Something to keep an eye on for Sarr

[UKnCincy_rivals]

Stuntman68 raised a good point yesterday about blanket waivers that got buried in the other Sarr thread. I wanted to highlight this as it’s worth keeping an eye on.

In the event that the SEC decides to deny a waiver for Sarr, there’s a chance that an upcoming NCAA action might supersede that denial as an unintended consequence and permit UK to play Sarr.

The NCAA recently approved a blanket waiver granting all fall sports athletes an extra year of eligibility because of COVID’s impact on this season. They’re now also debating whether they should do the same for athletes participating in winter sports, like basketball.

If the NCAA were to issue a blanket waiver that granted an extra year of eligibility to basketball players, then Sarr would no longer be subject to the SEC two year eligibility rule and would no longer need a waiver from the SEC. UK would be free to play him this season.

There is a Division I Council meeting in about three weeks where they could potentially make this decision. It’s worth keeping an eye on this in the event that the SEC hasn’t reached a decision on Sarr by then or has already denied the waiver.

 

[mcwildcats04]

Even if there's no blanket waiver from the NCAA, and the SEC denies, I saw a good question in the other thread regarding the possibility of playing Sarr in non-SEC games. So, if worst case scenario plays out, is there still a window to have Sarr for non-conference games and, ultimately, March Madness?

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

Even if there's no blanket waiver from the NCAA, and the SEC denies, I saw a good question in the other thread regarding the possibility of playing Sarr in non-SEC games. So, if worst case scenario plays out, is there still a window to have Sarr for non-conference games and, ultimately, March Madness?

No, UK wouldn’t be able to play him in non-conference games.

If UK did that, they’d be violating the conference rule. The SEC, if they wanted to, could then ban UK from the NCAA tournament (as well as potentially imposing a number of other penalties).

 

[MdWIldcat55]

As those of us on the right side of history in this small matter have been saying for several months, Sarr's playing is a done deal and has been all along.

The SEC hasn't ruled yet because the conference officials have been preoccupied with getting an unprecedented football season launched. That has included dealing with IN CONFERENCE transfers, a much different matter. Sankey's office probably didn't want to muddy the waters and confuse the two things in the public arena by ruling on Sarr at this time.

That the SEC would, in effect, overrule the NCAA - the organization it has given the authority to adjudicate matter like this -- on the eligibility of a player, especially given the totality of circumstances in this case from Sarr's coach being fired after he missed the original deadline to declare for the NBA to the impact of Covid-19 on all players, is beyond unlikely. To do that at the expense of the conference's prestige basketball program that keeps ESPN and CBS interested in TV rights, is even more unlikely.

All you ever had to do to figure this out, was watch Cal's actions. When he didn't pursue any 'Eloy Vargas' type back-up center plan, you knew that he knew this was in the bag.

 

[akaukswoosh]

As those of us on the right side of history in this small matter have been saying for several months, Sarr's playing is a done deal and has been all along.

THIS! Remember it used to be that "there's NO way that Emmert approves the waiver!!!"

 

[Rupp'sRunt]

I think you all are looking to much into a thing thats probably going to happen. He's going to be eligible.

 

[BlueBomb]

I'll just assume we get buggered by the SEC. No, I'm not British but I so seldom get to use that word.

 

[Catluv]

As those of us on the right side of history in this small matter have been saying for several months, Sarr's playing is a done deal and has been all along.

The SEC hasn't ruled yet because the conference officials have been preoccupied with getting an unprecedented football season launched. That has included dealing with IN CONFERENCE transfers, a much different matter. Sankey's office probably didn't want to muddy the waters and confuse the two things in the public arena by ruling on Sarr at this time.

That the SEC would, in effect, overrule the NCAA - the organization it has given the authority to adjudicate matter like this -- on the eligibility of a player, especially given the totality of circumstances in this case from Sarr's coach being fired after he missed the original deadline to declare for the NBA to the impact of Covid-19 on all players, is beyond unlikely. To do that at the expense of the conference's prestige basketball program that keeps ESPN and CBS interested in TV rights, is even more unlikely.

