To Rick: Here we go again -- CROSSPORTS: Holy Cross Crusaders Sports Message Board

[ 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, 08:01:26pm [ 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: 10:42:40 07/21/04 Wed
Author: Sadfan
Subject: To Rick: Here we go again
In reply to: Rick 's message, "Re: Why Charde Floyd Isn't Going to Holy Cross" on 10:07:13 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.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> 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 ]