Sarr cleared by NCAA according to Dickie V

[weatherbird]

Two months is not nearly as broad a period as you suggest. Going back to June would clearly be three months.

And timing is a good proxy for difficulty. As I mentioned yesterday, I know definitively that the number of waiver decisions issued since July 1 alone is 31% higher than the same period last year (around 300 requests when you look at the year in total).

I also know that close to 170 of these approvals took two weeks or less for the NCAA to review. This is because the number of waivers approved because the athlete was run off from the prior school is dramatically higher than previous years. Nearly 70% of waivers were approved for this reason which is close to double the normal rate.

When it gets to the review stage of the process, those waivers are as easy as they come and have also been the dirty little secret in terms of getting a waiver you don’t deserve. The key was always getting the old school to go along with it, even when it wasn’t true.

In terms of actual time, 3 months goes all the way back to middle of June. But what does the term 2 months mean?? 60 days, 65 days, 55 days?? and that is my point, the end of June would be approximately 2 and a half months ago. But what if you are using just round numbers, oh that happened like 2 months ago. Do you really believe that the information came out exactly 2 months to the day from the time the approval happened. And when Dickie V said 2 months ago, who was he quoting, or where did his information come from?? If he got his information from a second hand source, maybe the source just found out about it 2 months ago, but perhaps the actual approval happened even before that. I would think if you were really a lawyer, you would understand these things. You are basing your entire argument on circumstantial evidence at best. You have no idea the exact date that the paperwork was submitted, no idea the exact date the approval came down, nor how much time was involved with any of the parties involved, yet your whole argument as to being right about the difficulty is based on very loose general terms used by a third party. you aren't convicting anyone with that mess.

Now, you may be right about how difficult the process was, as no one saying it was easy has any of that information either. But you could also be dead wrong about it. It could have been a slam dunk. The more interesting part of the equation would actually be to find out what the basis was for the waiver request, and if you knew that, then you would at least have a better guage as to how difficult it was, especially if you have done the things you are claiming. It's very possible that the one thing that you claim is basically a slam dunk, easy approval of getting run off from another school is the very angle they used. In which case, you would be wrong about how difficult it was, especially if Wake agreed with the reasoning.

 

[morgousky]

I’m gonna add, it’s possibly the most ridiculous argument ever. Who friggin cares bro? He’s probably cleared! You were wrong on a lot of Sht, end it. What in the world kind of time do you have to sit there day in and day out hammering this home?

You were making excuses as to why Sarr has not been cleared. Well he was cleared long ago. That’s the end. Stop. Move on. Fight another day on a topic more important.

 

[UKnCincy]

In terms of actual time, 3 months goes all the way back to middle of June. But what does the term 2 months mean?? 60 days, 65 days, 55 days?? and that is my point, the end of June would be approximately 2 and a half months ago. But what if you are using just round numbers, oh that happened like 2 months ago. Do you really believe that the information came out exactly 2 months to the day from the time the approval happened. And when Dickie V said 2 months ago, who was he quoting, or where did his information come from?? If he got his information from a second hand source, maybe the source just found out about it 2 months ago, but perhaps the actual approval happened even before that. I would think if you were really a lawyer, you would understand these things. You are basing your entire argument on circumstantial evidence at best. You have no idea the exact date that the paperwork was submitted, no idea the exact date the approval came down, nor how much time was involved with any of the parties involved, yet your whole argument as to being right about the difficulty is based on very loose general terms used by a third party. you aren't convicting anyone with that mess.

Now, you may be right about how difficult the process was, as no one saying it was easy has any of that information either. But you could also be dead wrong about it. It could have been a slam dunk. The more interesting part of the equation would actually be to find out what the basis was for the waiver request, and if you knew that, then you would at least have a better guage as to how difficult it was, especially if you have done the things you are claiming. It's very possible that the one thing that you claim is basically a slam dunk, easy approval of getting run off from another school is the very angle they used. In which case, you would be wrong about how difficult it was, especially if Wake agreed with the reasoning.

I’m actually not assuming any exact date. The reason for that is because that level of precision is not necessary to draw this conclusion.