All you ever had to do to figure this out, was watch Cal's actions. When he didn't pursue any 'Eloy Vargas' type back-up center plan, you knew that he knew this was in the bag.

I really want Sarr to be eligible to play but the Sec has a rule that he is not allowed to play. If he gets a Covid year he would be good to go. Not sure all the members of the Sec want us to have a great year. Slime hog Pearl has already said he didn’t think Sarr should be able to play. Just hope the Covid ruling gives him a extra year whether he uses it not he would be good to go!

 

[BassProCat]

Sarr plays for UK this season. Cal knew what was up and did their homework before accepting Sarr.

He play.

 

[KyCat]

That the SEC would, in effect, overrule the NCAA - the organization it has given the authority to adjudicate matter like this -- on the eligibility of a player, especially given the totality of circumstances in this case from Sarr's coach being fired after he missed the original deadline to declare for the NBA to the impact of Covid-19 on all players, is beyond unlikely.

I would not call it an overrule. Different entities have different rules. For instance, the Federal law might say it is okay to drive 70 MPH on highways but an individual state can be more restrictive and say but the speed limit here is 65. However that state could not say the speed limit here is 75 as that exceeds what the agency with the greater authority says. Remember, schools are voluntarily in conferences that have rules by which they agree to abide. It isn't like the SEC created this rule as a result of the NCAA approving Sarr, it was already in place. In fact, the NCAA waived its own rule to allow Sarr to be eligible.

But @UKnCincy brings a great point to the discussion. If this is determined by the NCAA to be a free year of eligibility, then Sarr suddenly has two years of eligibility remaining and the SEC rule no longer would apply.

For those who want to say that Sarr was going to be eligible all along, that very well can be the truth. But this is a discussion board where issues are discussed, opinions given, hypotheses made about the possible outcomes based on our varying level of knowledge, understanding, precedent and who knows what else when it comes to the outcomes. I think all of us here want Sarr to play but as of yet we are not aware if there is an official final decision on that so thus, we speculate. So there is no being on the right sight of the issue all along as a previous poster said there is only what we know in the moment and speculate on. What the ultimate decision is on his eligibility is irrelevant to the fact that this is a discussion point about all the possibilities around what the outcome could be and what is or is not considered in the making of that decision.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

Sarr plays for UK this season. Cal knew what was up and did their homework before accepting Sarr.

He play.

He playeth

 

[BlueWorldOrder74]

My colleague is a fairly big Wake booster. He said he talked to his friend who is close to someone on Wake staff and he knows our guy is good to go. Is this true? I don’t know, but I liked hearing it. Maybe he knows nothing, but he did hear this like three weeks ago. I say he’s good.

 

[Kybluedude]

Sarr plays for UK this season. Cal knew what was up and did their homework before accepting Sarr.

He play.
Refresh my memory. Didn’t someone say Sarr’s eligibility case is now in the hands of an administrator at Ole Miss?

 

[Blueaz]

THIS! Remember it used to be that "there's NO way that Emmert approves the waiver!!!"

I would say that is a tad bit hyperbole... (and only couple of posters, that may have said it that way)
A good portion would not have be shocked/surprised if he was denied. self-included

 

[KyCat]

By that logic, nothing would change whatever the NCAA did, including granting a 'free year of eligibility.' In theory, at least, the SEC could still say, "we have our own rule" and deny Sarr's waiver. So, the whole premise is specious.

How can you say the whole premise is specious? The SEC already has its own rule in place. And that rules states if a player transfers into the conference and has only one year of eligibility remaining, the player must set out for a year. If the NCAA grants all current players an extra year of eligibility, then the SEC rule already in place simply does not apply to Sarr. This means Sarr no longer needs a waiver from the SEC.

I'll go back to my point, which doesn't change despite the legalistic acknowledgement that different entities have different rules: The whole point of various conferences combining under the umbrella of the NCAA is to be governed by a body that makes decisions like who is eligible to play.

