Justin Fields granted immediate Waiver by NCAA

smack99

Senior
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
2,518
Stop it, Martell ran from competition just like you claim Fields did. If you don't believe me then revisit Martells tweets & interview after Fields decided to transfer to OSU.

But I do believe it'll be straight up bull$h!t if Martell's waiver request is denied.
Thanks for repeating what I just said.
 

mossmadness

"Couldn't" Care Less.
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
3,240
Fields sister has nothing to do with this. Fields was called an N-word and the NCAA isn't going to force someone call that to sit. Martell best chance to get a waiver is claiming that it was obvious that Fields was going to get a waiver which affected his chance to win the job compared to if the natural order of events took place.
Every player should be free to transfer and play right away.

But the idea that Fields had a legit transfer case because a student called him a bad word is just silly. UGA dismissed the player. Fields can’t claim some type of institutional racism here, just the opposite. A bad incident happened with a fellow student. UGA acted swiftly and correctly against that student.
 

mossmadness

"Couldn't" Care Less.
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
3,240
And anybody arguing that this Fields granting helps anybody, is being naive.

This is like when the lower courts fight it out over an area of law, and the rest of us want the Supreme Court to take the case to reach a decisive ruling for the country.
But instead the Court takes the coward’s way out and takes a case within that area of law just to say that they did, but whose facts are so far removed that it won’t impact anybody else and won’t decide the real issue plaguing the lower courts.

That’s what this NCAA waiver for Fields has done. It allows the NCAA to help Ohio State, while not doing anything that impacts the rest of the teams, because the NCAA can hide behind this racial name excuse to distinguish this from all other cases.
 

IndayArtHauz

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
5,889
And anybody arguing that this Fields granting helps anybody, is being naive.

This is like when the lower courts fight it out over an area of law, and the rest of us want the Supreme Court to take the case to reach a decisive ruling for the country.
But instead the Court takes the coward’s way out and takes a case within that area of law just to say that they did, but whose facts are so far removed that it won’t impact anybody else and won’t decide the real issue plaguing the lower courts.

That’s what this NCAA waiver for Fields has done. It allows the NCAA to help Ohio State, while not doing anything that impacts the rest of the teams, because the NCAA can hide behind this racial name excuse to distinguish this from all other cases.
Piggybacking onto this, it’s naive to presume the NCAA will utilize even the most basic judicial norms like “precedent”. There is nothing that I personally have seen out of them to suggest they view cases through a historical lense. This inherent variability is compounded by the fact that, unlike a judicial circuit or SCOTUS, the governing body on matters like eligibility rotates personnel with much greater frequency than a group of judges. Now, Tate and Fields’ cases will be decided in close proximity to one another, but even with that in mind I doubt the NCAA employs anything like a coherent strategy for review.

I’d bet Tate doesn’t get his waiver based solely on the fact that, in my experience, the most absurd outcome with this group tends to be the most likely.
 

duke4heisman

Senior
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
6,032
Piggybacking onto this, it’s naive to presume the NCAA will utilize even the most basic judicial norms like “precedent”. There is nothing that I personally have seen out of them to suggest they view cases through a historical lense. This inherent variability is compounded by the fact that, unlike a judicial circuit or SCOTUS, the governing body on matters like eligibility rotates personnel with much greater frequency than a group of judges. Now, Tate and Fields’ cases will be decided in close proximity to one another, but even with that in mind I doubt the NCAA employs anything like a coherent strategy for review.

I’d bet Tate doesn’t get his waiver based solely on the fact that, in my experience, the most absurd outcome with this group tends to be the most likely.
I would normally agree and I could be way off base but I believe Tate has ammo that has not been made public. I believe we haven't heard everything that went on at taint, only what was a controlled PR response to too much pressure to do nothing. Tate was inside the program for 2 years, I'd be willing to bet he has seen, heard and knows things that the NCAA and taint do not want public.
For this reason, I believe he gets the waiver. They will probably list another reason than coaching change like toxic or uncomfortable environment, etc without revealing details.
 

MainLineCane

No More Excuses
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,509
The merits of this case are irrelevant.

Martell has the same chance of being successful that any other Miami player would have being judged by the NCAA

Slim and NONE
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
3,059
I hope you’re right, but I’ve been down this road before.

You’re basically guaranteeing a waiver. We shall see.

Cut the pessimism. I'm not "guaranteeing a waiver". I am saying that the environment has changed.

And that's why all the "I've been down this road before" sentiments don't mean anything.

Even the time-frame has changed. Fields got an answer damn quickly, by "down this road before" standards.

I'm not guaranteeing anything. I am observing the changing times.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
12,855
Cut the pessimism. I'm not "guaranteeing a waiver". I am saying that the environment has changed.

And that's why all the "I've been down this road before" sentiments don't mean anything.

Even the time-frame has changed. Fields got an answer damn quickly, by "down this road before" standards.

I'm not guaranteeing anything. I am observing the changing times.
I’m not being pessimistic, I’m being realistic.

Until I see the NCAA actually changing its behavior towards us, I am thoroughly unconvinced. The only thing that counts here is what they are actually going to rule.

If they rule against us, then we will know nothing has changed.
 

BentSteelCane

Recruit
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
424
Hope for the best, but expect less. Just because Justins vagina got a waiver, doesn't mean the NCAA is going to stop using the U as their favorite whipping boy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
3,059
I’m not being pessimistic, I’m being realistic.

Until I see the NCAA actually changing its behavior towards us, I am thoroughly unconvinced. The only thing that counts here is what they are actually going to rule.

If they rule against us, then we will know nothing has changed.

It is pessimistic when people specify the rule changes, they specify the statistics, and then you throw up some blanket stuff about the 1980s and 1990s.

Again, this is not "behavior towards us". This is about the changing of the rules, and what the procedure is going to be "going forward".

Look at these threads. We have people "minimizing" what happened to Justin Fields just because they want Tate Martell to be eligible. This is silly.

Just relax. Last year, the waiver-grant percentage was very high, and that was pre-portal, that was pre-Urban-retirement, that was pre-racist-comments.

I can't guarantee anything. But from what I know about the rule changes, the percentages, the criteria, and various kinds of adversarial proceedings, I think that if a football player (and/or his attorney) do a decent job of filling out the paperwork, and then they don't freeze like a deer in the headlights when someone asks them to vocalize their reasons, they are going to have a very easy threshold to meet.

Let's stop using decades-old NCAA cases against "Miami-the-institution" to give us pessimistic feelings about "waiver-the-process".
 
Top