Football question

OU has never thought he would get his appeal granted ..
I never said they did expect to win the case. I said that the case they have been making publicly has included a ton of references to "this poor dude shouldn't lose a year for playing 3 games of lacrosse."
 
I never said they did expect to win the case. I said that the case they have been making publicly has included a ton of references to "this poor dude shouldn't lose a year for playing 3 games of lacrosse."
to be clear i was not saying you did ...

just pointing out that they are supporting him publicly mostly for PR proposes . (they also clearly believe what they are saying )
 
Ok. How much do you bill by the hour? I assume you are living the life of luxury since you apparently are an ace lawyer with intricate knowledge of NCAA rules.
I'm not going to let you gas light me into thinking I'm not smart enough to understand a relatively SIMPLE NCAA eligibility rule that hasn't changed in decades.

The rule is simple. Just because Owen and OU want to fight it given the current college athletic landscape, doesn't mean they have a case or think they have a case.

If YOU don't understand the rule, that's a YOU problem.
 
It's not my opinion. It's my factual interpretation of the rules. This has nothing to do with lacrosse. If that is what Owen and OU want to argue, it's a bad choice of facts to argue, and they are only doing so in hopes of generating an emotional (not a factual) response.
You are mainly correct. But they certainly will be using lacrosse for the narrative
 
I'm not going to let you gas light me into thinking I'm not smart enough to understand a relatively SIMPLE NCAA eligibility rule that hasn't changed in decades.

The rule is simple. Just because Owen and OU want to fight it given the current college athletic landscape, doesn't mean they have a case or think they have a case.

If YOU don't understand the rule, that's a YOU problem.
Well here you're being obtuse acting like eligibility rules are still being fairly enforced and concretely. See: pavia and juco eligibility rules completely thrown out
 
Well here you're being obtuse acting like eligibility rules are still being fairly enforced and concretely. See: pavia and juco eligibility rules completely thrown out
Exactly. There is no freaking 5 to play four anymore. It has been inconsistently obliterated for years
 
Heinecke doesn't have much of a case, but that often hasn't seemed to matter. Many more bizarre cases. We currently have a guy that played in the NBA trying to come back to college. I gave up predicting who would win cases long ago.
 
Heinecke doesn't have much of a case, but that often hasn't seemed to matter. Many more bizarre cases. We currently have a guy that played in the NBA trying to come back to college. I gave up predicting who would win cases long ago.
Why doesn’t he have a case?
Why shouldn’t he get a medical year?
 
Well here you're being obtuse acting like eligibility rules are still being fairly enforced and concretely. See: pavia and juco eligibility rules completely thrown out
Different. Fact. Pattern.

I'm not aware of any player in Owen's position that has ever gotten to extend their eligibility for the reasons they are arguing. Now, trying to get a medical for his 2nd season? Sure. But I've never even heard that mentioned so I'm guessing the facts don't support that either.

But you can't find me a single instance of somebody being in college for 5 years, but because they played a different sport their freshman year, they requested and received a 6th year. It doesn't happen. They wouldn't even have asked for it if all of this other stuff wasn't going on, but the JUCO stuff, the Covid year, all a different fact pattern.

And they aren't always saying yes. We'll see how ends up, but they have denied Chambliss an extra year so far as well.
 
Different. Fact. Pattern.

I'm not aware of any player in Owen's position that has ever gotten to extend their eligibility for the reasons they are arguing. Now, trying to get a medical for his 2nd season? Sure. But I've never even heard that mentioned so I'm guessing the facts don't support that either.

But you can't find me a single instance of somebody being in college for 5 years, but because they played a different sport their freshman year, they requested and received a 6th year. It doesn't happen. They wouldn't even have asked for it if all of this other stuff wasn't going on, but the JUCO stuff, the Covid year, all a different fact pattern.

And they aren't always saying yes. We'll see how ends up, but they have denied Chambliss an extra year so far as well.
Yes different facts but the lacrosse/clock running just bc you're in school argument is Waayyyyy stronger than the Juco argument was.. and they caved on the Juco case
 
Yes different facts but the lacrosse/clock running just bc you're in school argument is Waayyyyy stronger than the Juco argument was.. and they caved on the Juco case
it is actually way worse and they didn't cave on the juco issue they lost in court .. (for a specific player or 2 ) and won in court on others .
 
it is actually way worse and they didn't cave on the juco issue they lost in court .. (for a specific player or 2 ) and won in court on others .
I don't think they lost. I think the ncaa agreed to grant blanket waivers for like a year or 2. Thats caving.

I'm unaware of any other juco suits.

The point is that pavia had a worse case with absolutely no precedent. Juco has always counted. Its easier for Owen imo on policy grounds, equitable grounds, and common sense. I'm shocked that the ncaa bent over for pavia, esp bc hes 5'2 lol
 
Back
Top