Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mens Basketball' started by copenhagen, Dec 14, 2007.
that means he could get a redshirt this yr doesnt it?
No. It has to be at the biginning of the season.
The way I read the original punishment was that he would have to sit out this year and lose the year of eligibility - so no red shirt for this season
You might be right here...
Say the final appeal says he is immediately eligible, and should have been eligible at the beginning of the season. Then, he has been sitting for no reason. The NCAA says a player can redshirt if he hasn't played at all in a season. We could slap a redshirt on him and still get 4 years of eligibility.
This is 99% a pipe dream, but interesting to think about. The appeal committee will more than likely agree with the original penalty.
You know what might be kind of nice is...
if they took the punish down by saying he is out for this year, but gets his year back. That would be ok in my book.
Edit: I was too late with this comment.
im talking about any player that is reinstated say jan 12
if his 1st game is jan 14 and he doesnt play in that or any of the rest of the games he should be able to redshirt. His 1st game is the 14th that is his beginning of the season.
What the NCAA is doing is handing down a suspension of playing in games. Traditionally that's how it's done. 10 games, 15 games. They're just taking the easy way out here (so far) and saying he's ineligible for the year.
So if he was to redshirt - I'm certain the suspension would carry over to next season or they would treat the games played/suspended against his redshirt eligibility.
He can't and won't redshirt. If they let him play, he'll play. If they don't let him play his freshman year is GONE forever.
Exactly. And if his appeal went through, and he got to play even one game at the end of the year, he couldn't redshirt--which is what the original post asked. That only counts at the beginning of the year.
I don't think that's true...
The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.
Each student is allowed no more than four seasons of competition per sport. If you were not a qualifier, you may have fewer seasons of competition available to you. You should know that NCAA rules indicate that any competition, regardless of time, during a season counts as one of your seasons of competition in that sport. It does not matter how long you were involved in a particular competition (for example, one play in a football game, one point in a volleyball match); you will be charged with one season of competition.
Here is the point. Lucca isn't currently redshirting, he is forfeiting a number of games which happens to equate to the entire season because of what the NCAA has ruled as pro competition. He will never get those games back. They are effectively saying that he has already competed in them.
IF his appeal goes through, the suspension reduced and he were to play even ONE game, he wouldn't be eligible for a redshirt--because the games forfeited would count as already played. Also, in medical redshirt or other hardship rulings, when a player plays a portion of a season, are considered only if the player competes in the first 30% of the season. If Lucca got to play in one game, it would simply be the thirtieth (or however many) of his freshman season.
The only hope would be if he would sue the NCAA next summer, have the suspension overturned, and regain those lost games and eligibility. I don't think that is going to happen, one way or another.
Why, if the committee decides that he was wrongly suspended, (highly unlikely) would the games we've already played count as games Lucca played?
I think that this scenario is impossible anyway, because even if this appeals committee thinks he should be reinstated, they will just name a number of games the penalty is reduced to, which will probably correspond with "time served" and then what you explain will pertain.
I was dreaming of a scenario where the committee actually goes to bat and tries to completely right a wrong...not gonna happen, this is the NCAA we're dealing with.
Here's my only comment on the Lucca issue.....if he's ruled eligible, he'll be on the court...from a very good source who lives for the basketball season, the staff thinks they stole this kid he is that good.....everything about his game is refined, maybe the most gifted/complete package player we have...
I've also heard that had the Taylor issue not blown up, the intent was to have Taylor at the point, lucca at the two, wes at the three and brackins/jiri at the 4/5 spots....can you imagine the difference in this team with taylor having a complement to him....meaning less then 15 turnovers a game...
And then blam, two of their projected starters are out.....didnt see that coming....so be patient, our team will once again rise out of the celler of hilton and we will be the beast our bball teams used to be.....
Now that Vette and Brister are gone, where do those schollies go....is there any stud juco centers waiting on an offer....
Lucca is a sophomore (in the eyes of the NCAA) next season regardless if he plays 15 games...1 game or no games this season.
I thought if you went to a prepschool after highschool,thus 5 years of precollege ball, that you could not redshirt (example Stinson) 4 years to play 4. I remember this being discussed when we thought we had Roy Bright. This may not apply to Lucca because I do not know how many years of highschool he had before coming to the U.S.A. for preschool. ....and then again my memory sucks!
I would assume, since they are ruling him ineligible for the year, NOT suspending him (two entirely different things), that if he were to be ruled eligible for the season (i.e. the NCAA was wrong), were he not to play at all the rest of the year, he could still be eligible for a red shirt.
The NCAA is saying that he is forfeiting a season of eligibility, not a season of games. It's a small, but important, difference.
Ain't going to happen under any circumstances. First the NCAA does not do, "Whoops, our bad, we'll give you the whole year back." Second, if they do let him play this year, who would want him to sit out the year, and who would ask him, "why don't you just wait till next year" after this whole fiasco. Lastly, he's probably a real smart kid who wants to graduate in four years and get on with his life--hopefully in the NBA.
Actually, that's precisely what the appeals committee could force the NCAA to say. Obviously you can't go back and play games that you should have been eligible for, but going forward, you would be eligible for a year of competition, even if that year is shorter than the full season of games. Playing in any games during that season would cost you a season of eligibility. So I would think it's technically possible he could redshirt. That being said, McDermott would be an idiot to allow him to at this point, before the Big 12 season kicks off.