AUenginerd 16 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Going to be long day with many F5's on the recruiting forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,108 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't believe he said it on here but elsewhere Jonesy said he believes Arik to AU and Armond to ND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEAugirl 9,633 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Can someone answer my ???....posted last night and reposted a few posts back. It keeps getting lost in the chatter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auadmin 20 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't understand the alchemy of the SEC's new transfer policy, but if Armand is going to suit up for AU, he is going to be given a medical hardship from the NCAA or a waiver stemming from USCw's probationary status. Again, I get lost trying to figure out the calculus needed to solve this riddle, but those are my best guesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,108 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 Can someone answer my ???....posted last night and reposted a few posts back. It keeps getting lost in the chatter! That is because nobody knows. There may be NCAA loopholes but we are not sure how that applies to the new SEC must be able to play more than 1 year transfer rule or if there are loopholes in that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning4AU 405 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Can someone answer my ???....posted last night and reposted a few posts back. It keeps getting lost in the chatter! I'm not entirely sure how that would work, augirl. If he has already played 3 years ('08-'11) then he only has one year of eligibility left anyway as you only get to play 4 years. Since he didn't play last year and wasn't cleared by USC medically, then I would assume he would get the hardship waiver from the NCAA and get to play his last year somewhere. As for the SEC transfer rules, I have no idea. SEC has made everything so complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfernoOrangeSS 321 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 There sure are alot of Catholics on here this morning.... I am Catholic and I don't see many Catholics here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pologuy24 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEAugirl 9,633 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Thanks guys!! Didn't know if anyone might know of a "loophole" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEAugirl 9,633 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. This is along the lines of what I was thinking....thanks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning4AU 405 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. Very true...and Aairon Savage as well. However, I wonder if the transfer would limit that in any way. Also, if he's played 3 complete years, I don't see how they would clear him to play 2 more. EDIT: On second thought....those are two redshirt years. So Armond, if the situation ends up the same as above, still would only be eligible to PLAY 1 more year. Maybe he could be on the team for 2, but he could only play 1. So really the question becomes, Does he have 2 years to play 1, or 1 year to play 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n2hoops 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. You ALWAYS have only four years of playing time - he has played three already. He only has one year left - so no matter how they categorize last year - i.e. redshirt, medical redshirt - he still only has one year left to play. That is where he is bumping up against the new SEC rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,108 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. Correct me if I am wrong but I can never remember a player playing 5 years. I have heard of playing 4 out of 5 years with a red shirt and playing 4 out of 6 years with a red shirt and a medical hardship but never heard of a player playing 5 out of 6 seasons which is what you are proposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnNTexas 7,158 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I wonder if they are Catholic? That could make a difference...just wondering? Well many Catholics don't view ND as a Catholic University anymore. I am Catholic and view it as a Catholic University. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aupops2 9 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I wonder if they are Catholic? That could make a difference...just wondering? Well many Catholics don't view ND as a Catholic University anymore. I am Catholic and view it as a Catholic University. Ditto Same here, in a BIG way!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEAugirl 9,633 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. Very true...and Aairon Savage as well. However, I wonder if the transfer would limit that in any way. Also, if he's played 3 complete years, I don't see how they would clear him to play 2 more. EDIT: On second thought....those are two redshirt years. So Armond, if the situation ends up the same as above, still would only be eligible to PLAY 1 more year. Maybe he could be on the team for 2, but he could only play 1. So really the question becomes, Does he have 2 years to play 1, or 1 year to play 1? THIS hits my train of thought on the head....and the question is, COULD and would Armond potentially take a redshirt year at AU and play the second..thus allowing him to complete a graduate degree, get back in shape (because I have read USC really restricted everything he did during last year) and play in 2013? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkolumbo 8 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't believe he said it on here but elsewhere Jonesy said he believes Arik to AU and Armond to ND. their decision's are intertwined, if the reporter on twitter is correct that interviewed Arik last night. Armond's decision is fully dependent on where Arik chooses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperNova 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. Very true...and Aairon Savage as well. However, I wonder if the transfer would limit that in any way. Also, if he's played 3 complete years, I don't see how they would clear him to play 2 more. EDIT: On second thought....those are two redshirt years. So Armond, if the situation ends up the same as above, still would only be eligible to PLAY 1 more year. Maybe he could be on the team for 2, but he could only play 1. So really the question becomes, Does he have 2 years to play 1, or 1 year to play 1? THIS hits my train of thought on the head....and the question is, COULD and would Armond potentially take a redshirt year at AU and play the second..thus allowing him to complete a graduate degree, get back in shape (because I have read USC really restricted everything he did during last year) and play in 2013? I believe this question will be the deciding factor. SEC will not allow a 1 year transfer, Independent schools don't have this rule. Wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubcali 433 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I just read that Oregon is now in the mix. So, I guess it's ND, Auburn, and Oregon at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning4AU 405 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You can be granted 5th year eligibility so if he got a medical hardship for his 4th year, in reality he could have 2 years left to play if granted a 5th year of plaing time! See Trey Smith for example. I believe he was on the team for 6 years after Red shirting and medical red shirting. Very true...and Aairon Savage as well. However, I wonder if the transfer would limit that in any way. Also, if he's played 3 complete years, I don't see how they would clear him to play 2 more. EDIT: On second thought....those are two redshirt years. So Armond, if the situation ends up the same as above, still would only be eligible to PLAY 1 more year. Maybe he could be on the team for 2, but he could only play 1. So really the question becomes, Does he have 2 years to play 1, or 1 year to play 1? THIS hits my train of thought on the head....and the question is, COULD and would Armond potentially take a redshirt year at AU and play the second..thus allowing him to complete a graduate degree, get back in shape (because I have read USC really restricted everything he did during last year) and play in 2013? Doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEAugirl 9,633 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I just read that Oregon is now in the mix. So, I guess it's ND, Auburn, and Oregon at this point. Oregon has been in the mix last week, but Armond cannot go to a PAC 12 school and the father said last night it was down to AU and ND, so I think Oregon is now a distant third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auadmin 20 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 My concern with the medical hardship for Armand deals with the fact that in the cases of Smith and Savage, AU applied for the medical waiver and 6th year of eligibility after they had used up their 5th year. I do not know if that is standard operating procedure, but if so, Armand would have to be on the team as a redshirt for '12, then apply for the 6th year when his 5 had expired. If, by chance, the NCAA says no, then the new SEC rule would make it unlikely for Armand to be at AU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEAugirl 9,633 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Chizik obviously knows something we don't.....of course, that is why we pay him the big bucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TROOPERSTROOPS 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 AA will make a decision this morning and we should know around lunch tiime...Accd" to a family member close to his recruitment process, ND is considered the team to beat at this point..Cal is definitely out of the running...per BM AU247 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubcali 433 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 My concern with the medical hardship for Armand deals with the fact that in the cases of Smith and Savage, AU applied for the medical waiver and 6th year of eligibility after they had used up their 5th year. I do not know if that is standard operating procedure, but if so, Armand would have to be on the team as a redshirt for '12, then apply for the 6th year when his 5 had expired. If, by chance, the NCAA says no, then the new SEC rule would make it unlikely for Armand to be at AU. But remember the SEC can issue waivers (regarding the new SEC rule) so it is possible: "This is a local rule," said Sankey, whose office will return to using the SEC's waiver process to consider admitting transfers with one year of eligibility left. "We're not trying to dictate how many years of eligibility you need to go to some other conference." http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/sec_sends_wrong_message_with_g.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.