Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:32 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Sankey being so dismissive and disinterested about this issue right now?
Without Sankey there is no college football season. If he had caved after the B1G and Pac12 knee jerk, it would have been over and out. He was by far the only cool, collected, head out there. Look who's following SEC protocol?
It's a can of worms that's ridiculously hard to regulate. I don't blame him.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:32 pm to lsufball19
quote:
What is the "punishment"?
Forfeit the games played at a minimum I would imagine. Ban from post season play could be on the table.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:32 pm to lewis and herschel
At least you've gotten an answer from the NCAA
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:49 pm to bamameister
quote:
Without Sankey there is no college football season. If he had caved after the B1G and Pac12 knee jerk, it would have been over and out. He was by far the only cool, collected, head out there. Look who's following SEC protocol?
It's a can of worms that's ridiculously hard to regulate. I don't blame him.
The SEC presidents voted to play, not Sankey. I guess Sankey didn't go rogue and try to cancel our season without holding a vote like the Big10 commissioner did, but that wasn't his decision to make.
quote:
It's a can of worms that's ridiculously hard to regulate. I don't blame him.
This whole season is a can of worms. It's his job to regulate matters such as this, regardless of how much of a pain in the arse it may be for him. Not making a ruling one way or the other is a problem no matter how you slice it.
This post was edited on 9/23/20 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:52 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
There's no rule holding Gatewood up. Auburn isn't attempting to hold anything up on that transfer.
Auburn’s actions are irrelevant. The rule holding these kids up is literally the transfer rule.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:53 pm to Prof
quote:
The conference is gonna look stupid as hell if they don't pass a rule allowing everyone eligibility this season
Nah
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:56 pm to lsufball19
quote:I'd think a fine + bowl ban + suspension of player + forfeiture of games he played + possible probation imposed by the conference? Member schools can't just ignore conference rules for the hell of it.
What could the SEC do if a team decided to suit up and a play a player who has been cleared by the NCAA but not the SEC? The player wouldn't be ineligible as far as the NCAA concerned, so what would be the recourse here? I'm sure there is something in the bylaws about this, but what it is? A fine? If I'm Kentucky or Tennessee with players who have been cleared by the NCAA, I may think about telling Sankey to shove it. And it really makes no sense why he's being so cavalier about this issue in this unusual season.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 4:59 pm to lsufball19
quote:
The SEC presidents voted to play, not Sankey. I guess Sankey didn't go rogue and try to cancel our season without holding a vote like the Big10 commissioner did, but that wasn't his decision to make.
quote:
You denigrate the B1G Commish for piss poor leadership and out the other side of your face dismiss Sankey's role in keeping the ship afloat. I bet you like your cake and eat it too? A little honor for a job better done doesn't break the bank.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 5:02 pm to lsufball19
quote:Credit to Sankey for NOT going rogue and pussing out like B10 & Pac12 did by making a knee jerk reaction. Credit to the SEC entirely for voting to play ball and not following the panic attack conferences.
The SEC presidents voted to play, not Sankey. I guess Sankey didn't go rogue and try to cancel our season without holding a vote like the Big10 commissioner did, but that wasn't his decision to make.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 5:07 pm to RT1941
It's a free year that doesn't count against eligibility no matter how you slice it. Let the kids play. Makes no sense not to.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 5:09 pm to Quicksilver
quote:
It's a free year that doesn't count against eligibility no matter how you slice it. Let the kids play. Makes no sense not to.
Or just play them anyways since the SEC has no power to hand down any penalties for it, especially if the NCAA has already ruled in favor of the player
Posted on 9/23/20 at 5:15 pm to OleManDixon
quote:Yes. Subsection 3C dictates transfer waiver discussions fall after after updates to Bama field goal deflection shield system software and SEC field officials payments are finalized the week of August 29th.
There’s a rule about how long you have to wait for an answer?
Posted on 9/23/20 at 5:34 pm to bamameister
quote:
You denigrate the B1G Commish for piss poor leadership and out the other side of your face dismiss Sankey's role in keeping the ship afloat.
So Sankey should be applauded for simply not going rogue? Ok
Dude, Sankey is a boob and has been since the day he took over. Why are you so adamant about white knighting for the guy?
And again it’s his job to make rulings on waivers like this. Doing nothing is not the correct approach, period. If he wants to deny them, fine, but he hasn’t even done that and the season starts in 3 days.
This post was edited on 9/23/20 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 9/23/20 at 5:36 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Dude, Sankey is a boob and has been since the day he took over. Why are you so adamant about white knighting for the guy?
quote:
bama
Posted on 9/23/20 at 6:07 pm to sand mountainDvalues
Sankey doesn't have to make a decision on these transfers there is a rule in place that plainly says if you transfer in conference you have to sit a year.
The coaches who took these transfers should have told them from the start that you are going to have to sit a year.
And if the coaches wanted the rule changed they should have went to the AD of their school and said hey we need to get this rule changed.
The coaches who took these transfers should have told them from the start that you are going to have to sit a year.
And if the coaches wanted the rule changed they should have went to the AD of their school and said hey we need to get this rule changed.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 6:23 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I know what the rule is. What's I'm asking is what happens if a school or schools decide not to follow it. What is the "punishment"?
If I had to guess, the games the player appeared in would be forfeited, same as if they played an ineligible player. I assume the SEC considers those players ineligible.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 6:45 pm to BluegrassBelle
Are we really complaining about the eligibility of a backup QB?
Not even a Bama backup, we are talking about a Kentucky backup here.
This has to rank pretty high on the Who-Gives-Two-Fricks list during opening week.
Not even a Bama backup, we are talking about a Kentucky backup here.
This has to rank pretty high on the Who-Gives-Two-Fricks list during opening week.
Posted on 9/23/20 at 6:55 pm to BluegrassBelle
I am not interested in a "Free Agency" period in the SEC and college football either before or after HS Signing Day(s). That would be a disaster in my opinion for a coach to manage a program.
This post was edited on 9/23/20 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 9/23/20 at 6:56 pm to Jboney2688
quote:
Sankey doesn't have to make a decision on these transfers there is a rule in place that plainly says if you transfer in conference you have to sit a year.
SEC bylaw 14.5.5.1 states that if a player has met the terms of a transfer waiver under NCAA bylaws that they may seek a waiver of the provisions of the SEC bylaw regarding inter-conference transfers. So, there is a rule in place, but part of that rule provides an avenue for seeking a waiver. So yes, Sankey is required to review these waivers and make a ruling for each waiver petition submitted. He has that duty as commissioner to render a decision
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News