RE: hedgehog | 3:07 p.m. Aug. 8, 2010For once you might be right.
But I do not care! Appealing this decision is neither unethical nor immoral. In
fact, it makes good business sense to appeal and give the NCAA the opportunity
to rethink the decision. Even if for only a few minutes.Rise &
Let's get real here zoobs.Kaveinga is trying to transfer for one
reason only - he wasn't good enough to play a USC - PERIOD! - END OR STORY!The guy had five (5) tackles in his career and was slated as 3 or 4th
string. He's simply looking for an easier way to play football and
while I agree that he'd probably start at the tds - he needs to play by the
rules.Bronko know this.
You play when you get the OK. No OK, no play. In the meantime file an
appeal...Why 39 comments when that's just the way it is?I have to go. I have a thing...
Archie, no, that wasn't your point. Your point was to make a weak attempt at
calling out Bronco as a hypocrite by comparing to a situation that wasn't even
the same. Which brings us back to my point; you simply have no point.
@idablu... Guess I misunderstood Howard... and I guess you and I disagree on the
issue... We'll see who's right in a couple of weeks, won't we?
Uh, poyman, Howard S, is a ute, not a BYU fan. Why would you get that idea?
can't you read sarcasm. BYU fans don't want any part of him.And btw,
I agree with him that BYU does not have a case here.
If Kaveinga wanted out of USC for reasons that are related to the sanctions,
then by all means he should get the waiver. And he should be given the
opportunity to explain his reasons for the transfer, an opportunity that I doubt
he's been given.If his reasons had nothing to do with the rule
breaking going on at USC, then he should not get the waiver.Having a
brother who has dealt with the NCAA's nonsense, I can for sure tell you that
fair is not in their vocabulary. (For example, he once "failed" a surprise drug
test because he was eating dinner and not in his hotel room when they showed up
to administer it. No questions asked, just an out-right fail.)
Cougars1 | 1:59 p.m. Aug. 7, 2010 That's the point, no one knows
what Mendenhall's policies are...they keep changing.
@yewtologyIt won't matter what my business deal is (kool aid sales
or a $300k house flip) I aint going to lose.
@slcguy...Sorry, you're wrong (again)... I am willing to take your
house from you and rent it back to you.... If anyone from USC is
allowed to play the following year without the "one year out requirement" then
they will all be allowed to.... The fact is that USC was under intense
investigation for the entire year with a probability that they were going to
incur some form of severe penalties.... If the NCAA (in all of their wisdom)
declares that players can leave their program without penalty, then all
transfers for that season of eligibility will be afforded the same
priviledge.The proof will be in the pudding (the appeal
determination) but I am confident that I am right.... We'll see.
Utes 31 Tide 17, thank you for the clarification, and although I agree with most
of what you say, I fail to see why we are comparing apples to oranges in an
effort to call Bronco a hypocrite. Kona was a recruit and Uona is a transfer.
Bronco has released student athletes in the past as per their wishes so they
could transfer. You can't even use Ross Apo as an example as he visited BYU
before he committed to Texas, and then he decided to not go to Texas after
talking to his buddy Heaps. Bronco has and always will stand by his policies,
but people like you and Archie really need to quit pretending you actually know
what those policies are so that you can make failed attempts at discrediting
Wow poyman, you really got me there by calling me a truck driver. After reading
your comments, I would like to thank you for dropping out of law school. Your bet sounds fun but I think it might be more fun to bet that more
truck drivers will see that my "opinion" is based more on facts than your biased
opinion. You helped out the law profession by quitting, how about
helping out fellow BYU fans by getting off your high horse of calling people
truck drivers which only feeds the stereotype that BYU fans are a bunch of
"holier than thou" whiners?
@Ernest T. BassWow. You posted more than a one-liner and without the
sarcasm. Is that a first? ;-).I agree with you. I think BYU would have a
much better case if he hadn't participated in Spring practice. As it is, they
aren't going to win on appeal either. But I can't blame them for trying.
poyman | 10:59 a.m. Aug. 7, 2010@LMB Cougar fan (kind of)...I
am willing to wager one of your long hauls against one of my Business deals that
the courts reverse the decision.-------------Serving
kool-aid on your neighborhood corner is not a "Business deal".As
lame as NCAA is they have made the decision according to rules no some bias.
Just like when BYU made its diecison on Unga according to its rules.
The athlete my esteemed colleague Archie is referring to is Kona Schwenke.
