the advantage or disadvantage to the teams in question, but also impacts the student athletes earning potential if they chose to go professional. Professional basketball has become a vocation for women and denying players the opportunity to succeed in their last year in college impacts their careers. This is the tactic that should be employed by those challenging their fairness. The days of the NCAA impacting only rules that govern fairness in respect to college athletics should be over. They also need to be held accountable in certain cases for the impact it has professionally on players. The purpose of college is to prepare students for careers in their chosen fields and any agency that holds itself up as maintaining the best interests of the students need to consider that as well or they would be interfering with the purpose of the institutions. Now their needs to be a reasonable line between being fair to the students and also maintaining rules to govern fairness of competition amongst the schools. The problem is that college athletics have morphed from just an extended intramural competition between schools to an actual career goal. The NCAA has taken advantage of that financially but not adjusted their mission statement accordingly. |
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,828 
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Aug 21, 2019 7:17:23 GMT -8
I also think the NCAA values "making good academic progress" kinds of stories. I am sure with how well our WBB program does academically that we will have a favorable story there - I am hopeful Kat will be one of those "got an extra year and got a graduate education" stories that NCAA can use to promote the student athlete image (and counter rumors of all those athletes at certain schools that are 5th year undeclared majors). Note academics were mentioned in passing, along with indication of positive academic progress, in the Provo article as well: "Provo will be pursuing a second undergraduate degree in sociology after graduating in May with a degree in human development and family services."
I remain hopeful Kat will be granted another year.
Go Beavers!
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Aug 21, 2019 10:56:55 GMT -8
I want Kat to be granted an extra year as much as anyone, but Kat and Provo missing the same amount of games last year only means they have part of the same argument for extra eligibility. It doesn't mean they have the exact same argument for extra eligibility.
It would be pretty exciting if Kat is granted an extra year though. Having two shooters like Kat and Aleah for the next two years, to go along with the young players would be great for this program.
|
|
|
|
Post by willtalk on Aug 21, 2019 17:23:16 GMT -8
I want Kat to be granted an extra year as much as anyone, but Kat and Provo missing the same amount of games last year only means they have part of the same argument for extra eligibility. It doesn't mean they have the exact same argument for extra eligibility. It would be pretty exciting if Kat is granted an extra year though. Having two shooters like Kat and Aleah for the next two years, to go along with the young players would be great for this program. That is my point. ------ The fact that they both went over the allotted games qualifying them for eligibility for an extra year. That should mean that that argument alone should not disqualify her. 2nd Gen Beaver-------- I also mentioned that the impact that an extra year would have in respect to a players post college basketball career should have as much impact on granting an extra year as academic influence. The graduate degree is nothing but an added factor in respect to a students career plans. My point would be that a healthy last year is imperative to the success of a student athlete in respect to their basketball career. The point also being that rules on eligibility should not just be about maintaining equality in respect to intercollegiate competition, but also making sure that students have the opportunity to prepare for and succeed in their chosen careers. With the increased amount of WCBB players transitioning into pro careers---- Basketball should also be considered a career track for colleges and not just a scholarship means to a degree in other fields. Basketball as a career should be included into the mission statement of college curriculum as well as academics. Shepard, right after she transferred to ND stated that she did so to enhance her basketball career. What rational they used to allow her to become eligible was unknown, but never the less that was her underlying reason. Players have 5 years to complete 4 years of eligibility, so depriving them of one of those years of active play would certainly negatively impact an individuals basketball career. To prepare students for their chosen careers is a major part of the mission statement of colleges. Should the NCAA interfer with the earning potential of a student would put them counter to that objective. When they do that they are putting themselves into the cross hairs of a liability suit by the student. Universities are less apt to file a suit because the NCAA uses intimidation to keep them in line, but a student would not be influenced by the threat of future repercussions. The NCAA needs to be careful, because a loss in civil court could lead to antitrust repercussions. It would be easy to make a case against the NCAA. I suspect that many cases of eligibility are decided by them behind the scenes considering legal ramifications. If they think they might be taken to court or not. |
|