Even if you assume a range of 1.5 weeks on the back end, the shorter end of that range still ends up much longer than the majority of waiver requests. The gap between Sarr’s review time and most of the others is large enough that it is plainly obvious without requiring calendar day precision. And the range of time it possibly took based what’s been confirmed is telling, hence my view on this.

As to what angle UK used in the request, I also know that a swiftly approved run-off waiver was never going to be an option for Sarr. Forbes killed that as a possible strategy the minute he went on record and publicly stated he wanted Sarr to come back to Wake. My suspicion is that Forbes knew exactly what he was doing when making those comments, and UK compliance deserves a tremendous amount of credit for being able to develop a compelling narrative.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say that UK was somehow still able to get the Wake AD to say Sarr was run off. There would also then need to be quite a bit of extra work to come up with a way to explain away Forbes’ comments to a very skeptical NCAA staffer, and both UK and Wake would need to be aligned and well versed in telling that same story. The net result being you still end up with an extended timeline and needing to do more legwork, plus you’ve created additional risk in terms of the outcome.

You’re better off committing to a totality of the circumstances strategy at that point. Which, coincidently, I strongly suspect UK pursued this strategy based on some cryptic comments the AMA staff made and what was on one of the slides displayed during one of the June regional rules seminars.

But back to his options, the reality of the situation is that Sarr simply didn’t have the luxury of using the shortcuts we normally use when we’re trying to game the system for transfer waivers. We’ve known that since the day he committed.

 

[kl40504]

I’m actually not assuming any exact date. The reason for that is because that level of precision is not necessary to draw this conclusion.

Even if you assume a range of 1.5 weeks on the back end, the shorter end of that range still ends up much longer than the majority of waiver requests. The gap between Sarr’s review time and most of the others is large enough that it is plainly obvious without requiring calendar day precision. And the range of time it possibly took based what’s been confirmed is telling, hence my view on this.

As to what angle UK used in the request, I also know that a swiftly approved run-off waiver was never going to be an option for Sarr. Forbes killed that as a possible strategy the minute he went on record and publicly stated he wanted Sarr to come back to Wake. My suspicion is that Forbes knew exactly what he was doing when making those comments, and UK compliance deserves a tremendous amount of credit for being able to develop a compelling narrative.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say that UK was somehow still able to get the Wake AD to say Sarr was run off. There would also then need to be quite a bit of extra work to come up with a way to explain away Forbes’ comments to a very skeptical NCAA staffer, and both UK and Wake would need to be aligned and well versed in telling that same story. The net result being you still end up with an extended timeline and needing to do more legwork, plus you’ve created additional risk in terms of the outcome.

You’re better off committing to a totality of the circumstances strategy at that point. Which, coincidently, I strongly suspect UK pursued this strategy based on some cryptic comments the AMA staff made and what was on one of the slides displayed during one of the June regional rules seminars.

But back to his options, the reality of the situation is that Sarr simply didn’t have the luxury of using the shortcuts we normally use when we’re trying to game the system for transfer waivers. We’ve known that since the day he committed.

But Forbes immediately came back after Sarr made it official that he was transferring to Kentucky and said he would support the transfer. That shot a hole in your theory.

 

[weatherbird]

I’m actually not assuming any exact date. The reason for that is because that level of precision is not necessary to draw this conclusion.

Even if you assume a range of 1.5 weeks on the back end, the shorter end of that range still ends up much longer than the majority of waiver requests. The gap between Sarr’s review time and most of the others is large enough that it is plainly obvious without requiring calendar day precision. And the range of time it possibly took based what’s been confirmed is telling, hence my view on this.

As to what angle UK used in the request, I also know that a swiftly approved run-off waiver was never going to be an option for Sarr. Forbes killed that as a possible strategy the minute he went on record and publicly stated he wanted Sarr to come back to Wake. My suspicion is that Forbes knew exactly what he was doing when making those comments, and UK compliance deserves a tremendous amount of credit for being able to develop a compelling narrative.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say that UK was somehow still able to get the Wake AD to say Sarr was run off. There would also then need to be quite a bit of extra work to come up with a way to explain away Forbes’ comments to a very skeptical NCAA staffer, and both UK and Wake would need to be aligned and well versed in telling that same story. The net result being you still end up with an extended timeline and needing to do more legwork, plus you’ve created additional risk in terms of the outcome.

