Masoli Cleared to play

H8IAST8

H8IAST8

Well-Known Member
Won his appeal. Bad decision IMO. If you are good enough, can't you just get yourself kicked off the team and transfer without penalty?
 
Actually good decision. Bad policy. The policy has waaaaayyyyy tooooo much area for subjective application. Basically, he did the same thing as Greg Paulus and others. The difference is that this guy is perceived as a bad character.

Well, the grey area is not about character. It is about whether or not the decision was an athletic or academic decision. If anybody believes Paulus' decision was academically based they are an idiot. They tried to say the situation was different, but it was only different because one guy was perceived as a good guy and the other guy was a bad guy.
 
H8IAST8 said:
Won his appeal. Bad decision IMO. If you are good enough, can't you just get yourself kicked off the team and transfer without penalty?
Click to expand...

It depends. Masoli was only kicked off of the team at Oregon. He could have gone to graduate school there if he wanted to. So it was no different than Paulus transferring to Syracuse.

They really had no other choice than to clear him. His transfer technically was within the rules to play right away, they just tried to add a "moral clause" to it.

Remember, this only works for players who have graduated.
 
tm3308 said:
It depends. Masoli was only kicked off of the team at Oregon. He could have gone to graduate school there if he wanted to. So it was no different than Paulus transferring to Syracuse.

They really had no other choice than to clear him. His transfer technically was within the rules to play right away, they just tried to add a "moral clause" to it.

Remember, this only works for players who have graduated.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize he graduated, so maybe "bad policy" is a better way to put it.
 
He was dismissed from the football team, therefore he couldn't play. He was dismissed because he was involved in criminal activity. For him to be able to back door the system and be able to play is a shame. This guy shouldn't be allowed to play. He got his education which is great, however it's a privilege to play the game. A privilege he shouldn't be afforded any long imo.
 
PatrickAdamovicz said:
He was dismissed from the football team, therefore he couldn't play. He was dismissed because he was involved in criminal activity. For him to be able to back door the system and be able to play is a shame. This guy shouldn't be allowed to play. He got his education which is great, however it's a privilege to play the game. A privilege he shouldn't be afforded any long imo.
Click to expand...

Good thing involvement in criminal activity isn't an automatic disqualification for playing NCAA football or we wouldn't have Clayborn, Prater, Bernstine, Hampton, Reiff, Binns...

Be mad at Ole Miss for letting him join their team. Be mad at the rule that allows players to transfer schools and play immediately as grad students, but be careful about thinking the NCAA should ban players for moral or criminal conduct.
 
CAARHawk said:
Good thing involvement in criminal activity isn't an automatic disqualification for playing NCAA football or we wouldn't have Clayborn, Prater, Bernstine, Hampton, Reiff, Binns...

Be mad at Ole Miss for letting him join their team. Be mad at the rule that allows players to transfer schools and play immediately as grad students, but be careful about thinking the NCAA should ban players for moral or criminal conduct.
Click to expand...

How'd ya get all them there apples in with the orange? It's totally different. None of those guys has been kicked off of his team, except Masoli...it's supposed to be a punishment, not a transfer excuse...He circumvented, without penalty, the judgement handed down by his former team...and you're cool with that?

Edit: And another thing...to your NCAA banning players point...the NCAA wouldn't have been banning him as he would've been able to play next season.
 
Last edited:
He was kicked off the team and then graduated. Players who have graduated and have eligibility remaining can transfer to another school and play immediately if the school from which they transfer does not offer the degree program in which they enroll.

For instance some schools don't have law schools or medical schools.

That is all the policy states. It doesn't state anything about a player being kicked off a previous team, nor being involved in criminal activity, which is why the person to whom I was responding said Massoli should not be able to play.

You say he shouldn't be able to play because he was kicked off his team. The other guy said he shouldn't be able to play because he was involved in criminal activity. Neither concern is relevent with respect to the rule. But more importantly if we went by the other guy's standards, then the NCAA would have to view all criminal activity in a similar light, not just in relation to this obscure rule.
 
CAARHawk said:
He was kicked off the team and then graduated. Players who have graduated and have eligibility remaining can transfer to another school and play immediately if the school from which they transfer does not offer the degree program in which they enroll.

For instance some schools don't have law schools or medical schools.

That is all the policy states. It doesn't state anything about a player being kicked off a previous team, nor being involved in criminal activity, which is why the person to whom I was responding said Massoli should not be able to play.

You say he shouldn't be able to play because he was kicked off his team. The other guy said he shouldn't be able to play because he was involved in criminal activity. Neither concern is relevent with respect to the rule. But more importantly if we went by the other guy's standards, then the NCAA would have to view all criminal activity in a similar light, not just in relation to this obscure rule.
Click to expand...

So hard to give a flying kucf about sports b/c of decisions like this and reducing rothlessburger (sp) suspension on technicalities. I don't watch the nba, mlb and can barely sit through a whole nfl game. Bout the only thing I can stomach any more is college football so I find this repugnant.
 
