Duke players get extra year of eligibility

Wow...the NCAA gives them an extra year after the University cancelled their season. The NCAA never sides with players but gives this group of kids who (although there was no rape) were still at fault another year despite the fact that the University cancelled their season and that they played over 50% of their season anyway. While it's nice to see the NCAA side with their athletes (as opposed to screwing people over like Mike Williams from USC) they screwed the pooch on this one.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2887146]NCAA Grants Duke Extra Year of Eligibility[/url]

Well that sets a terrible precedent.

That's fucking ridiculous.

Totally fucking nuts. Some kid gets a sandwich from a coach, he is gone for good. A school cancels their own season and the players get a bonus year.

The only players who deserve the extra year are Seligman and Finnerty.

Wow. This is some sort of sick joke, right? Maybe the Cornell should just can the hockey season some time for some lewd behavior and then the team will have extra depth to make a title run going forward.

I wonder if the decision would have been different had Duke won on Monday.

Being a pro skier means you can't play football... but having your season taken away by YOUR OWN UNIVERSITY is good enough cause for an extra year? I feel for the other 50+ teams next year who will be playing by different rules.

Chris '03
I feel for the other 50+ teams next year who will be playing by different rules for the next three years.

FYP.

DeltaOne81
That's fucking ridiculous.

Ditto.

ESPN.GO
Also on Wednesday, a Duke alumnus bought a full-page ad in USA Today to show support for the program. The headline on the ad reads, "For a team very few people stood by, how about a standing ovation?"

Talk about f**king ridiculous. Although I was for Duke in the finals, I guess I'm glad they did not have the chance to also proclaim themselves as champions as well. Now to root against them for next year, let's get started.
Suddenly I'm a fan of Quint, keep telling it like it is.

ugarte

Chris '03
I feel for the other 50+ teams next year who will be playing by different rules for the next three years.

FYP.

But what if all the teams except Duke cancel their seasons next year when it's clear Duke will run the table to make it even for '09 and '10?

So the University wrongly cancels a sports season over a rape allegation that turns out to be fraudulent and the (not-guilty) kids should bear the loss? I fail to see how the kids were "still at fault". Unless you think college parties are by definition bad (and if so I'm sure we can suspend the vast majority of big time college athletes, including Cornell hockey players).

The only thing that bothers me about this is that the University doesn't suffer for their over-reaction. Maybe offer the affected players an additional year of eligibility onlyif they play for a different school.

You can argue that the NCAA is too harsh in most cases. But not here.

They played 8 games, Keith. That is more than half a season. They deny medical redshirts to players who have played less than a quarter of a team's games. They aren't restoring a season, they are giving the players a new shot at a championship.

If it were Harvard instead of Duke, and there was no realistic chance of a postseason appearance, would the petition have even made sense?

ugarte
They played 8 games, Keith. That is more than half a season. They deny medical redshirts to players who have played less than a quarter of a team's games. They aren't restoring a season, they are giving the players a new shot at a championship.

Furthermore, think of all the records that could be tainted by this. Danowski could break all sorts of scoring records because he'll likely get to play 80+ (13, 20, 8, 19, ?) games in his career. I'm not sure that's ever happened before. Greer stands to play even more total games. This is sounding way too much like the screwed up selection criteria... sheesh.

So if Duek had cancelled their season earlier you would've been fine this solution? The Duke players got screwed by their administration in 2006. It's not unreasonable to want to make it up to them. Given the tools available regarding eligibility it's hard to come up with any other solution. Like I said, they could allow the players to have an extra year of eligibility only at another school. Or maybe allow them half a year of eligibilty (second half, since that's what they lost)?

As for career scoring records, who cares? Everyone would know the circumstances and put in the mental asterisk.

Fucking absurd. Can this please be the end of the lovefest?

If everyone hadn't been in such a hurry to judge them in the first place, we wouldn't have to be dealing with this now.

Josh '99
If everyone hadn't been in such a hurry to judge them in the first place, we wouldn't have to be dealing with this now.

