The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...55162.html

Could this be similar to why Tristan hasn't been cleared?

Man, the disrespect for our veterans pisses me off. Don't they deserve the same freedom, they fought to allow all of us to have?

No. It is not disrespect that they are bound by the rules everyone else is bound by. Rules should be applied fairly to everyone. Just because someone is a marine doesn't mean they get favoritism.

And I don't think a waiver of established rules is a freedom that they fight for.

(08-18-2013 03:31 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  No. It is not disrespect that they are bound by the rules everyone else is bound by. Rules should be applied fairly to everyone. Just because someone is a marine doesn't mean they get favoritism.

And I don't think a waiver of established rules is a freedom that they fight for.

I wasn't speaking in terms of just football. If he wasn't playing organized football over seas, I think he should get to play. The 7 on 7 games shouldnt be allowed during the summer.

(08-18-2013 03:31 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  No. It is not disrespect that they are bound by the rules everyone else is bound by. Rules should be applied fairly to everyone. Just because someone is a marine doesn't mean they get favoritism.

And I don't think a waiver of established rules is a freedom that they fight for.

While I agree that rules should be applied equally across the board the interpretation of those rules should require a degree of common sense. These were essentially unit intramural games and are encouraged by base commanders to help build esprit de corps among the Marines. To think that he gained some other benefit is silly and that's the root of the rule.

I don't think anyone is asking for favoritism. But frankly given what these people do and where they have to do it they deserve it.

Then you have to decide what other groups "deserve" exclusion from the rules. You can't make case by case decisions. Maybe the rule needs to be changed, but it needs to be followed as it stands now.

(08-18-2013 04:22 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Then you have to decide what other groups "deserve" exclusion from the rules. You can't make case by case decisions. Maybe the rule needs to be changed, but it needs to be followed as it stands now.

I agree the rule needs to be followed but in context of what it's intended to prevent. I feel safe in saying there was no intent to exclude Marines playing base intramurals. It also points out the need for a through purging of the NCAA regs.

After reading this thread a couple of time and finally calming down, my opinion, it sucks that the NCAA counts unit moral sports the way they do but unfortunately those are the rules. It's not like he can't petition thee NCAA for a waiver or release to play. Besides if he wants to play bad enough, then 1 year won't kill him. You come to college to get an education not to play games, so get your education while you wait to play.

What does upset me is MTSU and the news trying to play the "patriotism" act. I feel for the guy, but prior service or not that is the rule. Think about it, MTSU didn't do this for his benefit alone. They did it because he can help them out as well. What ever happened to the prior service guy who served in the 48th Brigade who wanted to play for UAB. I don't see or hear any up roar over that soldier.

NCAA rules, like state and national laws, are supposed to be enforced with an ingredient that seems missing in this case - JUDGEMENT. (That's why trials are run by folks called JUDGES.)

The NCAA has taken a rule meant to limit professionals from playing in collegiate ranks, and applied it to a case where it has no bearing. The guy was paid to be a soldier, not a FB player. If former pro baseball players can play college FB, why can't a former soldier?

(08-18-2013 04:22 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Then you have to decide what other groups "deserve" exclusion from the rules. You can't make case by case decisions. Maybe the rule needs to be changed, but it needs to be followed as it stands now.

Really? The NCAA makes case by case decisions every year.

Is the definition of "organized play" written down anywhere in the rulebook? If not, then the NCAA has an easy out from the PR nightmare. If it is, then I agree with Memphis Blazer, although it is a stupid definition and should be changed.

(08-18-2013 03:31 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  No. It is not disrespect that they are bound by the rules everyone else is bound by. Rules should be applied fairly to everyone. Just because someone is a marine doesn't mean they get favoritism.

And I don't think a waiver of established rules is a freedom that they fight for.

in principal, i completely agree with this. rules should be very clear and enforced equally so that everybody knows exactly where they stand. however, i have two issues with that in this situation.

1)i believe that this particular rule is being enforced beyond its purpose in a manner that the original writers never planned or anticipated. i certainly dont think the ruling should be overturned because this guy was in the service. i think it should be overturned because i cant believe the rule was put in place to apply to this guy (or any other guy in any similar situation, regardless of whether or not he was in the military.

2)the ambiguity we'd like to prevent by applying the rules equally has been a hallmark of the NCAA. they have a history of applying the rules to the letter of the law aggressively and without compromise when it applies to smaller schools, but managing to find loopholes when it applies to one of the traditional powerhouse (i.e. rich schools). if this guy was trying to play at Oklahoma, he'd already be cleared. if Cam Newton had been playing at Buffalo, he never would have seen a college field again. to argue that they cant take each application on a case by case basis is to go directly against the precedent they've been following for many years

MB will be sad to know that he's been cleared to play

No, I said all along that it was a stupid application of the rule, but it was the rule. And should be applied equally across the board. I am disheartened that the NCAA can easily fold under public pressure.

If anything, it shows how poorly UAB can apply public pressure, referring to the Todd OBrien deal.

(08-19-2013 08:42 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  No, I said all along that it was a stupid application of the rule, but it was the rule. And should be applied equally across the board. I am disheartened that the NCAA can easily fold under public pressure.

If anything, it shows how poorly UAB can apply public pressure, referring to the Todd OBrien deal.

in this case you had us senators and representatives contacting the head of the NCAA. I also think the NCAA thought that he was a member of one of the marine football teams where that was his main duty.

Somebody at the NCAA may be getting smarter; Or at least better at damage control.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/spor...SU-Marine/