[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| Tuesday, December 30, 05:21:55pm |
[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search |
Check update time
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
|
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 10:07:13 07/21/04 Wed
Author: Rick
Subject: Re: Why Charde Floyd Isn't Going to Holy Cross
In reply to:
NTKHC64
's message, "Why Charde Floyd Isn't Going to Holy Cross" on 08:46:09 07/21/04 Wed
1) I see no problem with HC on this one. The article doesn't indicate how far her Junior-Senior grades fell nor does it state how she performed on presumedly several tries on the SAT exams.
2) NCAA rules - As one who had student-athletes, I can easily see how that transfer rule could have been missed. Upon a 2nd reading, I trust most here will agree it's an easily misunderstood area of JC matriculation versus prep school matriculation vis a vis proceeding on to a Div.I program. The NCAA rules are NOT easy to grasp.
Could HC/Gibbons gone over this in more detail ? Maybe. However, the parent(s)/family ultimately are responsible for doing their homework on this. I did and if I wasn't sure of anything I either contacted the NCAA or the schools envolved for assistance/guidance.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [>
To Rick: Here we go again -- Sadfan, 10:42:40 07/21/04 Wed
The implication you set forth is that possibly and/or probably, that Assumption has not set suitable standards for its student-athletes and therefore will welcome a Holy Cross cast-off. Otherwise, her admission to HC would have been a no-brainer. I again reiterate that Assumption is the winner in this scenario. Why don't you just admit that HC could have been wrong again. Based on this article and the ECAC debacle, if find it difficult to give HC administration, the AD and Admissions, any benefit of any doubt.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: To Rick: Here we go again -- BeatBC, 11:02:20 07/21/04 Wed
"Based on this article.." we learn that the issue of HC admitting her this year never arose because the D1 rules would not allow her to play right away....AND....that Assumption, as a D2 school, could allow her to play this year. I caught no implication nor made an inference of this being an example of Assumption settling for an HC castoff.. rather this is just Assumption being in a position to take advantage of a favorable difference between D1 & D2 rules......and no benefit of the doubt?? just what would you have had the AD do in this instance???
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: To Rick: Here we go again -- NTKHC64, 11:06:58 07/21/04 Wed
If HC Admissions were counseling her in her academic program, then one reasonable inference is that she did have a good chance to gain admission. If there were no chance I'd hope they would say so and not build expectations unnnecessarily. I agree that we don't know the situation with grades but as a legacy of a gifted athlete and a gifted athlete herself, offering her consideration befitting that status would not have been out of line. I agree that the parents have some responsibility to know the rules but duty is proportional to expertise and wouldn't those who wanted her to play at HC be held to a higher standard, to know the rules and advise her?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
To: Sadfan -- Rick, 11:19:25 07/21/04 Wed
I think you missed the thing about the NCAA rules on JC transfers to D-I versus D-II schools....
BeatBC explained it well.
Had the kid successfully graduated/completed the MANDATORY 2 YEARS at JC for admission to HC under NCAA rules, it sounds like HC was open to her acceptance. That seems like a fair proposal to me.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Why Charde Floyd Isn't Going to Holy Cross -- Breezy, 11:04:50 07/21/04 Wed
Some time ago, I had a conversation with Bill Gibbons about Charde Floyd. He was very interested in having her come to Holy Cross and was hoping she would gain admission. In that same conversation, we discussed the issue of diversity and he was very open to the concept. For those who have posted about the current lack of diversity, I accept Bill's word that he is sensitive to this issue and will continue to recruit on an open basis.
Based solely on the article, I have no real problem with Admissions on this one. (I am also aware of the other PL student-athlete, mentioned in NTK's post above, who wanted to go to HC but was not accepted by Admissions due to a grade slump that occurred during a time of family health problems; that athlete has been instrumental in leading that PL team to victory over HC.) The article relates that Admissions worked with Charde with respect to course selection that would enhance her ability to gain admission to HC. The decision seems to have been based on NCAA eligibility rules, which are beyond control. Charde has made her choice, and I wish her well.
To me, however, both Bill Gibbons and Admissions were properly open to having Charde come to HC, and "it just didn't work out."
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Why Charde Floyd Isn't Going to Holy Cross -- NTKHC64, 11:23:04 07/21/04 Wed
Accepting the facts as related in the article,the key point seems to have been reached when the financial aid problem arose at Suffield. There was a decision to enroll at Quinsigamond. Thereafter it became known that two years would have to be spent at Q in order to be eligible to transfer to HC with no guaranty of admission. What isn't known is whether the knowledge of the graduation requirement would have altered the course. It seems that it would have, based upon the rejection of spending a second year at Q. Those advising her should've made her aware of the consequences of enrolling at Q, assuming of course that they had the opportunity to do so.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
