What I don't understand is the wording....he was "reinstated", but nothing changed. How is that reinstated?
(upon hearing the news and me rampaging down the hall)
Flag Guy: You okay?
Me: Naw man. I'm pretty ****'n far from okay.
Flag Guy: What now?
Me: What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a couple hard, pipe-hittin' CF'ers who'll head over to Indianapolis with me and go to work on the homes there with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', Myles Brand? I ain't through with you by a DAMN SIGHT. I'ma get medieval on your ***.
![]()
(No, that conversation didn't really happen. Had to say it because of the title of the thread.)
Seriously, I'd be happy if CA would show up:
A.) All in orange jumpsuits
B.) All with signs
Or, better yet. Get a bunch of yellow duct tape, and have everybody put "FREE LUCCA" in tape on their shirt .
I would take my chances. We have a full compliment of schollies this year, and look what it has gotten us. :sad: IMO, thirteen scholarships is more than you need anyway. It creates situations where players (like Brister) are unhappy with their lack of playing time. Nearly all of the kids today want to start playing right away. We'd be better off with 10 scholarship players and a few solid walkons (like UNI's Josten).
Going back to my original idea. Everything has a cost and a benefit. In this case, I think the benefits would outweigh the costs. First, the national attention we would receive would force the NCAA to change this silly rule. To suspend Lucca and players like him who did not receive benefits for the same amount of time as players who did receive benefits is unfair and disproportional. Second, Lucca did nothing wrong and should not be punished. By playing him in defiance of this stupid NCAA ruling, ISU would be showing that it cares about its players... more than it cares about a corrupt organization. I believe the national attention would put a positive spotlight on ISU - not a negative one. That can only help with our future recruiting, etc. Any penalties received for doing the right thing can be overcome. It doesn't look like we're going anywhere this year anyway. We have little to lose.
I think it would be funny and make a statement if we did play him, but I would think it would ultimately hurt our program. I don't think it is the way to show that we care about our players. Playing Lucca would probably get the whole team some sort of suspension. Being under suspension for a few years would hurt recruiting. I think this is something that Pollard and the ISU fans need to make a big stink about. GMac and the rest of the team have plenty of other problems to figure out.
This sounds very doable. It could easily be done at the game itself and would require relatively little organization compared to many of the other alternatives.Or, better yet. Get a bunch of yellow duct tape, and have everybody put "FREE LUCCA" in tape on their shirt .
I have family in Indy... we'll have a place to stay :wink:lol, how about in front of NCAA headquarters?
I have family in Indy... we'll have a place to stay :wink:
Here's some stuff I got by googling "foreign NCAA basketball players." It appears there was a big attempt to enforce this rule in 2001 that generated some attention. There may be some leads in these that can be followed. I'm curious what happened to a lot of the players mentioned in these articles.
NCAA’s new target: foreign hoopsters - The Stanford Daily Online
Amateurism and hypocrisy - NCAA's enforcement of amateur standing of foreign college basketball players - Brief Article Sporting News, The - Find Articles
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Lasege only played for a year though, as the NCAA eventually did win the court case in National Collegiate Athletics Association v. Lasege, 53 S.W.3d 77 (Ky. 2001).Lasege’s story is long and complicated. Having grown up in Nigeria playing basketball, he wanted to come to the U.S. to work on his game. But because of strained relations between the two countries, he wound up going to Russia instead. There he was forced to sign a pro contract (onlytwo years for $9,000), so that he could obtain a VISA and get to Canada. Once in Canada, he signed with the University of Louisville.
The NCAA, though, caught wind of his pro contract, and he was subsequently ruled ineligible. At the time he signed the contract, Lasege said he was unaware of the rules governing NCAA eligibility. He then appealed his suspension, which a Kentucky court overturned, allowing him to play for the Cardinals. The NCAA has continued its appeals, saying that they could not make exceptions to their rule. But recently a court of appeals agreed with the ruling that is allowing Lasege to play right now.
From the first article linked...gotta love this!!
In an even more blatant example, USA Basketball paid each member of this summer’s FIBA World Championship For Young Men gold-medal team — a team of 12 collegiate stars including Jason Kapono and Carlos Boozer — $5,000 for their efforts, with the go-ahead given by the NCAA.
Oh! So maybe the NCAA just has an axe to grind with us because Lucca didn't ask nice ahead of time that he wasn't breaking any of their precious rules. Oh, wait... he did everything he freakin' thought he needed to do in order to avoid NCAA entanglements! :realmad:
Maybe Lucca, or us, should have just offered them some money in a shady dealing to avoid this mess. What if JP had offered Myles Brand a bribe?
Myles Brand: What's the cargo?
JP: Lucca Staiger. No questions asked.
Myles Brand: What is it, some kind of local trouble?
JP: Let's just say we'd like to avoid any NCAA entanglements.
Myles Brand: Well, that's the real trick, isn't it? And it's going to cost you something else? 10,000. All in advance.
Yeah, it might be interesting/fun to be defiant and watch us extend our collective middle finger towards the NCAA
The biggest question is what the penalty would be. If it was just forfeiting the game that wouldn't be that big of a deal. A multi-season post season ban or a loss of scholarships would probably hurt a bit. The fact that it would be rather unprecedented means no one really knows what would happen.I would totally support playing him and dealing with the consequences. I know this would not be wise and would probably hurt our program, but when something is wrong, it is wrong and someone has to stand up and be defiant.
I remember an inelligable Colorado football player who "accidentally" played for them one year. It was either '98 or '99. The team was forced to forfeit all their wins that season.