That I can definitely agree with.

Over the weekend I was wondering what would have happened if the rape allegations had not been made but there were still reports of underage drinking and strippers in the university owned house as well as the use of racial slurs (alleged?). I think the whole "boys will be boys" defense on the drinking starts to wear thin in what was essentially a team activity. It wasn't a few players getting in trouble on their own time. Would the coach or the school have disciplined the players at all? Someone with a better memory that I have might compare this with UVM canceling their season. I guess there are laws against hazing. . .

KeithK
So if Duke had cancelled their season earlier you would've been fine this solution?

No, I think this is a bad reason regardless. The fact that it was so deep into the season - in light of NCAA precedent - is an additional reason the decision was bad, not an exclusive one.

The Duke players got screwed by their administration in 2006. It's not unreasonable to want to make it up to them.

Does every player that gets suspended by his school during a pending felony investigation get that year back? (No matter how late in the season it happened?) Because I'm sure there are a lot of coaches preparing to ask for some time back.

nyc94
Over the weekend I was wondering what would have happened if the rape allegations had not been made but there were still reports of underage drinking and strippers in the university owned house as well as the use of racial slurs (alleged?). I think the whole "boys will be boys" defense on the drinking starts to wear thin in what was essentially a team activity. It wasn't a few players getting in trouble on their own time. Would the coach or the school have disciplined the players at all? Someone with a better memory that I have might compare this with UVM canceling their season. I guess there are laws against hazing. . .

I doubt the school would have cancelled the team's season without the rape allegations. Maybe the underage drinking would have resulted in suspensions - depends on how the coaches and the athletic Dept. typically discipline players. Had numerous suspensions been issued I suspect they would have been staggered over a number of games (I've seen this happen in hockey).

As for strippers, I don't see how they are relevant unless the team or school had an explicit policy against them. Hiring strippers is legal after all.

Yes, hazing is different. It's a crime (in many places at least) and is considered (rightly or wrongly) more serious than underage drinking.

There were plenty of freshmen and sophomores who would have very little playing time in '06 had the season continued. Now Duke potential gains an extra full season from them when they are more developed.
If other schools had freshmen or sophomores who barely played in '06 (say appeared in 8 games or less for whatever reason), why shouldn't they get extra eligibility.

Also
from the New York Times
[Q]It’s uncertain how many of Duke’s seniors, who graduated this month, will return. They could also play if they pursued graduate studies at Duke or elsewhere. [/Q]
Cornell Law School paging Matt Danowski.

ugarte
Does every player that gets suspended by his school during a pending felony investigation get that year back? (No matter how late in the season it happened?) Because I'm sure there are a lot of coaches preparing to ask for some time back.

If a player gets suspended as a result of pending felony allegations and then is later cleared of the charges he should be allowed to petition to get the year of eligibility back.\

Now there need to be rules surrounding how this is applied. If the suspension occurs right before the national championship game it's probably not reasonable to grant an entire extra year of eligibility. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn though (and I like the partial season eligibility idea I floated in an earlier post).

I realize that there are some substantial reasons to be unhappy with this decision. But it seems to me that there's a lot of sour grapes at play here - the team that got seeded ahead of us and then beat us by one goal gets to keep some great players longer. And that's a lot of the reason why I am arguing this so strongly.

KeithK
Now there need to be rules surrounding how this is applied. If the suspension occurs right before the national championship game it's probably not reasonable to grant an entire extra year of eligibility. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn though (and I like the partial season eligibility idea I floated in an earlier post).

There *are* rules about how extra seasons of eligibility are applied. Its called redshirting and its handled by 25%. This was unfortunate for the guys, but I can't say its any more unfortunate than someone who sustains a season-ending injury 4 games into a 15 game season. And the NCAA's answer to them all along was too bad. The only difference here is publicity.

