Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LGR4GM

The NCAA has issues

Recommended Posts

Two stories - 1) gay girl disowned by her parents.  2) Donations vs NCAA eligibility  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tough read.  Emotionally and logically it seems like there is only one path forward, allow the donations.  However, this creates a slippery slope of precedent for the NCAA where other athletes could end up attempting to create similar situations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about that story a little while ago -- I actually gave to her Go Fund Me before it was shut down (by which time it'd raised over $25,000).

The NCAA stuff is so discouraging, but not really that surprising given how ... complicated NCAA regulations are and how tone deaf the enforcement people can be.

It's the stuff with the young lady's parents that just kills me.

1 minute ago, LTS said:

This is a tough read.  Emotionally and logically it seems like there is only one path forward, allow the donations.  However, this creates a slippery slope of precedent for the NCAA where other athletes could end up attempting to create similar situations.

I think that's probably the issue. I wonder if there's some way in which the money could be transferred and re-papered such that it could be in compliance and non-precedential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

 

The NCAA stuff is so discouraging, but not really that surprising given how ... complicated NCAA regulations are and how tone deaf the enforcement people can be.

Is it really on the enforcement people though?  As LTS said, selective enforcement is a very slippery slope.  They really have no choice but to enforce the rules as written.  It's the rules themselves which need to be updated.  And let's face it, that's not happening any time soon.

It seems to me like her best bet if she really needs the money would be if she could convince the school to honor the scholarship.  Seeing as how they're a catholic college, I wonder how likely that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, shrader said:

Is it really on the enforcement people though?  As LTS said, selective enforcement is a very slippery slope.  They really have no choice but to enforce the rules as written.  It's the rules themselves which need to be updated.  And let's face it, that's not happening any time soon.

It seems to me like her best bet if she really needs the money would be if she could convince the school to honor the scholarship.  Seeing as how they're a catholic college, I wonder how likely that is.

Having the college honour the scholarship would not address one of her most pressing concerns: Her need to be eligible for cross country. It sounds like that team is her principal support network.

I won't pretend to know the machinations of NCAA enforcement. I know enough to know that their rules and regs are cumbersome and Byzantine, and those who enforce them often come at issues in the same spirit.

There's a creative solution to be had there. I hope they find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused by the tweet. Is it all good now?

Sounds like the parents are classic HypoChrists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Having the college honour the scholarship would not address one of her most pressing concerns: Her need to be eligible for cross country. It sounds like that team is her principal support network.

I won't pretend to know the machinations of NCAA enforcement. I know enough to know that their rules and regs are cumbersome and Byzantine, and those who enforce them often come at issues in the same spirit.

There's a creative solution to be had there. I hope they find it.

Unless her girlfriend is also an athlete, why not shift the funds to her this circumventing the rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the news story updated saying the NCAA will allow her to accept the donations without forgoing eligibility.

I don't think it's a difficult fix- this situation was clearly about survival in the face of blatant discrimination, vs an athletic trying to financially capitalize or brand-build off of the opportunities the NCAA has afforded them.

One easy fix could be that the donations go directly to the collage, and are then appropriated for a scholarship that goes directly to her. There are many creative ways to get around this without going against NCAA policy. And if any people would be able to figure this out, it would be the Jesuits 😄 (the liberal/progressive wing of the Catholic Church)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Having the college honour the scholarship would not address one of her most pressing concerns: Her need to be eligible for cross country. It sounds like that team is her principal support network.

I won't pretend to know the machinations of NCAA enforcement. I know enough to know that their rules and regs are cumbersome and Byzantine, and those who enforce them often come at issues in the same spirit.

There's a creative solution to be had there. I hope they find it.

Call me crazy, but I’d say that having money for living expenses is a little more important than running cross country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shrader said:

Call me crazy, but I’d say that having money for living expenses is a little more important than running cross country. 

ImperturbableColdHapuka-size_restricted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Confused by the tweet. Is it all good now?

Sounds like the parents are classic HypoChrists.

Or the girl could be lying?  It happened in our family.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

ImperturbableColdHapuka-size_restricted.

You know, you can use your own words sometimes instead of communicating like a child. But anyway, running cross country is so low on the list of priorities in this story. It might just be dead last on that list. Sure the sport can help, but I’d be far more concerned about having a roof over my head than playing a team sport. Let’s face it, this issue is going to go on for far longer than her cross country season. If this line of thinking makes me obtuse, so be it. 

 

And i I realize that others have posted that it’s been resolved with the ncaa. So that’s good for her, but it’s not like it’s all taken care of and everything is rosy for this girls. She’s got a tough road ahead of her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

A better title is the parents have issues.

