The "other guy" is Tanner Lee.
I agree it's a mistake to assume the NCAA has any consistency in it decisions or uses logic of any kind.
Last edited:
Ferentz upset at NCAA comments on Husker QB
- Thread starter ThePowerOfRed
- Start date
The "other guy" is Tanner Lee.
I agree it's a mistake to assume the NCAA has any consistency in it decisions or uses logic of any kind.
Not sure I read that Ferentz is upset that Lee got the 6th year. I read he is upset that his guy didn't get similar treatment. And that the gray areas don't seem to be ruled on fairly.
sounds like he was more upset his guy didn't get an extra year which is understandable
he as much comes out and says he is supportive of "that other guy" getting an extra year
hell, after last year I have heard that Kirk has been lobbying nonstop to get Tommy an additional year or 2 because we switched systems
he as much comes out and says he is supportive of "that other guy" getting an extra year
hell, after last year I have heard that Kirk has been lobbying nonstop to get Tommy an additional year or 2 because we switched systems
Grasping at straws at any controversy here. Ferentz didn't call him out by name nor the school. Just making the point that the NCAA is often arbitrary in their decisions. Which I would 100℅ agree with.
Kirk flat out said at the press conference he was glad the other guy got his extra year. Probably brought it up due to this local article on Drew's Rehab http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sp...out-knee-injury-nfl-future-training/88910554/
Last edited:
the NCAA is a consistent, well run organization...said no one.
Maybe if Kirk wouldn't have played Ott more than 30% of the games his guy would have gotten another year. Kirk walked Ott out there in a brace and forced him to play hurt. The only reason the NCAA left Ott in "limbo" was because of Iowa's three appeals to the NCAA after they said no because he played in more than 30% of the games. It all comes down to Kirk playing Ott while he was still hurt. No one is to blame but Kirk Ferentz.
Amen. I would have been shocked if Ferentz had been successful given the kid played in half of their games.
I thought I read somewhere Ott begged them to let him play through it being his senior year and all.
Sounded like Ott had to make the choice.
Lee's situation vs. Ott's is not even an apples and oranges comparison, its more like apples and bowling balls. Two completely different set of circumstances and two completely different rules. In Ott's situation, there is no grey area. The rules clearly state that a player must play in no more than 30% of the games in order to qualify for a medical red shirt. Ott played in more than 30%. Case closed. No one, other than Iowa's own compliance department, was telling Ott and Ferentz that it looked like he had a chance. From everything I have read, the NCAA told them no from the beginning and there was no real basis for Ferentz's argument for granting another year of eligibility since Ott played in more than 30% of the games. Ferentz and Ott knew the rules when they made the decision for Ott to keep playing.
Lee, on the other hand, petitioned under a rule that allows a player to argue that he was effectively run off by his former school. There is grey area inherent in applying this rule, because a determination of what constitutes being run off is pretty subjective absent the coach yanking a kids scholarship and telling him to get out of here. The rule is designed to allow a player in that position, who had already burned his red-shirt, to not lose the year of competition that he is required to sit out under the transfer rules. There is a similar exception under the transfer rules under which the NCAA may allow a player to avoid sitting out a year under certain circumstances.
NCAA may appear to be arbitrary and down right random in many of its rulings, but Ott vs. Lee is as far from Exhibit A for such an argument as you can get.
Lee, on the other hand, petitioned under a rule that allows a player to argue that he was effectively run off by his former school. There is grey area inherent in applying this rule, because a determination of what constitutes being run off is pretty subjective absent the coach yanking a kids scholarship and telling him to get out of here. The rule is designed to allow a player in that position, who had already burned his red-shirt, to not lose the year of competition that he is required to sit out under the transfer rules. There is a similar exception under the transfer rules under which the NCAA may allow a player to avoid sitting out a year under certain circumstances.
NCAA may appear to be arbitrary and down right random in many of its rulings, but Ott vs. Lee is as far from Exhibit A for such an argument as you can get.
I like Ferentz. Good coach, and has always been very complimentary of every team he plays. Class guy. But his guy in no way deserved another year. He played in 6 games, for goodness sakes. Why they even questioned the ruling in the first place and appealed 3 times was beyond poor logic.
Kirk knows his position in the Ott case is weak so he avoids the facts of that situation and instead issues an "ad hominem" attack against the NCAA citing the Lee case as "proof" of his position.
Since the NCAA is widely criticised, he's hoping for a few "right ons" from the general public who maybe don't understand logic.
Edit: either that or he's an idiot who actually believes that the cases are similar. My money is on the former.
Since the NCAA is widely criticised, he's hoping for a few "right ons" from the general public who maybe don't understand logic.
Edit: either that or he's an idiot who actually believes that the cases are similar. My money is on the former.
paphusker, explain how the Ott ruling was wrong. Find me another player who got a medical redshirt after playing in half of the games in a season. Ferentz does not have a leg to stand on with respect to that ruling.
Right. Because Ferentz knew he was gonna tear his ACL, which had nothing to do with his elbow injury that limited him the other games. You really would have shut him down for the season when he was back to playing full time by game 5 and 6? Just so he could get a redshirt? Makes no sense.
This is in no way an indication that I feel strongly about him getting a 5th year.
Then Kirk shouldn't whine like a baby. Ott played in more than 30% of the games. The rules are plain as day. Look at it this way it's one less participation ring Kirk has to provide his players.
Sort of, but not always. Mike Thorne (Center for the Illini Basketball team) got a 6th year even though he played more than the amount allowed because he was considered to be a bit of a special case. He has diabetes and they argued that because of that it was not possible for him to heal up from injury as fast as people without diabetes and the NCAA (even though it took a very long time) did grant him the extra year.
