MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: foreverwarriors on September 15, 2011, 03:21:16 PM

Title: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: foreverwarriors on September 15, 2011, 03:21:16 PM
http://college-basketball-blog.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/32001979
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Nukem2 on September 15, 2011, 04:18:21 PM
3 in one class.  A wee bit embarrassing for SJU....
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Skatastrophy on September 15, 2011, 04:24:07 PM
That's brutal.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 15, 2011, 04:57:30 PM
Squirmworthy.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: texaswarrior74 on September 15, 2011, 06:00:59 PM
Just Lavin up to his old tricks
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: muhs03 on September 15, 2011, 06:19:18 PM
Isn't this the "new normal?"

You want to see "bad," take a look at Boise's football team. I don't understand why people think that they got robbed when they weren't chosen to participate in the championship game. Personally, I could not have been happier. Too many players that didn't qualify to play for BCS conference teams.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: MattyWarrior on September 15, 2011, 06:30:30 PM
How will they be suddenly eligible for the second semester,either you have the credits or you don't. Lavin reminds me of a used car salesman.How could the athletic department not know at this late date? 
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: GGGG on September 15, 2011, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: muhs03 on September 15, 2011, 06:19:18 PM
Isn't this the "new normal?"

You want to see "bad," take a look at Boise's football team. I don't understand why people think that they got robbed when they weren't chosen to participate in the championship game. Personally, I could not have been happier. Too many players that didn't qualify to play for BCS conference teams.

What makes you think that BCS conference teams have higher academic standards for their athletes than Boise State?
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: bilsu on September 15, 2011, 08:03:21 PM
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 15, 2011, 07:22:24 PM
What makes you think that BCS conference teams have higher academic standards for their athletes than Boise State?
A lot BCS Conferences, if not all, do not accept partial qualifiers.

As far as St. John's the players have not been cleared by the clearing house. Until they are they are ineligible and have to pay their own way. Every year there are players that are in limbo when the semester starts. Most of them get cleared.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Jay Bee on September 15, 2011, 08:16:24 PM
Quote from: bilsu on September 15, 2011, 08:03:21 PM
A lot BCS Conferences, if not all, do not accept partial qualifiers.

There is no such thing as a partial qualifier in D1.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: MUMac on September 15, 2011, 08:31:52 PM
Quote from: bilsu on September 15, 2011, 08:03:21 PM
Every year tere are players tat are in limbo when the semester starts. Most of them get cleared.

This is far different than the players you are referring to.  These 3 went through the Clearing House already and were declared ineligible.  They did not give a reason why, though.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Jay Bee on September 15, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: MUMac on September 15, 2011, 08:31:52 PM
This is far different than the players you are referring to.  These 3 went through the Clearing House already and were declared ineligible.  They did not give a reason why, though.

Not far different - same situation.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: bilsu on September 16, 2011, 08:10:48 AM
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 15, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Not far different - same situation.
The Louisville center was declared ineligible last year. He became eligible after Louisville appealed the decision. Not sure of the timing, but I think it was late September. That is the player that picked Louisville over MU.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Jay Bee on September 16, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
Quote from: bilsu on September 16, 2011, 08:10:48 AM
The Louisville center was declared ineligible last year. He became eligible after Louisville appealed the decision. Not sure of the timing, but I think it was late September. That is the player that picked Louisville over MU.

I'm missing your point.  You're thinking of Gorgui Dieng - I think the timing was even later than that - late October. 
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Litehouse on September 16, 2011, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 15, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Not far different - same situation.

Maybe I'm missing your point.  Someone compared the SJU players to the situation with recent MU players (Lazar, Yous, and Cadougan) where we've had to wait for them to get through the clearinghouse.  When those MU players finally got through the process, they were declared eligible, it was just an issue with the delay.

These SJU players already went through the clearinghouse and were declared ineligible.  They can appeal (like Dieng at UofL), but this isn't the same as the previous MU players.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Jay Bee on September 16, 2011, 09:48:14 AM
Quote from: Litehouse on September 16, 2011, 09:38:10 AM
Maybe I'm missing your point.  Someone compared the SJU players to the situation with recent MU players (Lazar, Yous, and Cadougan) where we've had to wait for them to get through the clearinghouse.  When those MU players finally got through the process, they were declared eligible, it was just an issue with the delay.

These SJU players already went through the clearinghouse and were declared ineligible.  They can appeal (like Dieng at UofL), but this isn't the same as the previous MU players.

My point is that it's not uncommon for kids to be waiting to get declared academically eligible (or ineligible) by the clearinghouse.  I missed the part about the comparison to recent MU players.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: humanlung on September 16, 2011, 11:00:46 AM
Um...didn't we have the same situation back when Bob Dukiet (?) was coach?  I remember going 0 for 5 or something close.  I also remember that being the final straw, although I could be wrong.

