If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The violations by TRCC did not seem to affect the eligibility of any of their players as sanctions were made as to future schollies. The question is: Does or will the one violation stated in the article have any affect on a Division I four year school or are they referring to Juco Division I.
* Division I scholarship guidelines allow for transportation costs to be paid one time per academic year to and from the college by direct route. The college may not pay for a second trip for any student-athlete.
Given the dates they referred to, 2005 through 2008, the violations could have involved Mantis or EO (redshirt 2008-2009).
I'm not worried! I'm looking for clarification and agreement or disagreement.
I believe the "Division I" that is referred to in the article is the NJCAA Division I and has no meaning or impact for any NCAA D1 school (read: no infractions by WSU).
Some here have indicated that Mantis or EO could not have been involved in any part of the infractions because of the dates. I simply disagree, but see no way it has any effect on WSU if they did.
Lastly, since the sanctions have already been doled out and there were individual player sanctions, therefore, it does not impede the development of any of TRCC's current players.
1. I didn't say you were the one worried, and I'm glad you say you aren't. But we do have more than our share of hand wringers (e.g., shockball and the Old Guy).
2. You may well be right about "Division I" being a reference to the NJCAA. If so, that's a further reason none of this matters.
3. Even if not, if 2005-8 refers to academic years rather than calendar years, which seems to me likely, then EO couldn't have been involved, as he didn't arrive until the 2008-9 academic year.
For all of the reasons above, plus those noted in your own post, I believe we're wasting time here. So I'm going to get back to work.
The one good thing we're doing here is extending this thread as we pursue our apparent goal of having the world's longest. Someone call the folks at Guinness.
1. I didn't say you were the one worried, and I'm glad you say you aren't. But we do have more than our share of hand wringers (e.g., shockball and the Old Guy).
2. You may well be right about "Division I" being a reference to the NJCAA. If so, that's a further reason none of this matters.
3. Even if not, if 2005-8 refers to academic years rather than calendar years, which seems to me likely, then EO couldn't have been involved, as he didn't arrive until the 2008-9 academic year.
For all of the reasons above, plus those noted in your own post, I believe we're wasting time here. So I'm going to get back to work.
The one good thing we're doing here is extending this thread as we pursue our apparent goal of having the world's longest. Someone call the folks at Guinness.
The folks at Guinness Book of World Records are on high alert. I notified them some time ago.
There is not any question that new records will be attained. There is, however, a question of the number and magnitude of the new records. Several are under consideration such as number of posts, duration of thread and number of pages.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it is about the future."
1. I didn't say you were the one worried, and I'm glad you say you aren't. But we do have more than our share of hand wringers (e.g., shockball and the Old Guy).
2. You may well be right about "Division I" being a reference to the NJCAA. If so, that's a further reason none of this matters.
3. Even if not, if 2005-8 refers to academic years rather than calendar years, which seems to me likely, then EO couldn't have been involved, as he didn't arrive until the 2008-9 academic year.
For all of the reasons above, plus those noted in your own post, I believe we're wasting time here. So I'm going to get back to work.
The one good thing we're doing here is extending this thread as we pursue our apparent goal of having the world's longest. Someone call the folks at Guinness.
The folks at Guinness Book of World Records are on high alert. I notified them some time ago.
There is not any question that new records will be attained. There is, however, a question of the number and magnitude of the new records. Several are under consideration such as number of posts, duration of thread and number of pages.
Comment