Hart and Love eligibility denied, Stoops to appeal Love
- Thread starter screwduke
- Start date
Was anyone really expecting the NCAA to give the kid and UK a break.
There is no doubt the head of the NCAA has a hard on for UK.
There is no doubt the head of the NCAA has a hard on for UK.
Crazy. Love should get an attorney. Holding him to a standard that was derived after he transferred is wrong.
That sucks. Let me guess when will they rule on the appeal... Jan???
I wouldn't bet on it being that soon, when I sent an email about Jarmon's situation when they suspended an ideal student athlete for the year for an innocent mistake they sent a form email stating they were very busy but would answer my email ASAP.
I'm still waiting, but I did quit holding my breath.
Kid from Florida state punches a girl in the face more than once and is charged with assault gets off free and we can't get a transfer able to play.
Out of all the 50 states the NCAA couldn't be headquartered in a worse one for the University of Kentucky.
Honest question...wouldn't not being able to play give him more time to spend with his grandmother. It gives him weekends free to get home and see his family if that was a big reason he picked UK.
From the limited information provided, it would appear that Love's position is similar to players in the past who have received the waiver. One reason for the new rule was that the waiver was seen as abused.
From a fairness in application perspective, Love should recieve the same consideration as those players who applied for the harship waiver prior to the change in the rule. The retroactive impact of the new rule is patently unfair. One reason we have rules and laws is so people can know how to behave and what to expect. I realize the status of the rule should not impact Love's desire to be closer to home for his family, but to change the rule after he transferred and applied for what appears would have been accepted prior to the change seems unjust and a bit cruel.
From a fairness in application perspective, Love should recieve the same consideration as those players who applied for the harship waiver prior to the change in the rule. The retroactive impact of the new rule is patently unfair. One reason we have rules and laws is so people can know how to behave and what to expect. I realize the status of the rule should not impact Love's desire to be closer to home for his family, but to change the rule after he transferred and applied for what appears would have been accepted prior to the change seems unjust and a bit cruel.
The most CORRUPT organization in the USA is the NCAA......By far.....That is no joke at all.
This. Let's be real here, we all wish he could play for UK this season because of the talent and I'm not saying the NCAA is right, but let's not go off the deep end with conspiracy theories and other nutty stuff because the fans are mad at the NCAA. Seems like he was the perfect candidate so the thing I will agree on is the NCAA is so inconsistent with these things. I think he should be playing.
I do think the NCAA is in a tough spot because, as some have already said, a lot of kids were taking advantage of the waiver rule. I imagine all of the kids tell a very similar story to Love and the NCAA probably can't verify every case to see if they are sincere in there want/need to get back close to home.
Had lunch last week with a old friend who is a UNC grad. He thinks UNC girls basketball coach will end up taking the fall for all Tarheels sports transgressions! I said what and he just grinned.
Really thought Love would receive the wavier. Anti UK bias, maybe!
Love's grandmother passed away before he transferred. And she lived 6 hours away from Lexington.
I don't know why people thought the NCAA would grant a waiver for either one of these guys.
I don't know why people thought the NCAA would grant a waiver for either one of these guys.
Can you demonstrate past examples where such circumstances have been denied?
Because that is the issue.
Sure.
Michigan wants former five-star recruit RB Ty Isaac to play immediately. However, the NCAA has initially denied the request.
Michigan coach Brady Hoke said Wednesday that Isaac's hardship waiver request was declined by the NCAA. Had Isaac been granted a hardship waiver, he could have been eligible to play immediately.
"[Isaac], the waiver got denied initially, and then we appealed," Hoke said via The Wolverine. "Today is Wednesday. We probably appealed last week, midweek. You don't know how long it will take."
Isaac announced his intention to transfer to Michigan from USC in June. Isaac is from Joliet, Ill., and his mother underwent surgery for hearing loss. She's unable to fly because of the surgery. It's a 30-hour drive from Joliet to Los Angeles.
However, the rules of the hardship waiver for an ill family member, among other specifications, state that the school the player is transferring to must be within a 100-mile radius of the family member. Michigan's campus is not within that radius.