Bronco warned his scholarship offer would be rescinded if Kona made a recruiting
visit Notre Dame, having already commited to BYU. Schwenke made the visit, and
the scholarship offer was pulled.This rank hypocrisy is not unique
to BYU, it happens in every school in college football: Schools/coaches can
reneg on scholarship offers whenever and for whatever reason they please(LSU did
so last week for oversigning). Yet athletes are expected to honor their
commitments or else.Bear in mind, this is a system in which coaches
like Bronco are paid millions and these athletes "might" get a scholarship out
of the deal. A system in which if NCAA violations are committed, the athletes
and athletic programs are held accountable, not the coaches.
Transferring to another conference? Ute fans should sit out a year before
Archie, please elaborate. Whose scholarship did Bronco rescind for the reasons
you stated? Just wondering. And for the record, yes, we love Bronco.
1) "the NCAA ruled that USC freshmen and sophomores could transfer to another
school without having to sit out the mandatory one year" It would be nice if you
got the main issue stated CORRECTLY. The NCAA said USC JUNIORS and SENIORS could
transfer as the initial ruling precludes them participating in any more Bowl
games.2) Uona transferred WAY before sanctions were announced. At
the time he transferred the guesses as to punishment ran the gamut from death
penalty to just probation. To say Uona ran from a USC program because he knew
that punishments were coming is laughable; and in fact is ENTIRELY untrue
because IF he knew the punishments would have been so severe he would have
waited until the announcement and then gone for free since he KNEW what was
going to happen.3) Poyman: you should have stayed in school. I would
bet my house you are wrong in your assumption. Uona left BEFORE the NCAA
annonced the sanctions. That's like me wanting to sell my stock at old (higher)
price levels today. Sorry time travel does NOT apply in this case.But, I was told Uona was going on a Mission anyway.
I think everybody here is jumping the gun. Both sides may have a point, or
everybody may be off the mark completely. I bleed blue myself, but the article
gives nowhere enough information to make even a rudimentary conclusion as to
what should happen.The kid may very well have jumped ship at 'SC
before the program sunk, therefore making him ineligible for the "deal".He may have known something was "coming down the pike", or perhaps the
team knew it was happening, but there was a gag order on them or something; who
knows? If that's the case, maybe he should be allowed to "rise and shout" on the
field with his teammates.The fact remains that there isn't enough
information here to draw even the flimsiest conclusion, and nearly coming to
blows over non-existent (or non-disclosed) information is absurd and
childish.I, for one, am on the KID'S side, regardless of where my
loyalties lay. If he moved too soon, he has to accept the consequences; if he
acted in good faith, he shouldn't be penalized. End of story.At any
rate, GO BLUE!
@Howard S...Got an idea for you.... why don't you take your red and
white wardrobe and go and comment on the yewts board....If you
really are a Coug supporter, you should really start acting like one instead of
another boring politically correct fair weather fan...Whether you
like it or not, eligibility is an issue that is often times determined and
settled through the courts (it's happened on numerous occasions in the past)....
And btw, I don't think that we will have to sue to be in the top 25, it will
happen.... it's happening in the Vegas poll right now, and after we knock off
Washington, AF, Florida State and Nevada we may well be looking to crack the top
10....If you truly are a BYU fan, it is folks like you that make
major conferences think our fan base is soft which has (imho) caused them in
part to pass on us... Don't think that anyone wanted to be in the PAC 10.... The
Big 12 would be nice though.
@ Howard S.... I'm all over that... But do you really think we have a chance?Ya know, it's jerks like you who claim to be a fan that help me realize
why major conferences don't want to invite us in.... Our fans are far more into
eing politically correct than for cheering on their team...In this
case however, you are wrong (despite your smugness) and the appeal (hopefully
through the courts) will prove that to you.
@LMB Cougar fan (kind of)...I guess being a truck driver with only
an "opinion" makes you better qualified to make the call....I am
willing to wager one of your long hauls against one of my Business deals that
the courts reverse the decision..... We will be able to find someone that the
two of us can agree on to hold the wager... time for you to put up or shut up...
Believe it or not Jacky Blue, BYU has to follow rules just like everyone else.
I thought BYU doesn't have any more scholarships this year. Why is
this topic even being discussed? Archie | 8:32 a.m. Aug. 7, 2010
Howard S. | 8:43 a.m. Aug. 7, 2010 Ernest T. Bass | 8:55 a.m. Aug.
7, 2010 Right on point.
I was happy that Asiata got a medical waiver to play his eighth year of college
football. It was fair to the kid. I think it would be fair to Kaveinga to
allow him to play since his transfer was predicated on impending USC sanctions.
Why do we have to be so petty when it comes to young men's lives?
Stop stess'n kewgs. The kid wasn't going to save your season.It's
is rather delicious though; You can't get into the PAC and you can't get PAC
kids into your program.
