RacerDeac
#iwasright #rjlies
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 16,689
- Reaction score
- 1,744
Thankfully the expert on ACC bylaws finally weighed in!If the kid hasn't played and gotten a full release, the transfer rule shouldn't apply.
Thankfully the expert on ACC bylaws finally weighed in!If the kid hasn't played and gotten a full release, the transfer rule shouldn't apply.
Another scenario is that he has been told he will have to sit a year no matter where he goes and the lost year of eligibility is unimportant to him because he plans to go pro before he finishes four years.
Thankfully the expert on ACC bylaws finally weighed in!
No, we all thought you were the expert, Racer. When I inquired about the issue before, you jumped right in to provide the wisdom that it was established he had to sit out a year. The circumstance dictated prudence at the time given Bey's interest in Wake, but that didn't stop you from answering the question as the true expert you must be, even when people like LesJohns indicated they didn't have a final word on it yet.
Is it possible that if NC State waives the one-year requirement, he would be immediately eligible?
I'm not certain. I asked Les over at 247 and he said he'd ask around so hopefully will know soon.
When discussed in the past, I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that this is an ACC rule. It matters not what NC State does/says.
Correct. It is an ACC rule and he'd have to show some hardship to have it waived. An ACC review board would rule on the hardship request. Not sure how stringent they are on granting waivers.
Racer pussied out in meeting up with Lectro.
Chickens are suing not to be used to describe Racer
If he was planning to go pro, the lost year would be much more important.
Bullshit. Here's the conversation in it's entirety. I offered nothing concrete. I pointed to past discussions where folks had dug into and quoted the rules. RJ, on the other hand, has a tendency for being declarative rather than discussive.
That is an accurate summary of the conversation and thus, it's not "bullshit." "It matters not what NC State does/says" is pretty concrete. I was aware that others had mentioned this rule previously. However, given the circumstance, it seems as if it might not have applied. Charlotte deferred, appropriately.
It's still not confirmed one way or the other. RJ opined on the issue. You mockingly called him an "expert."
Is it possible that if NC State waives the one-year requirement, he would be immediately eligible?
When discussed in the past, I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that this is an ACC rule. It matters not what NC State does/says.
This really isn't as crazy as some people are making it and has already been discussed, but go ahead and read verbatim from the bylaws for all those still floundering:
Section VI-3. Intra-Conference National Letter of Intent Rule.
An individual who signs a valid National Letter of Intent with an ACC institution and does not satisfy the one-year attendance requirement or the Junior College Graduation provision of the National Letter of Intent may not represent another ACC institution in intercollegiate athletics competition until the individual has completed one (1) full academic years of residence at the latter ACC institution and shall be charged with the loss of one (1) season of eligibility in all sports. An individual receiving a mutual release per Item 5 of the National Letter of Intent may not represent another ACC institution in intercollegiate athletics competition until the individual has completed one full academic year at the latter ACC institution and shall be charged with the loss of one season of eligibility in all sports. Waivers of the ACC rule must demonstrate objective evidence that proves the student-athlete’s extraordinary personal hardship merits a waiver of the normal application of the policy. These waivers may be considered by the ACC faculty athletics representatives, acting as a committee of the whole, only after all appeals to the National Letter of Intent Steering Committee and the National Letter of Intent Appeals Committee have been processed. (Revised: April 2007)
So, we are now officially on Bey Watch?