For the NCAA to do its due diligence on Sarr, grant him a waiver, and then for the SEC to impose its own decision that would have the effect of overturning that decision would be a gross interference in the role of the NCAA.

But your premise is flawed. It assumes that all conferences abide only by rules that the NCAA enacts and that simply is not the case. All conferences have their own rules in place which is why you see this year the PAC-12 not playing football until Spring Semester 2021 and other major conferences starting at different times. If the NCAA set all rules for the conferences then that would not be allowed.

The NCAA makes rules as a governing body that sets the minimum standards a player must meet to be eligible to compete in events they sanction. However, individual conferences and even schools regularly set more restrictive eligibility standards that a player must meet to compete for that school or in that particular conference. It is not over turning the rule of the NCAA. Sarr remains eligible under the NCAA. However, (as we discuss here) Sarr chose to participate in the NCAA by attending Kentucky which is a member of the SEC. Presently, he apparently does not meet SEC eligibility requirements.

The SEC cannot over turn the NCAA. Overturning the NCAA would be the NCAA saying he was not eligible and the SEC allowing him to play regardless. But the SEC nor any conference can override the NCAA and allow a player that does not meet their minimum requirements to play.

 

[UK-Chulo]

I would say that is a tad bit hyperbole... (and only couple of posters, that may have said it that way)
A good portion would not have be shocked/surprised if he was denied. self-included

How dare you bring reasonableness into this thread! We speak in absolutes here. Either you pumped sunshine or were a hater.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

My fear here, is that we as fans are far more willing to go to drastic measures than the school will be. Sure, I think ideas like not playing SEC games or punching Sankey/Emmert in the face are great.. I'm all for it. But if the SEC doesn't pass this waiver, do we really think UK is going to make such a big change to how things are done? realistically, I just can't see pulling out of SEC play, refusing to sit Sarr, etc.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

You miss the point. The guy I was responding to said the SEC has its own rules that they can use to superscede the NCAA. Sure. If the SEC wants to, it can theoretically always impose its own findings, whatever the NCAA says. There's always a way for a lawyer to interpret things another way. But it doesn't make any sense for them to do that in a matter like a ruling on eligibility.

Here's the larger, very simple point: For months we heard how the NCAA's rules were going to make it extremely unlikely for Sarr to get a waiver. Many of us found that logic facile and flawed. Guess what? We were right. Now some of the same people are strongly insinuating this SEC rule is a serious impediment to Sarr playing at Kentucky. Wrong again. As will eventually be obvious.

One issue I see here with the later portion of this post is that your understanding of what was said on this board is flawed and inaccurate (I’m assuming this is a veiled reference towards me).

If my assumption is true, I have not continually weighed in on the likelihood of Sarr’s waiver. To the contrary, I’ve been explicit and unequivocal in stating that I did not know how things would play out and would not make a prediction. That’s been consistently stated since May.

What I actually pointed out along the way were aspects of Sarr’s situation that would need to be addressed in his waiver request, and how this requires more work than what’s required for the majority of waivers. Even with what we know today, that assessment remains accurate.

Further, there’s nothing in this thread that “strongly insinuates” the SEC rule will be a “serious impediment“. Nothing whatsoever. That’s an erroneous inference on your part. What this thread represents is a discussion of contingencies for people who like to engage in those types of discussions. If your view is that this signals the SEC rule is a serious problem, then it’s because you’re reading something into the discussion that simply isn’t there.

That said, TheThack is correct on his characterization of NCAA vs SEC rules. The NCAA lays out minimum standards but conferences and free to enact stricter standards if they see fit, such as when the SEC banned graduate transfers in 2011 (post Jeremiah Masoli).

Even at the NCAA level, the rules are not uniform. Within Division I, the autonomy conferences are free to adopt totally different bylaws compared to the rest of Division I. There are numerous places in the Division I manual where you have two different versions of a bylaw, one for autonomy conference schools and one for the rest of DI.

 

[KyCat]

You miss the point. The guy I was responding to said the SEC has its own rules that they can use to superscede the NCAA. Sure. If the SEC wants to, it can theoretically always impose its own findings, whatever the NCAA says. There's always a way for a lawyer to interpret things another way. But it doesn't make any sense for them to do that in a matter like a ruling on eligibility.

