NashvilleBilliken Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I thought I would post this http://espn.go.com/ncb/s/dailywdarchive.html I find the first paragraph to be a little disturbing. It gives me the impression that they are going to give Humphries the go ahead to play this coming year for the Gophers....what's up with that? I'm not an expert so somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that if one is granted a release from an NLI, they must sit out a year (like JJ). So why is there even a question that this kid could play next year?? There were NO coaching changes, NO family tradgedies, just a kid that wanted out of his NLI. This happens every year and I have not heard of a kid getting to play the following year. If he is allowed to suit up, it just goes to show how currupt the NCAA is. The kids a McDonlald's AA and a Duke recruit and now the rules go down the toilet cause Coach K gives it the ok?? It sounds fishy to me....thoughts?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Not so, remember Ryan Hollins played last year for the UCLA Bruins, and JJ sat only because Coach Soderberg decided to redshirt him. It depends on the kind of release the school the kid commited decides to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 We never should have given Hollins a release. Fisher had to sit out a year. Humphries should also have to sit out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 Oh, ok...thanks for the clarification. If this is the case, why is it that the article states the college bball world is keeping a close eye on the case? Seems like it wouldn't make much of a difference whether he plays or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 billiken recruit, ryan hollins also did not have to sit out a year last year when he reneged on his billiken loi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 the difference here is that humphrey's sole reasoning is he changed his mind. in the past the waiver has occured due to a coach leaving or a school going on probation, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 OK, now I get it. If they let Humphries go without penalty for no reason whatsoever, I think it would be a mistake. This would more or less make a NLI the same thing as a verbal commitment. It would set the precedent and recruiting could get rather ugly. IMO these kids should have to honor their NLI regardless of the situation (except for possibly a family tradgedy) or else they have to suffer the consequences. Its just a fact of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 JJ was redshirted and was not sanctioned by the NCAA - remember his scholly was withdrawn by KState. Fisher got his year back or else he would have been done after last year - Pepperdine would not give him his release but eventually did since Romar left. Hollins was granted his release by SLU once Romar left so was not sanctioned. Humphries just changed his mind - no event happened other than he just decided he did not want to go. If this is true, then I agree he should be sanctioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 the true fact is, that it is virtually impossible to fairly administer and police all aspects of the ncaa rulebook monster that has been created. i stand by the thought you let the programs do whatever they want scholarship wise and moneywise, but throw 100% of the police and enforcement efforts into academics. let a stupid a$$ booster pay kids if he wants, but that kid will qualify, will go to classes, will pass classes will always be on pace to graduate in a reasonable time period. if that kid doesnt, he is out. my guess is that it would shake out the bums and we would have serious student athletes that would not cause half the problems we now have. the problems we have now is because you have kids in college that couldnt care less about education. they want to play professional basketball and college is nothing more than an extended training camp for them for all practical purposes. force the nba to create their own proving grounds for these academic duds. make college for true students. it would actually be easy to phase into play and institute. the problem is that there is a perception that the quality of play would diminish and thus cost the ncaa interest in their holy grail, the ncaa tourney. imo, it would do nothing of the sort. in fact i believe it would end up making it even better. college sports is intriguing because of the supposed innocence (or at least more innocent than the pros) of the participants. it is about the name on the front of the jersey not the back. get rid of the spoiled pampered non-caring stars and you only enhance the team aspect even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 But Fisher got his year back (thankfully). I don't know if fisher had that year back prior to the hollins release. If he didn't get the year back from pepperdine, and then we made Hollins sit. How would that make us look to pepperdine? It was pretty much the same situation, but we would be asking them to do something that we wouldn't do ourselves. But I don't think we should of made Hollins sit out a year. Even though it says on that paper, you are signing for the school not the coach. Everyone knows that the coach could easily be 70% of their decision to attend a school. I would just cut the kid some slack, I mean I know I would hate it personally if GW decided tomorrow that they will become a school that specializes in the Fine Arts instead of Humanities/Politics. But what could I do? I had already signed the paper. Would it be fair to me if I went into something advertised as one thing, but actually another. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.