Furthermore, as mentioned, one of the stupidest things is that eligibility was extended for dozens of people who never in their lives would have played a second of time that year. Now I know there's no right way to pick that for sure, but there are some ways that come close. Maybe only seniors. Or maybe only people who had played in more than X games, or Y minutes, so far that season.


On a side note, its an interesting question what this does for Duke and scholarships. If players decide to stay they'd have to rescind the scholarships for incoming players. It could mean a lean year or two of recruiting. Unless of course the NCAA decides to give them 25% more scholarships than every other team for the next 3 years. Cause why not benefit Duke even further for jumping to conclusions.

KeithK
I realize that there are some substantial reasons to be unhappy with this decision. But it seems to me that there's a lot of sour grapes at play here - the team that got seeded ahead of us and then beat us by one goal gets to keep some great players longer. And that's a lot of the reason why I am arguing this so strongly.

Oh, and, I'm sorry Keith, but this bothers me. It has nothing to do with Duke beating us. It has nothing to do with Duke being seeded ahead of us (besides, I had problems with JHU and UVa being above us, but not Duke). It even has nothing to do with me growing up a UConn bball fan and hating Duke from that perspective. I am fully sure that I can put all that aside.

This is just a stupid decision, breaking precedent, to reward players who put themselves in a stupid situation and an institution who gets a bonus for bending over to public pressure. It would be a stupid decision if it were Cornell (although Ivy rules would make it nearly irrelevant) and its a stupid decision now.

DeltaOne81
Oh, and, I'm sorry Keith, but this bothers me. It has nothing to do with Duke beating us. It has nothing to do with Duke being seeded ahead of us (besides, I had problems with JHU and UVa being above us, but not Duke). It even has nothing to do with me growing up a UConn bball fan and hating Duke from that perspective. I am fully sure that I can put all that aside.

This is just a stupid decision, breaking precedent, to reward players who put themselves in a stupid situation and an institution who gets a bonus for bending over to public pressure. It would be a stupid decision if it were Cornell (although Ivy rules would make it nearly irrelevant) and its a stupid decision now.

Well said, Fred. I feel exactly the same.

And it will be interesting to see how the scholarship issue that you raised plays out. Personally, I hope none of them come to Cornell. I suspect they're priced out of our league, anyway.

What about the players at other D1 programs, particularly those in the ACC, who now have to compete against fifth-year seniors for the next three years? How do you think this decision affects their chances of ever playing for a championship? How is this decision fair to them? All the NCAA has managed to do is to make a much larger group of players pay the price for what the Duke players and administration did last year. Despite what happened to them, the Duke players still had the good fortune to play for two championships in three years. That seems about as fair as it gets, and fairer than they deserve.

As far as your sour grapes argument goes, I think you are way off base. The overwhelming sentiment on this forum and among the Cornell supporters on Laxpower was that we could have won, not that we should have. Duke made the plays in the last 19 seconds and deserved to win the game. We were unhappy with our seeding, not because we did not get the top seed, but because the two teams that had the best regular seasons should have been seeded to play in the finals.

I sort of understand the media (during the NCAA tournament, for instance) doing the pro-Duke thing to make up for all the negativity last year that they helped stirred up... maybe. But the NCAA, iirc, did not over-react to anything... didn't pressure Duke to cancel its season, or anything. So for the NCAA to take corrective action is a bit odd.

Anyone know what happens to players that transfer because their program folded up? Do they still have to sit out a year and lose that year of eligibility? what happened to the Findlay and Fairfield kids when they killed D-1 hockey?

It will be interesting to see the effects of this precedent, not only in lacrosse, but all NCAA sports... even the 25% injury rule could be called into question... and the first time the NCAA makes a different ruling (say someone gets injured 8 games into the lacrosse season), and someone's feeling litigious, it would not surprise me at all to see this in the court system someday.

redGrinch
Anyone know what happens to players that transfer because their program folded up? Do they still have to sit out a year and lose that year of eligibility? what happened to the Findlay and Fairfield kids when they killed D-1 hockey?