Here's the larger, very simple point: For months we heard how the NCAA's rules were going to make it extremely unlikely for Sarr to get a waiver. Many of us found that logic facile and flawed. Guess what? We were right. Now some of the same people are strongly insinuating this SEC rule is a serious impediment to Sarr playing at Kentucky. Wrong again. As will eventually be obvious.

I think you misread what the person said. @UKnCincy did not say that the SEC has its own rules that they can use to supercede the NCAA. He actually said the opposite. Here is his quote:

In the event that the SEC decides to deny a waiver for Sarr, there’s a chance that an upcoming NCAA action might supersede that denial as an unintended consequence and permit UK to play Sarr. ​

Further, there is nothing about the SEC imposing its own findings. It is the SEC enforcing its own rule. The SEC rule is simply more restrictive regarding a players eligibility to participate for a member school than is the eligibility rule of the NCAA. Every conference has its own rules and when they differ from the NCAA it is only enforceable if the rule is more restrictive, not less than the NCAA rule. For example, conferences cannot enforce a rule that allows a player to participate if the NCAA determines that player does not meet their eligiblity standards. The case with Sarr is that he meets NCAA eligibility after they granted his waiver but he does not meet the SEC eligibility standard at present.

For the record I do not think we heard for months that the NCAA rules would make it extremely unlikely for Sarr to get a waiver, I think we heard it would be a hard case to prove. And there is nothing flawed about that logic based on the NCAA's rules for allowing transfers to occur without the player sitting out a year. It is especially true given the statements Sarr gave as to why he was transferring. Even in this year where many of us assume that the NCAA is granting the waivers easily, Sarr raised the eyebrows on his unique case by his comments. So no, you were not right.

Additionally, no one said he would not be granted eligibility, they said it would be a hard. So unless you know that UK did not have to provide information in its request to get Sarr eligible to address the concerns over his individual circumstances then all you know is that the NCAA granted a waiver, not whether it was hard in his case. Maybe it was, maybe it was not. But just knowing the outcome does not prove the point one way or the other. Remember though, Sandy Bell has a reputation of being very very good at what she does. It makes sense that she went the extra mile (i.e., due diligence, hard work) and provided answers to concerns she knew would exist.

And with regard to the rule of the SEC being an impediment, it is. I suspect we will overcome that rule but that does not mean it is not an impediment. Unless there is a waiver to that rule or it ends up not applying because he is granted an extra year of eligibility, it is currently an impediment as it applies to Sarr. If it were not an impediment, why do you think the school released the fact that Sarr was granted a waiver by the NCAA but has not yet said he is eligible? An impediment does not mean it cannot or will not be overcame, just that the progress toward the end goal (eligibility) has been impeded (slowed).

 

[king of cali]

One issue I see here with the later portion of this post is that your understanding of what was said on this board is flawed and inaccurate (I’m assuming this is a veiled reference towards me).

If my assumption is true, I have not continually weighed in on the likelihood of Sarr’s waiver. To the contrary, I’ve been explicit and unequivocal in stating that I did not know how things would play out and would not make a prediction. That’s been consistently stated since May.

What I actually pointed out along the way were aspects of Sarr’s situation that would need to be addressed in his waiver request, and how this requires more work than what’s required for the majority of waivers. Even with what we know today, that assessment remains accurate.

Further, there’s nothing in this thread that strongly insinuates the SEC rule will be a significant impediment. Nothing whatsoever. That’s an erroneous inference on your part. What this thread represents is a discussion of contingencies for people who like to engage in those types of discussions. If your view is that this signals the SEC rule is a problem, then it’s because you’re reading something into that isn’t there.

That said, TheThack is correct on his characterization of NCAA vs SEC rules. The NCAA lays out minimum standards but conferences and free to enact stricter standards if they see fit, such as when the SEC banned graduate transfers in 2011 (post Jeremiah Masoli).