No, not what does a team want now, but what was done last year and the year before. I believe those precedents should dictate for Love, because he transferred before the rule change. If players in Love's position were denied in years past, then I am fine with the current decision. If not, then he should play.
Read the whole thing this time. While not necessarily analogous, it does help me see why Love might be denied. I am not sure that hearing loss and flight is the same (not sure that is medically correct), but it helps.
I would like more than one example, however, because we know te MCAA thought the rule was being abused. So, your example is not likely the norm.
I'm all for the kid getting eligible but how in the world does his football eligibility affect his ability to care for his dying grandmother?
I admit that Loves reason for asking for the waiver was somewhat weak but the NCAA has granted waivers in the past for weaker request. I also believe the poster that said his grand mother died before he transferred is incorrect. She has died but I think it was after he came to UK. I think he wanted to be closer to home so he would have a better chance to see his grandmother not so he could take care of her. It is only 300 or so miles to Youngstown from Lexington an easy weekend trip versus much more from Nebraska. I will not deny that his coach who was from Youngstown leaving probably figured in his transfer.
Heck I agree with the NCAA that the request for waivers to get to play immediately had gotten out of hand and I like the new rule but lets not be applying it retroactive to kids after the fact.
What is going to really piss me off is if they say he will not be eligible for the extra year to play 4 because he transferred before the fact. If they do that then it is definitely lawyer time. For those that do not understand what I am talking about the new hardship rule allows a 6th year to play 4 for hardship transfers that have already redshirted.
I know we need Love this season but if he gets the extra year it will not be all bad. This is if he is willing to stay for that 6th year.
Heck I agree with the NCAA that the request for waivers to get to play immediately had gotten out of hand and I like the new rule but lets not be applying it retroactive to kids after the fact.
What is going to really piss me off is if they say he will not be eligible for the extra year to play 4 because he transferred before the fact. If they do that then it is definitely lawyer time. For those that do not understand what I am talking about the new hardship rule allows a 6th year to play 4 for hardship transfers that have already redshirted.
I know we need Love this season but if he gets the extra year it will not be all bad. This is if he is willing to stay for that 6th year.
Last edited:
Yes they will be eligible to play next year but it will need to be settled if they get the 6 to play four if not they lose a year of eligibility for the sit out year because they have already redshirted.
No surprise at all. In fact any other result would have been a surprise. The appeals are likely to be unsuccessful too.
What is there to get a lawyer about, being a member and playing in the NCAA is voluntary, like joining the military. No one is forcing any school/team to be a member of the NCAA.
Since the NCAA cut back on granting hardship waivers (which I fully agree with), they also instituted a possible 6th year of eligibility for players who redshirted their freshman year. here is a quick blurb from an article:
The NCAA approved the change in April 2014 allowing transfers a possible sixth-year of eligibility. The extra year replaces the ability for a recruit to play immediately at his or her new school if granted a waiver. The sanctioning body sent out a statement earlier in the week addressing questions about the new rule, which goes into effect next school year.
Matt Milton, a former 4* WR from Belleville, IL requested such a hardship waiver when transferring from TN to UofL in 2012. It was denied. I have no idea of the nature of the family emergency that prompted the waiver request. He sat out 2012 and played sparingly in 2013 and 2014.
Every case stands on its' own but it seems to me that, contrary to what others have posted, most such waiver requests (family hardship or otherwise) of the 1 year residency rule are denied. I like the new rule which restores the lost year after graduation.
Since a waiver request itself is an "appeal" to an existing rule, I'm inclined to think an "appeal" to the initial judgement is basically DOA. JMO.
Peace
Last edited:
There are other options, lots of schools have wrestling teams that aren't in the NCAA, NAIA isn't part of the NCAA. NCAA is by far the best, makes the most money and the one everyone wants to be a part of, but it isn't the only option for college athletics and membership is voluntary. If you ever want a favorable ruling in the future its probably a good idea not to lawyer up with them, or keep one on retainer.
Similar threads