The rule about sitting out a year is waived if the school discontinues the sport. E.g., Darren Tymchyshyn played two years with UIC and then two years with us.

I'm pretty sure you don't, however, get to re-play the season if the program folds mid-year. (E.g., Villanova forfeited the end of its last season back in the 90s and I don't think anyone got an extra year of eligibility out of that.)

DeltaOne81
That's fucking ridiculous.

By NCAA standards, merely ridiculous.

KeithK
So if Duek had cancelled their season earlier you would've been fine this solution?

I for one would be. It would be a consistent extension of existing policy. As it is, I think the next athlete denied a medical redshirt for having played too many games should sue the NCAA.

The decision was announced by NCAA President Myles Brand. He was approached by reporters over the weekend but declined comment. "Unfortunately, I've got some Memorial Day errands to run," said Brand. "I need to pick up charcoal, and then I have to get over to Blockbuster and drop off this copy of Groundhog Day. Now if you'll excuse me ... "

KeithK

nyc94
Over the weekend I was wondering what would have happened if the rape allegations had not been made but there were still reports of underage drinking and strippers in the university owned house as well as the use of racial slurs (alleged?). I think the whole "boys will be boys" defense on the drinking starts to wear thin in what was essentially a team activity. It wasn't a few players getting in trouble on their own time. Would the coach or the school have disciplined the players at all? Someone with a better memory that I have might compare this with UVM canceling their season. I guess there are laws against hazing. . .

I doubt the school would have cancelled the team's season without the rape allegations. Maybe the underage drinking would have resulted in suspensions - depends on how the coaches and the athletic Dept. typically discipline players. Had numerous suspensions been issued I suspect they would have been staggered over a number of games (I've seen this happen in hockey).

As for strippers, I don't see how they are relevant unless the team or school had an explicit policy against them. Hiring strippers is legal after all.

Yes, hazing is different. It's a crime (in many places at least) and is considered (rightly or wrongly) more serious than underage drinking.

The team forfeited two games solely due to the party itself and not the rape allegations. From a news report last year: [www.goduke.com]

“This past weekend, Duke University’s Director of Athletics Joe Alleva decided to forfeit last Saturday's and today's scheduled men’s lacrosse games. His decision, which I fully supported, was based on facts team members have acknowledged about their March 13 party. A majority of the team members attended the party, which included underage drinking and the hiring of private party dancers. This conduct was wholly inappropriate to the values of our athletics program and the university. Forfeiting two games was a substantial penalty for a team that hoped to compete for the national championship. Director Alleva made clear that this move was not a punishment for pending allegations that team members deny and that remain unresolved."

jhib
“This past weekend, Duke University’s Director of Athletics Joe Alleva decided to forfeit last Saturday's and today's scheduled men’s lacrosse games. His decision, which I fully supported, was based on facts team members have acknowledged about their March 13 party. A majority of the team members attended the party, which included underage drinking and the hiring of private party dancers. This conduct was wholly inappropriate to the values of our athletics program and the university."

"America's team."

Al DeFlorio

jhib
“This past weekend, Duke University’s Director of Athletics Joe Alleva decided to forfeit last Saturday's and today's scheduled men’s lacrosse games. His decision, which I fully supported, was based on facts team members have acknowledged about their March 13 party. A majority of the team members attended the party, which included underage drinking and the hiring of private party dancers. This conduct was wholly inappropriate to the values of our athletics program and the university."

"America's team."

Calling Dickie V...

jhib
“This past weekend, Duke University’s Director of Athletics Joe Alleva decided to forfeit last Saturday's and today's scheduled men’s lacrosse games. His decision, which I fully supported, was based on facts team members have acknowledged about their March 13 party. A majority of the team members attended the party, which included underage drinking and the hiring of private party dancers. This conduct was wholly inappropriate to the values of our athletics program and the university. Forfeiting two games was a substantial penalty for a team that hoped to compete for the national championship. Director Alleva made clear that this move was not a punishment for pending allegations that team members deny and that remain unresolved."

