The CardBoard
How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? (/thread-5501.html)


Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - stupac2 - 08-19-2013

Normally useless, parasitic organizations at least understand their self-interest and act to defend it. The NCAA seems to actually be convinced of its righteousness and so they stumble into PR disasters that could be easily avoided so damn often. I really don't think the NCAA will still be relevant in a decade, between crap like this and O'Bannon they're going down.

Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - Roberton3 - 08-19-2013

Oh, come on.  There's no indication whatsoever that this has anything to do with "contempt" for the military.  There's plenty to criticize the NCAA for (both in this case and in general).  But this is clearly just the NCAA bureaucracy blindly applying a rule, without applying any intelligent judgment -- which is something the NCAA does frequently.  In this case, it happens to hurt someone in the military.  But I'm certain that the decision would have been exactly the same if the individual in question had not been in the military, but had accidentally run afoul of the same rule in a very similar way.

Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - rudruff - 08-19-2013

As a veteran, I have seen this in a lot of places. What usually creates the situation is a large organization with a mid-level manager entrusted to enforce a rule they don't really have any control over.

If that mid-level manager tried to change the rule, they would be viewed as a troublemaker internally and pay the price.

The senior executives have other things to do than look at rules like this, so they aren't aware of it. This goes along until someone sympathetic gets screwed and it becomes public.

The solution is usually articles like this that shame the senior executives into looking into the issue, change it, and we move on to the next injustice.

Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - terry - 08-19-2013

I don't think this shows contempt for the military. There doesn't seem to be any malice here. I think the NCAA has a legitimate reason for this rule. It's designed to deal with athletes who participate on effectively professional teams such as the old Soviet military teams. The rule just doesn't anticipate this situation and there's not an exception that covers it, even though an exception seems warranted. Actually, it appears that there used to be an exception in a prior version of the rule, but the exception was accidentally deleted at some point. Probably nobody noticed until now because it doesn't come up very often.

Reading between the lines, it seems that the NCAA would like to do the right thing, but it feels reluctant to disregard its own rules, which is understandable. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA eventually figures out a way to grant a waiver here.

Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - Canalejas - 08-19-2013

From the comments section of reddit: 

http://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1kltcy/ncaa_to_marine_of_course_you_cant_play_at_mtsu/cbqa8eh 

Quote:Former NCAA compliance officer here. Thought I'd explain where this ruling is coming from and why his waiver will be granted.

First, from the article: "...graduated from Antioch High School in 2007, worked at the Nissan plant in Smyrna for a year and then joined the Marine Corps in August 2008..." This one small part of a tiny paragraph to give background on the player is actually the crux of the NCAA's ruling. It has very little to do with his intramural activity and even less to do with his service to our country.

The rule in question is Bylaw in question is 14.2.3.2.1, which I will summarize for you because it is lengthy: A student must enroll at an institution within 1 year after graduating high school. The legislative intent of this rule is to prevent unfair competition by having guys out there that purposefully wait to enroll to gain muscle/age/ability. Think about the size that many student-athletes realize in their first year of football and imagine if they took a year on a regimented training program and still maintained eligibility.

Now, you say, "Hold on a second, smart guy! What about guys like Brandon Weeden, Russell Wilson, Chris Weinke or Ben Olson?" Well, the NCAA has exceptions that allow for kids to follow certain paths in life prior to competition in a specific sport. Most of us have heard of those first 3 names (they all played minor league baseball), but the 4th is the best example of this exception. Ben Olson, if you may remember, was a top QB recruit that decided to go on his mission after starting his career at BYU. Normally, this would halt the 5-year "ticking clock" rule for eligibility. Surprise! The NCAA exempts time spent on religious missions, foreign aid services, and military armed services. To prove I'm not lying...

"14.2.1.2 Service Exceptions to the Five-Year Rule: Time spent in the armed services, on official religious missions or with recognized foreign aid services of the U.S. government is excepted from the application of the five-year rule."

As a side note before we move forward, it's important to note that intramural sports are never counted towards eligibility. The NCAA sees those as purely recreational unless you doctor them somehow to replicate time in season or profit off the activities.

Pulling this altogether, if you made it this far, we get that the reason Mr. Rhodes is required to sit a year is because he waited over a year to join the Marines. Let's say he graduated in May of 2007. That means from May 2008 - August 2008 his clock started to tick. It's clearly unfortunate and the NCAA will surely remedy the situation with MTSU, but I figured I would at least attempt to explain what was going on better than the article did.

