re: Eddie Vanderdoes is going to UCLA instead of ND

Let me put it in terms you can understand (maybe).

USC can block any transfer to schools in the PAC-12 AND Notre Dame.

USC allowed Carlisle to feely leave without penalty.

frick you are uninformed.

So now the argument changes. I have screen capped this thread for future LOLs

quote:

---

So now the argument changes. I have screen capped this thread for future LOLs

---

I was only involved in this conversation when it came to the USC aspect and transfers, which was when I spoke.

I could care less about the EV headcase and his father. That kid is a nut job.

quote:

---

I could care less about the EV headcase and his father. That kid is a nut job.


yeah he seems pretty soft to me, idk. I heard the real reason is because of a girlfriend. who knows.

---

I believe his father likes the drama more than the son. He always said that this is all about his son, and he was the one always in the middle of everything.

I say thank god that kid is not associated with any program I like.

quote:

---

BOTH players need to apply for a waiver from the NCAA to be immediately eligible.

---

Okay... what does that have to do with anything? That is completely separate from a school's decision to grant a release to a kid from his commitment. Isn't this thread about schools releasing players/recruits that have already signed?

You said

quote:

---

They can not release him because it presents a slippery slope for not only ND but for the rest of country.

---

So should USC not have given AC a release?

You are not understanding how this works. ND did in a sense "release" the kid when they lifted the recruiting ban allowing him to go to UCLA on scholarship. They could have done it to where the kid would have to pay his way for a full year at UCLA. This is just like a kid transferring and having to sit out.

USC had nothing to do with AC not having to sit out a year, that was a NCAA decision. EV can go through the same appeal process and not have to sit out a year, although that is very doubtful to happen.

Ms-information in this thread. EV does not need a waiver to play this year. All he needs is for ND to release him from his LOI because he never enrolled at ND. If he had enrolled at ND he would have needed a waiver from the NCAA but since he didn't, doesn't need it.

quote:

---

You are not understanding how this works. ND did in a sense "release" the kid when they lifted the recruiting ban allowing him to go to UCLA on scholarship. They could have done it to where the kid would have to pay his way for a full year at UCLA. This is just like a kid transferring and having to sit out.

---

False, the kid could have not gone to ND and gotten a grant in aid from any other school, he would just lose a year like he is now. He never enrolled at ND so ND never had any power over where he could go. All ND did was allow him to talk to other schools so he could get his paperwork in order for applying.

This is not like a kid transferring because he never enrolled in school. He never stepped foot on campus so he doesn't fall under the "transfer" rules. Its just a matter of NCAA or ND releasing him from his LOI.

As long as a kid never enrolls in school he can still go wherever he wants and sign a grat in aid with any school, he just loses that year of playing time if the school doesn't let him out. Where if it was a transfer the school can limit where he goes and he must be granted a waiver to play that year.

quote:

---

I'll help out everyone in this thread. The EV and MT situations would create a precedent if they were granted their release from Notre Dame/FSU. There ya go. Stop trying to compare other situations in which a school granted a release or the NCAA granted a release.

---

False, many players ask and are granted a release from their NLOI every year. I believe the number was close to average 700 athletes ask for a release each year and the NCAA approves about 93% of them. I will look for the link I read this in. Also, how is this any different from a kid signing a LOI then the school saying sorry bud we don't have room for you we signed too many kids?? Crap like this happens every year.

I don't want any kid at USC who doesn't really want to be there. I don't get why FSU is so covetous of this kid when they know he really wants to be a Trojan, and always did.

quote:

---

The EV and MT situations would create a precedent if they were granted their release from Notre Dame/FSU.

---

How would this create a precedent if it has already happened before? In the past, players have wanted out of their LOI commitment for one reason or another and the school has granted a release.

Before you say "those situations are different..."

It does not matter why a player wants out of his LOI commitment. Every possible reason boils down to just one: the committed player doesn't want to play for that school.

It could be because his future team now can't play in a bowl game, or a better player at his position just signed to the same school, or the kid's grandma is sick, or he didn't realize how badly the weather sucks at his new school. So why all of a sudden would releasing a EV and MT from their LOI change things?


EDIT: just saw Rdbruin's post. Nice work.

The grant in aid you speak of is only possible because ND lifted the recruiting ban. Had they not the kid could still enroll at UCLA but would be unavailable to receive an athletic scholarship.

quote:

---

If the prospective student-athlete does not enroll at the signing institution, the recruiting ban will be lifted after the institution’s academic year has elapsed (e.g., prospective student-athlete signs during 2012-13, recruiting ban applies through the end of the 2013-14 academic year).

---

NLI refrence sheet



I stand corrected, he does not need a waiver from the NCAA, he needs to win his appeal with the NLI committee.