An Arizona fan suggesting that someone should follow the NCAA rules "like
everybody else"... oh, that's rich. How long are you guys on
It was his choice to transfer when he did. At the time he transfered he knew he
would have to sit out a year.After the fact USC was punished and at that
time players were given an opportunity to transfer without having to sit out.Those are the rules. Why should the NCAA change it? The honor code office
rarely changes their rules.Are you suggesting the NCAA play by different
rules? Does the HC office go by different rules?5 tackles in two years....
doesn't sound all that spectacular anyway.
Everyone was aware that sanctions were coming in one form or another before he
transferred. If the kid transferred because of impending NCAA penalties then he
should be granted the waiver
Re: poyman | 12:36 a.m.Great idea, let's sue.And
while were at it we should sue the PAC 10 for not inviting us to their
conference.Oh and let's also sue the USA Today coaches poll for not
ranking us in the pre-season poll.Yeah, let's sue.
I don't understand any of this. Less than a year ago Mendenhall determined that
once a kid committed to his team he is no longer eligible to look at other
teams. He even rescinded a scholarship given to a kid for doing just that.
Fast forward five months and now we have Mendenhall petitioning the NCAA on
behalf of a player who wants to leave the program he joined to play for the
Cougars. The essence of integrity is being of sound moral principle
and acting in accordance with those principles regardless of the circumstance.
Ya gotta love Coach Mendenhall...ya just gotta love him.The courts?
Are you kidding poyman...this is about honoring commitments and following the
rules. The very principle Mendenhall stands on when he is the beneficiary.
Please note, I am hoping the man can play - this year - but I don't think the
NCAA is as far off on this as we like to complain, and I don't think it would be
an open and shut case if it goes to court.It's all about choices.
Yes, everybody knew ahead of time about the coming sanctions, but nobody knew
what they would be. If USC had gotten a slap on the hand, then the waiver may
not have been granted at all.The young man in question was proactive
in his decision, but whether the waiver would have been granted or not, he still
stransferred ahead of time.Kinda like the bible parable about the
workers who all worked different lengths of the day, yet all got paid the same
wage. Except it serves to illustrate both sides of the coin.Hope it
wins on appeal, but this is not the travesty of justice that we might like to
think it is.
Put down the Kool-Aid boys and listen to reason.....for once. NCAA is not out
to get BYU, you just have to follow the rulls like everyone else does.
How did you even make it into Law School if you can't see why the kid should not
be granted the waiver?
poyman: Maybe if you didn't drop out of Law School it would make sense to you
that he not be granted the waiver and maybe you would also realize that the
answer to your "factual question" is lacking a few facts. There were no special
circumstances to his transfer other than he transfered from a top program to a
team we all cheer for. Wake up and realize the correct decision was made. The
kid left with full knowledge that he would have to sit out a year based on his
decision. Nobody messed up his career, he voluntarily gave up a year by
deciding to transfer to another Division I program.It's nice to see
there are at least a few people so far that understand if you transfer before
the sanctions were placed on USC, you are a long-shot at best to not have to sit
out a year.
Makes sense to me, let's mess up a young man's football career because he opted
for the transfer 3 months before a waiver wouldn't have been required....The factual question is: Are USC tranfers allowed to waive the "one year
out rule" due to the fact that USC has been placed on probation?.... If anyone
of them are allowed to play with the waiver, they all should be able to play
with the waiver.... This might be one that Uona or BYU needs to actually take to
the courts in order for this dicriminatory finding to be put aside... I dropped out of Law School at the U and I think that I could even
successfully advocate for BYU on this issue.... BYU has an entire law school
full of future lawyers who could win this as a homework assignment in between
their other studies.The courts will reverse this if it is escalated
to them... mark my words.... You heard it here first.
Maybe the issue with the NCAA is because Kaveinga transferred to BYU in January
and participated in spring drills. He didn't transfer because of the sanctions.
Is anybody surprised?
Why should Uona be granted a waiver?No sanctions had been
placed on USC at the time of his transfer,and he was well aware that the
transfer would require him to sit out a year.This is just a case of
BYU trying to circumvent the rules.
This is a joke. The NCAA is inept and uses no common sense.
Oh snap.The NCAA never gives mid-major programs a fair
This is not right. The NCAA is one of the worst organizations, especially NCAA
football. What does it hurt to grant the request? I really don't understand the
NCAA logic. Hopefully, they change their minds.
Why dont they give a reason why it was denied, I hope the kid is still able to
transfer. He shouldn't have to sit out a year, its not his fault for what
happened at usc.
Bummer! There's still hope though.