NCAA Hypocrisy: Lucca and Bowl Gifts

[IsUaClone2]

Plus the teams in these bowls are the power teams in the country. You have to keep them happy, the NCAA could care less about ISU because we are not a power team right now in any major sport.

You're right. I forgot that the NCAA rules for "Major Sports" are different than for minor sports such as wrestling.

 

[moo-u]

Sorry, Jon, I can't agree. You're comparing apples and oranges. Those bowl gifts are available to every player who competes--and no one is gaining an advantage by playing in a "pro" league. The problem is in the NCAA's definition of what constitutes "pro" in this case. Only two players out of how many receiving benefits? As well as the fact that they could have told him that this was a problem when he asked the first time around. They really should stand up to their word.

This is the NCAA we're talking about here. As convoluted as their logic is, I fully expect them to wishy wash EVERY chance they get.

peace.

moo.

 

[PolkCityClone]

Sorry, Jon, I can't agree. You're comparing apples and oranges. Those bowl gifts are available to every player who competes--and no one is gaining an advantage by playing in a "pro" league. The problem is in the NCAA's definition of what constitutes "pro" in this case. Only two players out of how many receiving benefits? As well as the fact that they could have told him that this was a problem when he asked the first time around. They really should stand up to their word.

Hey Miles Brand - nice post.

 

[Aclone]

Hey Miles Brand - nice post.

Is there really any reason to be rude? Or, you just couldn't think of anything intelligent to say? Just going with the knee jerk reaction?

I honestly don't think that Bowl perks have any parallel to Lucca's situation. It's just an excuse to complain and moan. Now, if Cyclone players were ruled ineligible because Sooners players got paid, making it a pro league, then there'd be a parallel.

Just read the remainder of the thread. Apparantly because I'm "new" I'm not allowed to have my own opinion. Does that about sum it up?

 

[guitarchitect7]

Hey Miles Brand - nice post.

I think it was a fair opinion that had a solid agruement to back it up. Does it make it correct, no, but it doesn't make it wrong either. Just make sure you stay within site guidlines when deciding to write posts!

Its also a good statement that every school has agreed to the gifts, but have also agreed that paying student athletes is against the rules. I can see where the NCAA could define a team Pro because players are getting paid a certain amount, but it's still unfair to those players who had no idea of it and/or tried to make the best decisions to maintain full eligability.

I think in the end, it's all still hypercritical. You can't fudge the rules one way or another just because, and expect everyone to be kosher with it all.

 

[moforisu]

Sorry, Jon, I can't agree. You're comparing apples and oranges. Those bowl gifts are available to every player who competes--and no one is gaining an advantage by playing in a "pro" league. The problem is in the NCAA's definition of what constitutes "pro" in this case. Only two players out of how many receiving benefits? As well as the fact that they could have told him that this was a problem when he asked the first time around. They really should stand up to their word.

Can someone fill me in on the NCAA telling Luca it was Ok at some point through all of his applying with the NCAA?

 

[clone61]

I think I just heard the recess bell ring.. time for everyone to go outside and exspell some of their excess agression