Update:  My bad...it was MU Admissions that bounced our guys, not the NCAA.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: lab_warrior on September 16, 2011, 02:29:17 PM
Quote from: Litehouse on September 16, 2011, 09:38:10 AM
Maybe I'm missing your point.  Someone compared the SJU players to the situation with recent MU players (Lazar, Yous, and Cadougan) where we've had to wait for them to get through the clearinghouse.  When those MU players finally got through the process, they were declared eligible, it was just an issue with the delay.

These SJU players already went through the clearinghouse and were declared ineligible.  They can appeal (like Dieng at UofL), but this isn't the same as the previous MU players.

+1

Ineligible means INELIGIBLE.  Eligible means ELIGIBLE. 

/aced Phil 1001 Logic
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Dawson Rental on September 16, 2011, 07:59:53 PM
"The best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores."

                                                                   ---Al McGuire

"The best thing about freshmen is that they are just a year away from becoming eligible."

                                                                                             ---Steve Lavin

Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: MUMac on September 16, 2011, 10:32:13 PM
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 15, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Not far different - same situation.

Actually, you are incorrect.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: MUMac on September 16, 2011, 10:39:26 PM
Quote from: bilsu on September 16, 2011, 08:10:48 AM
The Louisville center was declared ineligible last year. He became eligible after Louisville appealed the decision. Not sure of the timing, but I think it was late September. That is the player that picked Louisville over MU.

Well, that's one.  Far cry from what you stated.

In Dieng's case, Louisville was appealing.  There is no mention that St. Johns is appealing.  One player sounds like he may go the Prep School route. 

Further on Dieng, his situation was from Senegal.  The transfer of the credits get's murky in the clearinghouse world.  That is why Louisville appealed and won.  I do not believe any of these players were international recruits.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: bilsu on September 17, 2011, 09:46:28 AM
Quote from: MUMac on September 16, 2011, 10:39:26 PM
Well, that's one.  Far cry from what you stated.

In Dieng's case, Louisville was appealing.  There is no mention that St. Johns is appealing.  One player sounds like he may go the Prep School route. 

Further on Dieng, his situation was from Senegal.  The transfer of the credits get's murky in the clearinghouse world.  That is why Louisville appealed and won.  I do not believe any of these players were international recruits.
I think the fact he talked about them possibly being eligible the second semester would indicate that they are appealing the decision. What I found curious about that statement is to me it indicates they will not go to St. John's the first semester. Seems like they rather miss a semester than pay their own way.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Jay Bee on September 17, 2011, 09:58:38 AM
Quote from: MUMac on September 16, 2011, 10:32:13 PM
Actually, you are incorrect.

Not at all - read again, d.s.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: 77ncaachamps on September 17, 2011, 10:16:18 AM
This hurts but don't they have a 9 newbie class entering (of course, it's now 6)?
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: Nukem2 on September 17, 2011, 10:19:03 AM
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on September 17, 2011, 10:16:18 AM
This hurts but don't they have a 9 newbie class entering (of course, it's now 6)?
True but they'll be down to 8 players.  Will need a bunch of walk-ons to have reasonable practices.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: MUMac on September 17, 2011, 05:33:12 PM
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2011, 09:58:38 AM
Not at all - read again, d.s.

I have read it and I understand it.  Apparently, though, you do not.  Your actions demonstrate as such.  I stand by my statement that you were incorrect.  For you to ever agree, though is unlikely.  A character trait, I guess.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: MUMac on September 17, 2011, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: bilsu on September 17, 2011, 09:46:28 AM
I think the fact he talked about them possibly being eligible the second semester would indicate that they are appealing the decision. What I found curious about that statement is to me it indicates they will not go to St. John's the first semester. Seems like they rather miss a semester than pay their own way.

That is an assumption with no basis in fact from the article.  If they were appealing, why would they need to wait for the 2nd Semester to have the outcome?  The comment you made about Dieng shows that Louisville appealed and the decision was rendered prior to the season starting.  

In this article, I read it that they have work to do before getting through the Clearinghouse.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: MattyWarrior on September 17, 2011, 07:15:17 PM
+1 That's the way I read it.
Title: Re: Three 2011 St. John's signees ruled ineligible
Post by: NCAARules on September 17, 2011, 10:44:35 PM
I'm thinking the language in the blog is pretty imprecise.

Reasonable doubt on both sides as to what is going on - perhaps intentional by St. John's to shift blame? As in, "The NCAA declared our students ineligible" is easier to sell to admin, boosters, fans, etc. than "We need to make sure these students actually did the work that will make them eligible".

If the second-semester/Clearinghouse information is correct, my guess is that the students had some summer work that was not on a pre-approved list with the NCAA, perhaps even with an unapproved school. It would take some time to get the school and/or the classes reviewed and approved.

Again, that is totally speculation, and a pretty wild guess on my part.

PS - Ineligible may not be the same thing as not-yet eligible. But hard to tell which is more accurate in this case.
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev