Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:49 am to LSUNV
From the NCAA themselves
quote:
As a part of its April meeting, Division I Legislative Council members decided that schools may continue to recruit with relaxed recruiting rules prospects who sign financial aid agreements for mid-year enrollment. But if that prospect does not enroll at the school, the school will be considered in violation of recruiting rules.
The school also must ensure the prospect is already enrolled in all the coursework necessary to graduate from high school at midyear before offering the financial aid agreement.
The decision came as part of a Southeastern Conference appeal of an interpretation of a rule that allowed schools to have unlimited recruiting contact with prospective student-athletes who have signed a written offer of financial aid with the school.
The change created an unintended scenario in which prospects (most often mid-year enrollees) signed multiple offers of financial aid and coaches were incentivized to recruit prospects to sign so they could recruit without restrictions. The act of signing the agreements then lifted recruiting restrictions for that prospect with more than one school and created what some termed an unhealthy recruiting environment surrounding mid-year enrollees.
The official interpretation said that only the first school to sign a prospect to a financial aid agreement was allowed the unlimited recruiting access, but many schools indicated a concern about inadvertent violations. Schools often aren’t aware when prospects sign financial aid agreements with multiple schools and in what order. The interpretation was rescinded as part of the council’s action.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:52 am to LSUNV
quote:I'm aware of that. The rule was amended, not rescinded. The part about the first school to get the player to sign the FAA basically being in the clear was rescinded though. It's really pretty clear. Doesn't make it a good rule, but it is clear.
It wasn't fully rescinded. There are parts left in.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:54 am to TMDawg
There is some protection for universities still left in. Just depends on how it is presented to the NCAA investigator
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:54 am to LSUNV
commits are meaningless to the NCAA. They hold no bearing. But if you want to push the angle that you were wronged by the kid who changed his mind, then it matters very much since he wasn't committed to LSU.
There is no basis for first school amendment since it doesn't exist and even if it did, he was not an early enrollee. FAA only applies to early enrollees so it would have been a violation even if he had eventually signed with LSU.
There is no basis for first school amendment since it doesn't exist and even if it did, he was not an early enrollee. FAA only applies to early enrollees so it would have been a violation even if he had eventually signed with LSU.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:56 am to TMDawg
quote:
It wasn't fully rescinded. There are parts left in. I'm aware of that. The rule was amended, not rescinded. The part about the first school to get the player to sign the FAA basically being in the clear was rescinded though. It's really pretty clear. Doesn't make it a good rule, but it is clear.
That part may be clearer but not crystal because it does provide an advanced notice clause
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:56 am to LSUNV
quote:Such as?
There is some protection for universities still left in. Just depends on how it is presented to the NCAA investigator
ETA: asking because I'm genuinely curious. I think this is going to potentially be an issue for a lot of schools going forward.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 1:01 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:11 am to LSUNV
You are deflecting again
12/14 (before the violation per you)
LINK
12/14 (before the violation per you)
LINK
quote:
Womack was initially scheduled to enroll early, allowing LSU unlimited visit time once he signed his paperwork, but he changed his mind to enroll in January, which forced LSU to log their visit time as maxed, minimizing their ability to visit with him in the most crucial of times.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:13 am to TMDawg
One month prior to early admission deadline which would have been Nov 15 for LSU and LSU was not kept apprised of his change of heart at the time the in home visit occurred. Later part of October I am being told is when this happened
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:15 am to LSUNV
quote:
His father said he didn't know if it would be in January or the summer.
actually reading this is damning to your argument. His father says he doesn't want to enroll early but LSU is pushing it. Summer is not early FYI and you can't sign an FAA for a summer enrollee.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:19 am to tmc94
It is not a deflection when the so called infraction had already happened LSU was not kept apprise of his change of heart until the in home visit happened. How can you not understand this.
He changed his mind in January but by him not giving LSU enough advanced warning he brought this whole thing to a head. If he had done what is required, Which would be letting LSU before Oct 15 what his plans are, then no infraction would have happened. There is still some protection here for LSU if presented right
He changed his mind in January but by him not giving LSU enough advanced warning he brought this whole thing to a head. If he had done what is required, Which would be letting LSU before Oct 15 what his plans are, then no infraction would have happened. There is still some protection here for LSU if presented right
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:22 am to LSUNV
quote:
Later part of October I am being told is when this happened
I'm not following your story. That's not dead period.
And it is the member school's responsibility prior to providing FAA docs to review transcripts and make sure a prospective student is on pace to graduate and be admitted to the university.
By giving him FAA docs, you already approved him for admission (or that too is a violation fyi). Methinks you are just randomly trying to find loopholes here.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:23 am to tmc94
Yet again you keep trying to obstruct the facts, do you not see when this was published, after NS day. His father could be making shite up to justify his sons actions. LSU will have all necessary paper work to back this up
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:23 am to LSUNV
Again, from that article:
quote:And that's the problem. Even if a school is convinced a kid is going there and puts in all the time, if he changes his mind at the last minute then retroactively they are in violation (assuming they took advantage of the ease in restrictions). Your argument just isn't making any sense and you aren't pointing out anything to back it up besides what you want to happen.
if a school signs a prospect to an agreement and takes advantage of the relaxed restrictions, it will be in violation, retroactively, of NCAA rules if the prospect does not enroll at the school.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:24 am to LSUNV
quote:
If he had done what is required, Which would be letting LSU before Oct 15 what his plans are
wait..what? He needed to give LSU a firm answer 3 months before enrolling or it's not LSU's fault? GTFO
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 1:25 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:24 am to tmc94
quote:Ding ding ding
Methinks you are just randomly trying to find loopholes here.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:35 am to tmc94
after looking at the Dead period Calendar, you are right it is a quiet period which only strengthens my argument. After the in home visit He was still on board with signing early I am hearing but after the Bama offer he had a change of heart about everything. If this is indeed the case the advanced notification clause is applicable
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:37 am to tmc94
One month and again here you go spouting off at the mouth without even glimpsing the rule in its entirety and just assume you are a backseat lawyer
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:38 am to tmc94
Early admission deadline is Nov 15 so it would have been one month genius 
Page 20 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News