HawkeyeShane said:
How'd ya get all them there apples in with the orange? It's totally different. None of those guys has been kicked off of his team, except Masoli...it's supposed to be a punishment, not a transfer excuse...He circumvented, without penalty, the judgement handed down by his former team...and you're cool with that?

Edit: And another thing...to your NCAA banning players point...the NCAA wouldn't have been banning him as he would've been able to play next season.
Click to expand...

I don't see the NCAA announcing that should Pete Carroll come back to college football, he's under 5 years probation, or anything like that. He circumvented punishment by jumping ship to the NFL.

Except in Masoli's case, it wasn't even NCAA punishment that he was getting around. He got around punishment laid down by Chip Kelly.

Do I think it's right that he can play? No, I don't. But with the way the rules are written, there was no legal ground for the NCAA to stand on in forcing him to sit.
 
tomhawk80907 said:
So hard to give a flying kucf about sports b/c of decisions like this and reducing rothlessburger (sp) suspension on technicalities. I don't watch the nba, mlb and can barely sit through a whole nfl game. Bout the only thing I can stomach any more is college football so I find this repugnant.
Click to expand...

Look I understand only wanting to watch sporting events in-which involve players with "character" you respect, but your not being honest with your self. I mean, look at how you describe your objection to watching sports. "...hard to give a flying kucf", what does this say about your character?

Lets stop pretending we know who the players are by bored journalist or simply police logs. People make mistakes and athletes get put under a microscope. I'm not saying I think Masoli is role model but I don't really know the guy.

I enjoy watching sports, if there is something stupid a player does on the field then lets talk about it, for everything else, leave that up to our justice system or his head coach.

Clayborne made a mistake too, but he's probably one of my all-time favorite Iowa player. I think what the subcommittee was really thinking in letting him play was giving him a second chance to prove his character. I don't blame Oregon for letting him go, but now he has a chance to show NFL scouts he may be worth more then a 7th round pick. Not just with his performance on the field, but maybe that he can stay out of trouble. Without a chance to play, he is going to be really tempted to fall in with bad friends.
 
CAARHawk said:
He was kicked off the team and then graduated. Players who have graduated and have eligibility remaining can transfer to another school and play immediately if the school from which they transfer does not offer the degree program in which they enroll.

For instance some schools don't have law schools or medical schools.

That is all the policy states. It doesn't state anything about a player being kicked off a previous team, nor being involved in criminal activity, which is why the person to whom I was responding said Massoli should not be able to play.

You say he shouldn't be able to play because he was kicked off his team. The other guy said he shouldn't be able to play because he was involved in criminal activity. Neither concern is relevent with respect to the rule. But more importantly if we went by the other guy's standards, then the NCAA would have to view all criminal activity in a similar light, not just in relation to this obscure rule.
Click to expand...

Well aware of the rule and I'm also well aware of the abuse of it...apparently you're fine with it.
 
HawkeyeShane said:
Well aware of the rule and I'm also well aware of the abuse of it...apparently you're fine with it.
Click to expand...

I didn't see where he said he was fine with it. He said earlier that it's a bad policy. But the NCAA made the right choice, given that the policy exists. Now they may change it, who knows. But I think you start diving into murky waters if you add a "moral clause" to this rule. Because there are varying degrees of legal issues that a player can have. Where do you draw the line?

I'd be okay with telling a player that he's ineligible for a season if he was kicked off the team for criminal activity (when there's a conviction). But guys kicked off for violating team rules, I don't think so, because not every team has the same "team rules".

The NCAA can't arbitrarily implement that "moral clause" on a random case. They can change a rule in reaction to a case, but they can't change it on the fly.
 
tm3308 said:
I didn't see where he said he was fine with it. He said earlier that it's a bad policy. But the NCAA made the right choice, given that the policy exists. Now they may change it, who knows. But I think you start diving into murky waters if you add a "moral clause" to this rule. Because there are varying degrees of legal issues that a player can have. Where do you draw the line?

I'd be okay with telling a player that he's ineligible for a season if he was kicked off the team for criminal activity (when there's a conviction). But guys kicked off for violating team rules, I don't think so, because not every team has the same "team rules".

The NCAA can't arbitrarily implement that "moral clause" on a random case. They can change a rule in reaction to a case, but they can't change it on the fly.
Click to expand...

There was a conviction...he plead guilty in the frat boy case, didn't he? Not sure what happened with the pot case.
 
HawkeyeShane said:
There was a conviction...he plead guilty in the frat boy case, didn't he? Not sure what happened with the pot case.
Click to expand...

They had no legal leg to stand on in ruling him ineligible, though. They can change the rule to make that "moral clause" in the cases of convictions, and that would be fine. But as long as that kind of thing is not in writing, they couldn't force him to sit.
 
tm3308 said:
They had no legal leg to stand on in ruling him ineligible, though. They can change the rule to make that "moral clause" in the cases of convictions, and that would be fine. But as long as that kind of thing is not in writing, they couldn't force him to sit.
Click to expand...

I'm annoyed with Masoli, not CAARHawk...I apologize CAARHawk! It just pi$$es me off that Masoli found a loophole that was never intended to help a jag skirt punishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top