I think it is a drastic underestimation of Duke to think that they did not orignially suspend them hoping the rape allegations would go away. It was well documented and well known in the neighborhood that the lax players, especially in that house, were out of control far beyond normal college behavior. in a neighborhood largely populated by school-related people and bordering crack houses and seriously dangerous blocks, the lax players were known for being particularly bad. the school never suspended them before for the many violations, but only did so becuase they knew the rape allegations were coming.

2

jhib
“This past weekend, Duke University’s Director of Athletics Joe Alleva decided to forfeit last Saturday's and today's scheduled men’s lacrosse games. His decision, which I fully supported, was based on facts team members have acknowledged about their March 13 party. A majority of the team members attended the party, which included underage drinking and the hiring of private party dancers. This conduct was wholly inappropriate to the values of our athletics program and the university. Forfeiting two games was a substantial penalty for a team that hoped to compete for the national championship. Director Alleva made clear that this move was not a punishment for pending allegations that team members deny and that remain unresolved."

I think it is a drastic underestimation of Duke to think that they did not orignially suspend them hoping the rape allegations would go away. It was well documented and well known in the neighborhood that the lax players, especially in that house, were out of control far beyond normal college behavior. in a neighborhood largely populated by school-related people and bordering crack houses and seriously dangerous blocks, the lax players were known for being particularly bad. the school never suspended them before for the many violations, but only did so becuase they knew the rape allegations were coming.

Sure, but since that was the official reason given at the time, it's just one more reason to think it stinks that they get a whole new season.

And they wouldn't have fired the coach, either. (oh, sorry, he "retired"
Is he getting his job back now, too?

Not many of us agree with the NCAA's decision (not me). Whatever the NCAA does, the opposite makes sense just because of the kind of people they are. So here's why, as a practical matter, you could argue that the NCAA, if not doing the exactly right thing, normalized the situation:

-- Duke lacrosse did incur a lost season.
-- The sexual assault thing didn't happen.
-- The boys-out-of-control, hire-strippers, urinate-in-public, act-boorishly situation apparently did.
-- The season got cancelled for a combination of the two situations. Decide for yourself on the ratio. Maybe at the time it appeared to be 50 assault charges / 50 bad behavior.
-- Maybe it should happen, but almost nobody gets a season cancelled just for general bad behavior. Take away the assault charges and the season wouldn't have been cancelled. So the NCAA uncancelled the lost season by allowing one more year of eligibility for the 2007 seniors [edit add: also the 2007 sophomores and juniors].

If there's one person who's the bad guy in all this within Duke, it's the grown-up in charge who should have had more backbone, Duke's president, Richard Broadhead. The lynch mob chanting outside his window may have shaped his thinking in 2006. If Broadhead discovered cojones in 2007, come this spring when Duke wanted to apply for that postgraduate year in lacrosse, Broadhead should have said:

"A year ago, acting on the facts then available to me, I caused the lacrosse season to be cancelled. Since then, the most serious charges turned out to be untrue and were a distortion of the legal process. To the three wrongly accused players, I apologize. What remains, however, is a record of misconduct and behavior unsuitable for those who represent Duke on one of her most public of stages, the playing field. The players, the coaches, the athletics department, and ultimately I am responsible for too long tolerating this behavior. To underscore that point, I have denied the request of the athletics department to effectively reinstate the 2006 season by allowing 2007's graduating seniors to participate in a fifth year of Duke lacrosse. We intend to compete at the highest levels of college lacrosse and we will do it honorably."

billhoward
. So the NCAA uncancelled the lost season by allowing one more year of eligibility for the 2007 seniors.

Bill, the classes of '07, '08 and '09 ALL got an extra year. It's more than just an issue for next year.

Hey, so hypothetically, if a Duke sophomore had suffered a season-ending injury in the Cornell game last year, he would not have qualified for a medical redshirt. But would he get the extra year of eligibility after the season was cancelled?

Yes. All current sophomores, juniors, and seniors get an extra year.