• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Masoli and other Ducks' legal issues

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BB73;1757595; said:
The NCAA isn't saying that Masoli can't play at Ole Miss, they're saying that he has to wait a year since his transfer wasn't "academically motivated". Since he was at Oregon in June (until he was kicked off the team), I think it's clear that academics weren't the motivation for the transfer, football was. I linked their explanation below.

Now, did Greg Paulus have a similar motivation when he went to Syracuse a year ago? I thought that was shaky also, since Paulus had talked to Cutcliffe and was told that he wouldn't be able to play QB at Duke in 2009 (the only year he had left in his 5-year window). So then he toured Ann Arbor during spring practice and went to Syracuse, looking at the football aspects before deciding on a post-graduate program at Syracuse that Duke didn't offer. Paulus hadn't played football at Duke, so he wasn't leaving one footabll team for another, but I think he chose Syracuse primarily for football reasons, not academic ones.

So I understand that people will say the NCAA is being inconsistent. I just believe they made the right decision in Masoli's case, since the transfer wasn't "academically motivated".

Link
Click to expand...

Yeah this is a slippery slope. In Paulus' case, he was purely driven by his athletic dreams, not academic ones. So looking at the letter of the law, he probably shouldn't have qualified for the rule either. But the clear difference with Masoli is that he was running from trouble. Paulus was trying to pursue a dream. Big difference in my opinion and apparently in the NCAA's as well.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyes_rock;1757602; said:
Yeah this is a slippery slope. In Paulus' case, he was purely driven by his athletic dreams, not academic ones. So looking at the letter of the law, he probably shouldn't have qualified for the rule either. But the clear difference with Masoli is that he was running from trouble. Paulus was trying to pursue a dream. Big difference in my opinion and apparently in the NCAA's as well.
Click to expand...


that, and whenever Duke is involved the NCAA will bend over backwards to make it happen for them.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyes_rock;1757602; said:
Yeah this is a slippery slope. In Paulus' case, he was purely driven by his athletic dreams, not academic ones. So looking at the letter of the law, he probably shouldn't have qualified for the rule either. But the clear difference with Masoli is that he was running from trouble. Paulus was trying to pursue a dream. Big difference in my opinion and apparently in the NCAA's as well.
Click to expand...

What does Masoli's legal problems have to do with it? The NCAA is not in the business of ruling on non-eligibility related conduct issues. That stuff is left up to conferences and their member institutions.

I agree with the spirit of the ruling, but I think it is being unfairly applied. I don't think the loophole should exist in the first place, but if they're going to let guys like Greg Paulus transfer without penalty under that rule, then Masoli and anybody else who follows in a similar fashion should be allowed too until they change the rule.

Besides, who says that Greg Paulus wasn't running from something too?

danny_green_dunking_on_greg_paulus.png
 
Upvote 0
buckeyes_rock;1757602; said:
Yeah this is a slippery slope. In Paulus' case, he was purely driven by his athletic dreams, not academic ones. So looking at the letter of the law, he probably shouldn't have qualified for the rule either. But the clear difference with Masoli is that he was running from trouble. Paulus was trying to pursue a dream. Big difference in my opinion and apparently in the NCAA's as well.
Click to expand...

BB73;1757595; said:
The NCAA isn't saying that Masoli can't play at Ole Miss, they're saying that he has to wait a year since his transfer wasn't "academically motivated". Since he was at Oregon in June (until he was kicked off the team), I think it's clear that academics weren't the motivation for the transfer, football was. I linked their explanation below.

Now, did Greg Paulus have a similar motivation when he went to Syracuse a year ago? I thought that was shaky also, since Paulus had talked to Cutcliffe and was told that he wouldn't be able to play QB at Duke in 2009 (the only year he had left in his 5-year window). So then he toured Ann Arbor during spring practice and went to Syracuse, looking at the football aspects before deciding on a post-graduate program at Syracuse that Duke didn't offer. Paulus hadn't played football at Duke, so he wasn't leaving one football team for another, but I think he chose Syracuse primarily for football reasons, not academic ones.

So I understand that people will say the NCAA is being inconsistent. I just believe they made the right decision in Masoli's case, since the transfer wasn't "academically motivated".

Link
Click to expand...

But the NCAA made up standards it has never before articulated. Standards that don't exist in the bylaws. The only thing the bylaw says about disciplinary issues is that the student-athlete must be in good standing at the university level. It says nothing about the team level. And really, it's Oregon: suspensions aren't written in stone.

And the transfer exception has been flagrantly used for purely athletic purposes since its inception. Greg Paulus wasn't the first and neither was Jeremiah Masoli. The exception has been controversial for that very reason, but until the members get together and repeal it they need to abide by it.
 
Upvote 0
methomps;1757775; said:
But the NCAA made up standards it has never before articulated. Standards that don't exist in the bylaws. The only thing the bylaw says about disciplinary issues is that the student-athlete must be in good standing at the university level. It says nothing about the team level. And really, it's Oregon: suspensions aren't written in stone.

And the transfer exception has been flagrantly used for purely athletic purposes since its inception. Greg Paulus wasn't the first and neither was Jeremiah Masoli. The exception has been controversial for that very reason, but until the members get together and repeal it they need to abide by it.
Click to expand...