You’re better off committing to a totality of the circumstances strategy at that point. Which, coincidently, I strongly suspect UK pursued this strategy based on some cryptic comments the AMA staff made and what was on one of the slides displayed during one of the June regional rules seminars.

But back to his options, the reality of the situation is that Sarr simply didn’t have the luxury of using the shortcuts we normally use when we’re trying to game the system for transfer waivers. We’ve known that since the day he committed.

No sense in rehashing this, this entire response is no different from the rest. You have no idea on any of it. You weren't there, and you havent seen the paperwork. What you responded with was riddled with the same errors of assuming a lot of stuff. Again you may be right about the difficulty, but you may be wrong and there isn't sufficient facts to determine one way or the other. You havent seen the date on the paperwork as to when it was submitted, nor the date it was approved, yet you reach the conclusion that it took longer than normal. Then even after reaching that very erroneous conclusion, you then jump again to a pure speculative view that the additional time is due to the difficulty. The only fact in this whole thing is that the NCAA approved him, that's it, total, all the facts we know. And you additionally have no idea what the argument was. It could have been as simple as a phone call and a wire transfer for all we know.

Most of the issues people are having with you is evident right here, you state your assumptions as fact. You may have knowledge of your situations, and that could be good insight, but you have no knowledge of this particular situation or UK.

 

[kyjeff1]

Actually, if Sarr was approved this year, then he’s most likely approved last year too. Guidelines haven’t changed. What his approval means is that UK compliance did a hell of a job pulling this together. Maybe this example will help explain.

We recently helped a school get a waiver that only required a little over one week for the NCAA to approve. It was a standard “run-off” waiver, which are the easiest ones to get processed as long as the original school agrees. However, the difficulty of these “easy” ones can be highly variable and sometimes they still end up requiring a lot of work on the front end.

For example, if the athlete we were requesting the waiver for had transferred at the end of his freshman year, I could’ve pulled together the documentation in an afternoon (8-10 pages) and then it’s ready to go. In that case, I may not even bother to charge any billable hours.

However, this athlete wasn’t transferring after their freshman year which meant we needed to pull together nearly 200 pages of documentation as part of the submission. In addition to that, we needed to do the following:

• Obtain and review the syllabus for every course on the original transcript
• Obtain and review the syllabus for every course on the new transcript after the credits were transferred, as well as every course required by the degree
• Conduct 3 meetings with the AD
• Conduct 1 meeting with the AD at the old school
• Conduct 4 meetings with the Compliance AD
• Conduct 2 meeting with the Compliance AD at the old school
• Conduct 3 working sessions with the registrar
• Conduct 6 interviews with professors (3 at old school; 3 at new school)
• Conduct 1 meeting with a department head
• Conduct 1 conference call with the registrar, Compliance ADs from both schools, the Department Head, one of the professors from the prior school and one of the professors from the new school

So even this “easy” waiver required a lot of prep work and there was a lot we needed to make sure we got right in order to guarantee that the waiver got approved.

But an outside fan will have no clue that all of that work is being done to support the waiver request. These things can be unbelievably time consuming to pull together.

The NCAA is too inconsistent to say for sure that Sarr would have gotten a waiver to play last season.

 

[kyjeff1]

Funny how you assume I'm 'pissed.' I'm actually just contemptuous. The rest of your word salad I didn't read.

But I'm sure he'll give you a reach around for the white knighting, it's very noble and sweet of you.

Well, you’re posting like you're upset about it and whether you want the believe it or not, you are making a huge deal out of this.

 

[kyjeff1]

No one is upset unless it is you. UKNCINCY continued to explain how hard it would be for Sarr to get a waiver. He let everyone know he was the expert because he was an attorney working with players to obtain waivers from the NCAA. And it turned out that Sarr received a waiver from the NCAA early in the process and all his postings were in vain. It was interesting because I was one that as soon as Sarr announced his decision to transfer to UK that said he would receive a waiver. I am no attorney but UKNCINCY said he was the expert and continued to make sure I knew it by replying to all my posts and letting me know he was the expert and that I didn't know what I was talking about. That is why people are letting him know that if you put yourself out there as an expert and are wrong you may be called out.