I hope Ferentz has a long career at Iowa. Because if his pattern holds his one year of being very good will be followed by three years of mediocrity
There are more rules than just 30%. He met some of the other requirements and I believe there were examples of other guys getting 6th years without meeting all the requirements for 6th year eligibility. I believe the case was to look at number of snaps instead of games. I believe that's why his comment about Lee and number of shotgun snaps, etc. The biggest mistake Ferentz made was playing him the last four games as a freshman on a 4-4 team.
Whether he was upset at Tanner Lee isn't the issue. I don't think he was. But he has no right to be upset. The rule is clear-you can't play more than 30% of the game in a season and get a medical hardship waiver. He played in 43% of the games. How effective he was because of lingering injury doesn't matter. Once you enter a game for even one play, you have played in that game. He played in too many games to get a waiver. Period. There is no grey area. Kirk is upset that the NCAA didn't make an exception in his case. You can expect that the NCAA follows the rules, you can't expect them to make exceptions.
This. Ferentz is being a cry baby over this. Calling out the NCAA over a rule that is clear seems stupid to me.
Ott refused to not play and it was the elbow which he could have played through then came the knee then he shut it down nothing to see here
It was the length of time they took to make a decision try to defend the NCAA you will be an army of 1 they are a joke on things like this
Well, at least an army of two since truhuskerfan agrees with me here, or better, I agree with him.
Like I said, not really. They make exceptions like they did for Mike Thorne as I stated above. The NCAA actually looks at each case individually and not in a black and white manner. Also, perhaps basketball is looked at differently, I don't know.
That said, I am glad he is not coming back!
You can't complain about the length of time it took to make a decision when you are expecting them to make exceptions. Iowa's compliance department had already been turned down twice on the matter. That should have told them what the answer the third time would be.
I believe they kept finding evidence and presidence each time to appeal again. But I get what you are saying.
Thorne is more like apples and oranges to Ott than apples to bowling balls. Thorne played in only 8 games - well under the 30% requirement. He did attempt a comeback by playing in a game after the second half of the season started, which would appear to disqualify him under the rules. But, that's where the similarity in the two end. Thorne attempted to come back, and played 19 minutes in one game. Apparently, he then had medical complications, which as I understand he was able to show was directly related to the original injury and apparently (according to his medical records) exacerbated by his diabetes. So, he did attempt to come back and did play - but suffered a set back to the same injury as a result, which then forced him to be shut down for the year. The original injury did in fact turnout to be season ending- despite the comeback attempt. He was still under 30% of the games. The appeal had nothing to do with how much playing time he had in any of the games he played in. The hardship ruling excused the fact that he appeared in the one game in the second half of the season and was based on his unique medical situation (I wouldn't be surprised if there were ADA claims brought up in that case due to his diabetes.)
On the other hand, Ott's initial injury was an elbow injury. Had they shut it down then or if he had tried to come back in a game and found he couldn't continue, while staying under 30%, he probably could have qualified for the hardship, but he continued to play, indicating that the injury was not season-ending. It was his and his coaching staff's decision to keep playing. of course, they could not have anticipated he would tear his ACL. That occurred in his 6th game, after already having played over 30% the games. Unlike Thorne, Ott didn't attempt to come back from the elbow and experienced complications that rendered him was unable to perform the rest of the season. In fact he was able to come back - and apparently was relatively healed by the Illinois game, before suffering a completely unrelated injury. Also, Ott had no underlying medical condition.
Simply put, the Thorne situation is not on all fours with Ott's circumstances. If Iowa's staff truly thought the Thorne case was good precedence for Ott's case, Iowa's athletic department needs to go next door and find a couple of law students who could have provided better analysis.
On the other hand, Ott's initial injury was an elbow injury. Had they shut it down then or if he had tried to come back in a game and found he couldn't continue, while staying under 30%, he probably could have qualified for the hardship, but he continued to play, indicating that the injury was not season-ending. It was his and his coaching staff's decision to keep playing. of course, they could not have anticipated he would tear his ACL. That occurred in his 6th game, after already having played over 30% the games. Unlike Thorne, Ott didn't attempt to come back from the elbow and experienced complications that rendered him was unable to perform the rest of the season. In fact he was able to come back - and apparently was relatively healed by the Illinois game, before suffering a completely unrelated injury. Also, Ott had no underlying medical condition.
Simply put, the Thorne situation is not on all fours with Ott's circumstances. If Iowa's staff truly thought the Thorne case was good precedence for Ott's case, Iowa's athletic department needs to go next door and find a couple of law students who could have provided better analysis.
Someone needs to show Ferentz this post. This post hit it dead on. The two situations aren't even close to comparison. Tanner will not play in games for 5 years. Just received 2 redshirts basically. Maybe if Ferentz petitioned to give Ott a second year to redshirt in 2016, they'd allow it but it would be pointless since he wouldn't be able to play.
Sam Weinberg: “I strenuously object?” Is that how it’s done? Hm? “Objection, your Honor!” “Overruled” “No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object.” “Oh! You strenuously object. Then I’ll take some time and reconsider.”
-A Few Good Men
Last edited:
Love that sceneSam Weinberg: “I strenuously object?” Is that how it’s done? Hm? “Objection, your Honor!” “Overruled” “No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object.” “Oh! You strenuously object. Then I’ll take some time and reconsider.”
-A Few Good Men
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Portal players taken. 15 and counting. 1st in Big 10. 6th Nationally
- Latest: RBigredMax
-
-
-