I thought about that but felt with this being a sports forum I'd try to focus on the ncaa side. But her parents suck if true. 

Edited by LGR4GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the tweet and the sub-headline say this:  

The NCAA has determined Emily Scheck can keep outside donations made to her, as well as keep her eligibility.

So I'm not sure what it was that led anyone to conclude that the NCAA is doing something wrong here.  It looks like it's doing something right for the first time in about forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shrader said:

You know, you can use your own words sometimes instead of communicating like a child. But anyway, running cross country is so low on the list of priorities in this story. It might just be dead last on that list. Sure the sport can help, but I’d be far more concerned about having a roof over my head than playing a team sport. Let’s face it, this issue is going to go on for far longer than her cross country season. If this line of thinking makes me obtuse, so be it. 

 

And i I realize that others have posted that it’s been resolved with the ncaa. So that’s good for her, but it’s not like it’s all taken care of and everything is rosy for this girls. She’s got a tough road ahead of her. 

Sometimes a picture’s worth a thousand words, bruh.

It sounds to me as though her participation with that cross country team is hugely important. To her. Right now.

7 hours ago, Eleven said:

Both the tweet and the sub-headline say this:  

The NCAA has determined Emily Scheck can keep outside donations made to her, as well as keep her eligibility.

So I'm not sure what it was that led anyone to conclude that the NCAA is doing something wrong here.  It looks like it's doing something right for the first time in about forever.

You quoted what came out very recently. Prior to that, there were weeks and months when they were saying something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Sometimes a picture’s worth a thousand words, bruh.

It sounds to me as though her participation with that cross country team is hugely important. To her. Right now.

You quoted what came out very recently. Prior to that, there were weeks and months when they were saying something else.

I quoted what was in the tweet and article that inspired this post.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eleven said:

I quoted what was in the tweet and article that inspired this post.  

@That Aud Smell you can make as many faces as you want, but the fact is that the NCAA had decided to support her, as was shown in the tweet and article that inspired this post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Eleven said:

@That Aud Smell you can make as many faces as you want, but the fact is that the NCAA had decided to support her, as was shown in the tweet and article that inspired this post.

Easy, Grace. (I didn’t even hit you with an ambiguous .gif!)

I’m legitimately confused. I’d heard and read that the NCAA was initially like “too bad, so sad” about her situation. I inferred that they’d changed course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Easy, Grace. (I didn’t even hit you with an ambiguous .gif!)

I’m legitimately confused. I’d heard and read that the NCAA was initially like “too bad, so sad” about her situation. I inferred that they’d changed course.

Look at the tweet and article that are in the first post in this thread.  Again, how did that tweet and that article inspire this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eleven said:

Look at the tweet and article that are in the first post in this thread.  Again, how did that tweet and that article inspire this thread?

The Tweet states: “So far they have told her to choose donations or eligibility.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the article details the regrettable odyssey with the NCAA and its member institution in some detail. Including: “Yet now the NCAA may force her to choose between accepting that financial help and maintaining her eligibility to participate in the sport she loves.”

The article also appears to have been updated. It didn’t have a rosy ending when I first read it.

 

Also, the article, even as updated (maybe just the headline?), concludes as follows:

“Whether she will be abandoned in the end by her school and the NCAA remains to be seen.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 9:25 AM, shrader said:

You know, you can use your own words sometimes instead of communicating like a child. But anyway, running cross country is so low on the list of priorities in this story. It might just be dead last on that list. Sure the sport can help, but I’d be far more concerned about having a roof over my head than playing a team sport. Let’s face it, this issue is going to go on for far longer than her cross country season. If this line of thinking makes me obtuse, so be it. 

 

And i I realize that others have posted that it’s been resolved with the ncaa. So that’s good for her, but it’s not like it’s all taken care of and everything is rosy for this girls. She’s got a tough road ahead of her. 

I understand your point, but the point in the article was that she did not want to choose between living expenses OR cross country.  You are projecting your priority into the mix. It was stated clearly in the article that she knew she could keep the donations but she wanted to have it all.

On 11/17/2018 at 8:01 PM, Eleven said:

I quoted what was in the tweet and article that inspired this post.  

The problem is  that you were late to quote it.  The original did not have the sub-headline.  The media source doesn't add dates and times to their update (a reflection on their shoddy practices).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LTS said:

The problem is  that you were late to quote it.  The original did not have the sub-headline.  The media source doesn't add dates and times to their update (a reflection on their shoddy practices).

Ah that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×