Eh, just put your helmet back on and continue to eat your checkers

 

[kyjeff1]

Actually, we have no idea whether that is fact or not. For one, we really don't have any idea when the papers were filed, whether there was any back and forth, or even how much work went in to filing. The truth is, we still really don't know what the angle was that he took to request the waiver. Every bit of it was speculation, including when he actually got cleared by the NCAA. It may have taken a couple of hours to pull the paperwork together, or it might have taken weeks. The review could have taken minutes, hours, or even weeks (due to requesting more information). We don't even know whether he got the waiver the first time, or if he had to appeal. All we know is that the NCAA has officially cleared him.



Again, this is speculation. We don't know what the basis was for the waiver, thus we have no idea whether the NCAA treated it any different than they would have most years. However, I agree with you about not really understanding why people are going after this dude. They are going after him as if they knew all along that it was a slam dunk case. And the truth is, the reasoning most people were stating as reason for the approval may not have even been the basis of the request. It's like even a broke clock is right twice a day.



Again, we have no idea how difficult the process was. And we really have no idea how long he has been approved, nor how long the process actually took. The guy could have been right about how difficult it would be, but we will likely never know how much work went into Sarr getting approval.



How do we really know how early in the process he got approved?? I mean, we actually have no idea when the paperwork was submitted, how long UK spent putting it together, nor how long it took the NCAA to grant the approval. It's possible that UK was tied up with other priorities, and thus the paperwork was delayed in getting submitted, the backlog caused the NCAA to delay answering, but once the case came up, went very quick, thus making the process very short. Or it could be that UK started on it immediately, took weeks to pull all the paperwork together, submitted it, the NCAA got to it relatively quickly, but needed more information, thus UK worked on it for another couple of weeks, and back and forth such that the process was difficult and longer than most. But we really only know that the paperwork was submitted at some point, and the NCAA approved the request at some point. Everything else is speculation.

That’s what I mean, why are so many people attacking a guy that just gave his 2 cents based on his experience?

It happens to anyone that comes on here and posts any type of information that they believe to be accurate. Dudes come out of the woodwork with torches and pitchforks over dumb crap. It’s usually when someone gets their hopes up about a recruit, that eventually makes a decision to go elsewhere or, like in this case, a guy that dares to post any information that doesn't favor UK… "oh, he's just being negative".

 

[UKnCincy]

No sense in rehashing this, this entire response is no different from the rest. You have no idea on any of it. You weren't there, and you havent seen the paperwork. What you responded with was riddled with the same errors of assuming a lot of stuff. Again you may be right about the difficulty, but you may be wrong and there isn't sufficient facts to determine one way or the other. You havent seen the date on the paperwork as to when it was submitted, nor the date it was approved, yet you reach the conclusion that it took longer than normal. Then even after reaching that very erroneous conclusion, you then jump again to a pure speculative view that the additional time is due to the difficulty. The only fact in this whole thing is that the NCAA approved him, that's it, total, all the facts we know. And you additionally have no idea what the argument was. It could have been as simple as a phone call and a wire transfer for all we know.

Most of the issues people are having with you is evident right here, you state your assumptions as fact. You may have knowledge of your situations, and that could be good insight, but you have no knowledge of this particular situation or UK.

You’re right in stating that I was not there.

However, despite my lack of being there, there are some data points that have been made public that allow us to establish some bookends.

On the front end, it is reasonable to assume the waiver was submitted in late May for two reasons:

• A couple of media members have reported it was submitted in May
• If UK didn’t get it submitted by late May, then the submission would have been held up until early July

We know that the request wasn’t held up because Vitale tweeted in mid-June that Calipari confirmed it had already been submitted. So it’s reasonable to assume end of May (5/31) for the start date. Anything later would’ve caused a significant delay.

On the back end, we know that as of July 14th, Calipari stated that they still hadn’t received a decision from the NCAA yet. That gives us two reasonable bookends based on data that has been revealed publicly.

The end date also happens to sync up well with what Vitale and Zagaria reported this week. Based on their reporting, two months ago would put you in the ballpark of July 22nd. Coincidentally, Kyle Tucker reported on July 23rd that he was told by UK that they were “comfortable” Sarr would play.