I agree that the guidelines are inconsistent. They actually got rid of the rule allowing graduates to basically transfer at will, and changed it so that it can occur by applying for a waiver, as Paulus did.

There are now rumblings of colleges creating unique graduate degrees in order to allow them to receive more transfers who have graduated. That may be enough for the NCAA to get rid of the waiver completely, and make graduates just sit out 1 year just like other transfers (unless there's a family situation or something that requires the athlete to return close to home under a hardship waiver).

I think there are some football writers who are upset about the ruling just because they didn't realize that Masoli needed the waiver to be approved, and that there was some doubt that it would be granted. They got blindsided by talking about the Ole Miss season under the assumption that Masoli would be the QB, and because that makes them look bad, some of them are upset about the ruling.

And I admit that the inverse is true for me. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
SloopyHangOn;1758267; said:
Didn't Paulus graduate from Duke and attend Syracuse post-grad and aren't the rules different when transferring for a different sport?
Click to expand...

He had 5 years to play 4 in football once he started playing Duke basketball. The fact that he didn't play football during his first 4 years at Duke didn't change that, so he only had 1 year of football eligibilty left, and it had to be taken in 2009 due to the 5-year window.

As I understand it, there's really no difference in the rules regarding post-graduate transfers due to his switching from basketball to football.

The 2 real differences are that Masoli was kicked off Oregon's team, and that Paulus only had 1 year left to play football within his 5-year window, whereas Masoli has 2 years left to play 1 football season.

Masoli can miss 2010 and still use his last year of eligibility in 2011. As I understand the 5-year rule, Paulus would not have been able to sit out 2009 and play football in 2010, unless he got a hardship waiver (commonly called a medical redshirt), and there was no basis for the hardship waiver.

So if they didn't grant the transfer waiver, they'd have shut Paulus out from football completely. They're not doing that with Masoli, he just has to wait a year before he can play his final football season.

Anybody complaining about the Masoli decision and comparing it to Paulus's situation without factoring in the 5-year window difference is missing an important factor.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
WolverineMike;1757608; said:
that, and whenever Duke is involved the NCAA will bend over backwards to make it happen for them.
Click to expand...
What a load of BS. Paulus could have played football at Duke; had the NCAA favored Duke, they would have refused to approve his 5th year at the Cuse, forcing Paulus to play for the dreadful Blue Devil gridiron squad.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1758305; said:
He had 5 years to play 4 in football once he started playing Duke basketball. The fact that he didn't play football during his first 4 years at Duke didn't change that, so he only had 1 year of football eligibilty left, and it had to be taken in 2009 due to the 5-year window.

As I understand it, there's really no difference in the rules regarding post-graduate transfers due to his switching from basketball to football.

The 2 real differences are that Masoli was kicked off Oregon's team, and that Paulus only had 1 year left to play football within his 5-year window, whereas Masoli has 2 years left to play 1 football season.

Masoli can miss 2010 and still use his last year of eligibility in 2011. As I understand the 5-year rule, Paulus would not have been able to sit out 2009 and play football in 2010, unless he got a hardship waiver (commonly called a medical redshirt), and there was no basis for the hardship waiver.

So if they didn't grant the transfer waiver, they'd have shut Paulus out from football completely. They're not doing that with Masoli, he just has to wait a year before he can play his final football season.

Anybody complaining about the Masoli decision and comparing it to Paulus's situation without factoring in the 5-year window difference is missing an important factor.
Click to expand...

But nothing in the bylaws says anything about having a redshirt year remaining is a factor. Why should it be? Because you can wait a year means you have to?
 
Upvote 0
methomps;1758493; said:
But nothing in the bylaws says anything about having a redshirt year remaining is a factor. Why should it be? Because you can wait a year means you have to?
Click to expand...

I don't like the rule, and while I agree with the decision on Masoli, I'm not going to defend the rule. I think it was questionable that they granted the waiver to Paulus (since his transfer didn't seem 'academically motivated' either, it was also more about football).

I'm just pointing out that there are 2 significant differences in their situations, not even counting the switching sports factor. The timing of Masoli's move made the non-academic motivation more obvious, and the availability of the extra year prevents their denial of Masoli's waiver from being as punitive as it would have been for Paulus, who wouldn't have been able to play after sitting out 2009.

Has the NCAA done something recently to get you mad at them? :tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
WolverineMike;1760238; said:
read on an SEC board that the decision has been overturned and Masoli will get to play for Ole Miss this year. No link was provided though, so I don't know if it's true or not.
Click to expand...

Good call Mike. Just saw it on the ESPNU ticker.
 
Upvote 0
You just never know what the NCAA will do. :lol:

USATODAY

Jeremiah Masoli wins appeal, is cleared to play for Ole Miss immediately

...

From the NCAA's announcement on the decision:

Every NCAA waiver process includes a staff decision first and an opportunity for the school to appeal that decision to an independent committee. This group is comprised of representatives of NCAA member schools and conferences. Throughout both stages of the waiver process, the case is reviewed and evaluated based on the specific facts of that particular case, as disclosed during the review process. In this case, the staff, subcommittee and school all acknowledged the complexity of the waiver request.

The NCAA staff received the waiver request from Ole Miss on Aug. 13 and received the final piece of information from the school on the evening of Aug. 30. After considering that final piece of information, the NCAA staff issued its decision the morning of Aug. 31. The appeal decision was given three days later.

Cont'd ...
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top