Bottom line: yes, the NCAA has flaws, but it also has purpose behind them. They aren't fair in many cases. The application of many rules are to prevent an unfair playing field. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with all the NCAA has put forth. I just apply the laws as they're written and intended. Mr. Rhodes will get his eligibility and his justice.
 



Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - terry - 08-19-2013

The NCAA has cleared the ex-Marine to play immediately.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9582824/ncaa-rules-marine-steven-rhodes-play-immediately-middle-tennessee-blue-raiders

Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - terry - 08-19-2013

I think the NCAA was acting in good faith here. I don't think the NCAA has contempt for the U.S. military or for this ex-Marine, and I don't think the NCAA wanted to declare this guy ineligible out of spite or meanness or arrogance.

I think the NCAA was trying to apply a rule that wasn't designed for this situation, that the problem was compounded by the fact that a relevant clause apparently was deleted from the rule by accident, that the letter of the rule would have been unfavorable to the ex-Marine, that the NCAA struggled to find a resolution that would be consistent with the rules but still reach a fair result, and that the NCAA, in a roundabout, bureaucratic way, eventually resolved it in accordance with common sense and public opinion.

That seems to be most likely to me, but others may disagree.

Re: How much contempt does the NCAA have for the U.S. military? - jayasena - 08-20-2013

(08-19-2013, 11:12 AM)Robber Baron 83 link Wrote:From the comments section of reddit: 

http://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1kltcy/ncaa_to_marine_of_course_you_cant_play_at_mtsu/cbqa8eh 

Quote:Former NCAA compliance officer here. Thought I'd explain where this ruling is coming from and why his waiver will be granted.

First, from the article: "...graduated from Antioch High School in 2007, worked at the Nissan plant in Smyrna for a year and then joined the Marine Corps in August 2008..." This one small part of a tiny paragraph to give background on the player is actually the crux of the NCAA's ruling. It has very little to do with his intramural activity and even less to do with his service to our country.

The rule in question is Bylaw in question is 14.2.3.2.1, which I will summarize for you because it is lengthy: A student must enroll at an institution within 1 year after graduating high school. The legislative intent of this rule is to prevent unfair competition by having guys out there that purposefully wait to enroll to gain muscle/age/ability. Think about the size that many student-athletes realize in their first year of football and imagine if they took a year on a regimented training program and still maintained eligibility.

Now, you say, "Hold on a second, smart guy! What about guys like Brandon Weeden, Russell Wilson, Chris Weinke or Ben Olson?" Well, the NCAA has exceptions that allow for kids to follow certain paths in life prior to competition in a specific sport. Most of us have heard of those first 3 names (they all played minor league baseball), but the 4th is the best example of this exception. Ben Olson, if you may remember, was a top QB recruit that decided to go on his mission after starting his career at BYU. Normally, this would halt the 5-year "ticking clock" rule for eligibility. Surprise! The NCAA exempts time spent on religious missions, foreign aid services, and military armed services. To prove I'm not lying...

"14.2.1.2 Service Exceptions to the Five-Year Rule: Time spent in the armed services, on official religious missions or with recognized foreign aid services of the U.S. government is excepted from the application of the five-year rule."

As a side note before we move forward, it's important to note that intramural sports are never counted towards eligibility. The NCAA sees those as purely recreational unless you doctor them somehow to replicate time in season or profit off the activities.

Pulling this altogether, if you made it this far, we get that the reason Mr. Rhodes is required to sit a year is because he waited over a year to join the Marines. Let's say he graduated in May of 2007. That means from May 2008 - August 2008 his clock started to tick. It's clearly unfortunate and the NCAA will surely remedy the situation with MTSU, but I figured I would at least attempt to explain what was going on better than the article did.

Bottom line: yes, the NCAA has flaws, but it also has purpose behind them. They aren't fair in many cases. The application of many rules are to prevent an unfair playing field. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with all the NCAA has put forth. I just apply the laws as they're written and intended. Mr. Rhodes will get his eligibility and his justice.

Thanks for posting this RB 83. I think this is quite useful in clarifying the situation. It seems there's already an exception in the rules for military service. The root of the problem in this particular case, though, is not the military service but the fact that he worked at Nissan for a year+ before joining the military.