Regardless, between Calipari’s comments and what the media have reported they were told by the program, it is reasonable to assume that the review lasted from roughly May 31st until the latter part of the week of July 17th. That puts you at 7 weeks for Sarr versus 2 weeks or less for close to 170 other waivers.

We also know that it’s unlikely that high volume was causing Sarr’s longer timeline because of the high number of quick reviews, and also because there was effectively a blackout on new submissions for about three weeks in June (i.e., waiver requests for spring transfer were blocked). So the NCAA staff had plenty of capacity throughout June to focus on Sarr’s request.

While it is in the realm of possibility that these dates might be off, it’s also very reasonable to assume these are close to the correct dates. The reason for that is because, ultimately, all of these dates were released by UK, either directly by Calipari or through discussions with media members who then reported it.

Which means this isn’t pure speculation on my part. Rather, these are reasonable inferences based on specific data points about Sarr’s request that were provided by UK, as well as what I know from personal conversations I’ve had with the AMA staff (i.e., volume of requests wasn’t an issue).

 

[weatherbird]

You’re right in stating that I was not there.

However, despite my lack of being there, there are some data points that have been made public that allow us to establish some bookends.

On the front end, it is reasonable to assume the waiver was submitted in late May for two reasons:

• A couple of media members have reported it was submitted in May
• If UK didn’t get it submitted by late May, then the submission would have been held up until early July

We know that the request wasn’t held up because Vitale tweeted in mid-June that Calipari confirmed it had already been submitted. So it’s reasonable to assume end of May (5/31) for the start date. Anything later would’ve caused a significant delay.

On the back end, we know that as of July 14th, Calipari stated that they still hadn’t received a decision from the NCAA yet. That gives us two reasonable bookends based on data that has been revealed publicly.

The end date also happens to sync up well with what Vitale and Zagaria reported this week. Based on their reporting, two months ago would put you in the ballpark of July 22nd. Coincidentally, Kyle Tucker reported on July 23rd that he was told by UK that they were “comfortable” Sarr would play.

Regardless, between Calipari’s comments and what the media have reported they were told by the program, it is reasonable to assume that the review lasted from roughly May 31st until the latter part of the week of July 17th. That puts you at 7 weeks for Sarr versus 2 weeks or less for close to 170 other waivers.

We also know that it’s unlikely that high volume was causing Sarr’s longer timeline because of the high number of quick reviews, and also because there was effectively a blackout on new submissions for about three weeks in June (i.e., waiver requests for spring transfer were blocked). So the NCAA staff had plenty of capacity throughout June to focus on Sarr’s request.

While it is in the realm of possibility that these dates might be off, it’s also very reasonable to assume these are close to the correct dates. The reason for that is because, ultimately, all of these dates were released by UK, either directly by Calipari or through discussions with media members who then reported it.

Which means this isn’t pure speculation on my part. Rather, these are reasonable inferences based on specific data points about Sarr’s request that were provided by UK, as well as what I know from personal conversations I’ve had with the AMA staff (i.e., volume of requests wasn’t an issue).

I would think as a lawyer you wouldnt reveal any evidence which hurts your stance, but there you go doing exactly that. Your reason for believing that the request was made in late May was because a couple media members tweeted it was(of which I never saw, the first I saw of that was Vitale which indicated the paperwork had been submitted, but that was in June), and the fact that even you state that if it slipped to June, that in itself would push it to the first of July. Which UK could have physically sent the paperwork in May, but it not be recieved until June. In which case, according to you the freeze pushes that to the first of July, which means the middle of July would be just 2-3 weeks, which you even acknowledge is normal timing.

So again, you have no idea how long the process took, or even how difficult it was. It's very possible that the process took from late May, not even the end of May, until the end of July, was a lengthy battle, with a lot of back and forth. Or it could have been that the request was just past the end of May, and the freeze takes that to the first of July, of which it took no longer than any normal request. It would seem to me, from information that you are providing that it would be critical to know the exactly submission date as recieved by the NCAA, of which we do not know.

I'm not even arguing whether your initial assessment of the situation was right or wrong, as I have no idea either, but rather that your evidence that you were correct is riddle with circumstantial evidence, and even that evidence does not point directly to you being right that it was difficult. In fact, if anything, the new information that there was a freeze starting in June just gives more ammunition to anyone thinking the process was in fact not difficult at all. In order to reference timing as support for your stance, it seems that it would be critical to nail down a pretty specific timeline, not just generalities. But even then you would need to know the reason for delay. Was it that it was a difficult decision, or was it that UK mistakenly left out a very important document that caused a delay? I do know this, I wouldnt hire a lawyer to argue my case if that lawyer was going to throw out details that gave credence to the opposing side.

 

[kl40504]

Eh, just put your helmet back on and continue to eat your checkers

Go back to your mommy's basement where you belong.

 

[UKnCincy]

I would think as a lawyer you wouldnt reveal any evidence which hurts your stance, but there you go doing exactly that. Your reason for believing that the request was made in late May was because a couple media members tweeted it was(of which I never saw, the first I saw of that was Vitale which indicated the paperwork had been submitted, but that was in June), and the fact that even you state that if it slipped to June, that in itself would push it to the first of July. Which UK could have physically sent the paperwork in May, but it not be recieved until June. In which case, according to you the freeze pushes that to the first of July, which means the middle of July would be just 2-3 weeks, which you even acknowledge is normal timing.

So again, you have no idea how long the process took, or even how difficult it was. It's very possible that the process took from late May, not even the end of May, until the end of July, was a lengthy battle, with a lot of back and forth. Or it could have been that the request was just past the end of May, and the freeze takes that to the first of July, of which it took no longer than any normal request. It would seem to me, from information that you are providing that it would be critical to know the exactly submission date as recieved by the NCAA, of which we do not know.

I'm not even arguing whether your initial assessment of the situation was right or wrong, as I have no idea either, but rather that your evidence that you were correct is riddle with circumstantial evidence, and even that evidence does not point directly to you being right that it was difficult. In fact, if anything, the new information that there was a freeze starting in June just gives more ammunition to anyone thinking the process was in fact not difficult at all. In order to reference timing as support for your stance, it seems that it would be critical to nail down a pretty specific timeline, not just generalities. But even then you would need to know the reason for delay. Was it that it was a difficult decision, or was it that UK mistakenly left out a very important document that caused a delay? I do know this, I wouldnt hire a lawyer to argue my case if that lawyer was going to throw out details that gave credence to the opposing side.

The example scenario you described of sending something in that doesn’t arrive until June and then sits until July is an impossibility based on how the process works.

For starters, there’s nothing to physically send in as part of this process. Everything is handled in RSRO, which is the NCAA’s digital workflow platform. You create the waiver request in RSRO, upload the documents, and then submit the request digitally to the NCAA. Requests for additional follow-up are also handled via RSRO, as is notification of final decisions.

So there are only two possible options for how this played out on the front end:

• UK submitted it in May and beat the changes to the waiver process
• Or they didn’t have it ready in May and were therefore unable to submit anything until early July (there’s no middle ground here)

Which also means that the only way that Vitale could have tweeted in mid-June that the waiver was submitted, is if UK had already submitted it a couple of weeks prior to his tweet and prior to the NCAA’s implementation of the new requirement for submitting a waiver.

The mechanics of how the process work mean that there are only these two options here, and Vitale’s tweet proves which option occurred. If Vitale says the NCAA had it as of mid-June, then that means the NCAA had it for all of June and were working on reviewing it. This is a completely a binary situation.

It’s also clear from your assumption that it was possible for the NCAA to receive a packet in June which they then sit on until July, that you don’t understand what the “freeze” represents. When I say “freeze”, do you know what I’m referring to and, more importantly, the implications of this on the waiver process?

 

[dave5164]

I agree with a couple of the Fans that posted that we are looking at the Negatives and that is it. We are not for sure when the NCAA Approved Sarr's Waiver. Coach Cal or UK AD hasn't given a detail update on Sarr's NCAA Approval and now the SEC Waiver that is needed. I know we hear like Pearl is running his mouth to the SEC Office. The interview I saw with Pearl he was saying after being with a School for 3 years it might hurt you to transfer more that if you stayed a 4th year at your school. That is what I was hearing in the Pearl interview and talk he had and I am no fan of PEARL fan and I have never been a fan. I would think one Head Coach especially Pearl after what he did at UT would have that much Impact on the SEC office on this Critical process for an athlete. I know Sankey was saying that the SEC Office would get to the Waivers and get them completed. I would say they have been extremely busy dating back to March Madness 2020. I would just wish Coach Cal or AD would make a statement on Sarr and his Transfer Waiver. Sarr's Approval from the NCAA and now it is with the SEC Office and if there is any issues with a Head Coach on the Sarr Transfer to UK that is causing a holdup for Sarr. That would help everyone on here to quit going back and forth on all the negatives and the Positives for Sarr's SEC Waiver.

 

[kl40504]

The example scenario you described of sending something in that doesn’t arrive until June and then sits until July is an impossibility based on how the process works.

For starters, there’s nothing to physically send in as part of this process. Everything is handled in RSRO, which is the NCAA’s digital workflow platform. You create the waiver request in RSRO, upload the documents, and then submit the request digitally to the NCAA. Requests for additional follow-up are also handled via RSRO, as is notification of final decisions.

So there are only two possible options for how this played out on the front end:

• UK submitted it in May and beat the changes to the waiver process
• Or they didn’t have it ready in May and were therefore unable to submit anything until early July (there’s no middle ground here)

Which also means that the only way that Vitale could have tweeted in mid-June that the waiver was submitted, is if UK had already submitted it a couple of weeks prior to his tweet and prior to the NCAA’s implementation of the new requirement for submitting a waiver.

The mechanics of how the process work mean that there are only these two options here, and Vitale’s tweet proves which option occurred. If Vitale says the NCAA had it as of mid-June, then that means the NCAA had it for all of June and were working on reviewing it. This is a completely a binary situation.

It’s also clear from your assumption that it was possible for the NCAA to receive a packet in June which they then sit on until July, that you don’t understand what the “freeze” represents. When I say “freeze”, do you know what I’m referring to and, more importantly, the implications of this on the waiver process?

You know nothing about this waiver as has been proven by your previous posts.

 

[mdlUK.1]

UK/Barnhart needs to call the league office tomorrow and demand an answer. And tell them that UK will not hold back from going to the media about why the SEC would ban someone cleared by the NCAA.

 

[dave5164]

First of all Sarr's Waiver is way different than the Gatewood, Mays, and there is another player in same boat because they were transferring from one SEC school to another SEC School. We don't even know the whole Sarr Waiver and the reason for the transfer. I have heard fans on here saying with the people we have in the AD office, Sandy Bell and her team, Coach Cal and staff that they would know the SEC would be next to look at the Waiver with Sarr being a Senior and not a Grad Transfer. The fans were saying hopefully one of the above individuals would have Sarr looked at his Major and if UK offered a Major that Wake Forest doesn't offer that is one reason the SEC would approve the waiver.

It sounded to me when hearing SANKEY speak the other day he clearly was for the 1 year sit out if transferring from one SEC School to another SEC School. We know in Sarr's waiver it would be with Head Coach Manning getting fired, the way he was fired at WF, and how the Staff and WF talked with Sarr in staying another season at WF to help his draft in the next year in 2021 NBA Draft. Then 24 hrs. later after Sarr said he was staying at Wake Forest then Head Coach Manning was fired on Saturday and you had to put your name in for the NBA Draft on Sunday 24 hrs later. That was alot for Sarr to come to a decision after the Staff at Wake Forest talked him into staying for one more season and then Manning is fired and it is 24 hrs and Sarr has a decision to make.

Sarr has a new Head Coach coming to Wake forest that he has no idea on how he coaches centers. We all have heard that Head Coach Manning likes to coach his Centers and have his Centers play alot like Coach Cal likes to play his Centers at UK. That was alot of decision making for Sarr to make in 24 hours. I just think that the other Waivers that the SEC Office is looking at with the Transferring from one SEC school to another SEC school is way different from Sarr Waiver and reasoning for Sarr to Transfer from WF to UK. I would think Sarr would have better chance to get his Waiver Approved vs. the Mays and Gatewood Waivers.

 

[Whoppercat]

You know nothing about this waiver as has been proven by your previous posts.

You really need therapy.

 

[kl40504]

You really need therapy.

Would you be willing to pay for it?