Even at the NCAA level, the rules are not uniform. Within Division I, the autonomy conferences are free to adopt totally different bylaws compared to the rest of Division I. There are numerous places in the Division I manual where you have two different versions of a bylaw, one for autonomy conference schools and one for the rest of DI.

No need to continue to explain yourself to people who are only gonna see what they wanna see IMO.

 

[KyCat]

No need to continue to explain yourself to people who are only gonna see what they wanna see IMO.

I get where you are coming from and it can be frustrating, especially to those perhaps like yourself who tire of reading the back and forth banter between posters. But as an educator, I like to have dialogue that gives the opportunity to explain and address misunderstandings.

I think in this case, many have misinterpreted, misrepresented and even misquoted what UKnCincy has consistently said. In the case above for example, MDwildcat55 misquoted or misrepresented what UKnCincy said relative to the NCAA rule superseding the SEC rule when he (or she) said it backwards. I do not think that was intentional, but it completely changed the context and meaning of Cincy's statement to actually be the opposite of what was posted.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

I get where you are coming from and it can be frustrating, especially to those perhaps like yourself who tire of reading the back and forth banter between posters. But as an educator, I like to have dialogue that gives the opportunity to explain and address misunderstandings.

I think in this case, many have misinterpreted, misrepresented and even misquoted what UKnCincy has consistently said. In the case above for example, MDwildcat55 misquoted or misrepresented what UKnCincy said relative to the NCAA rule superseding the SEC rule when he (or she) said it backwards. I do not think that was intentional, but it completely changed the context and meaning of Cincy's statement to actually be the opposite of what was posted.

Well if you are an educator anything you say must be believed.

 

[KyCat]

Well if you are an educator anything you say must be believed.

Then be a good poster and believe.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

One issue I see here with the later portion of this post is that your understanding of what was said on this board is flawed and inaccurate (I’m assuming this is a veiled reference towards me).

If my assumption is true, I have not continually weighed in on the likelihood of Sarr’s waiver. To the contrary, I’ve been explicit and unequivocal in stating that I did not know how things would play out and would not make a prediction. That’s been consistently stated since May.

What I actually pointed out along the way were aspects of Sarr’s situation that would need to be addressed in his waiver request, and how this requires more work than what’s required for the majority of waivers. Even with what we know today, that assessment remains accurate.

Further, there’s nothing in this thread that “strongly insinuates” the SEC rule will be a “serious impediment“. Nothing whatsoever. That’s an erroneous inference on your part. What this thread represents is a discussion of contingencies for people who like to engage in those types of discussions. If your view is that this signals the SEC rule is a serious problem, then it’s because you’re reading something into the discussion that simply isn’t there.

That said, TheThack is correct on his characterization of NCAA vs SEC rules. The NCAA lays out minimum standards but conferences and free to enact stricter standards if they see fit, such as when the SEC banned graduate transfers in 2011 (post Jeremiah Masoli).

Even at the NCAA level, the rules are not uniform. Within Division I, the autonomy conferences are free to adopt totally different bylaws compared to the rest of Division I. There are numerous places in the Division I manual where you have two different versions of a bylaw, one for autonomy conference schools and one for the rest of DI.

Just say you were wrong to make a big issue about how hard it was for Sarr to get a waiver from the NCAA. Looks like he had an approval early on in the process and all your histrionics were for naught. But your vast knowledge and experience as a lawyer with filing for waivers with the NCAA is interesting. You asked me once why I thought Sarr would receive a waiver and I said it was based on common sense which you evidently continued to ignore and that was when I remembered you were an attorney.

 

[weatherbird]

By that logic, nothing would change whatever the NCAA did, including granting a 'free year of eligibility.' In theory, at least, the SEC could still say, "we have our own rule" and deny Sarr's waiver. So, the whole premise is specious.

I'll go back to my point, which doesn't change despite the legalistic acknowledgement that different entities have different rules: The whole point of various conferences combining under the umbrella of the NCAA is to be governed by a body that makes decisions like who is eligible to play.

For the NCAA to do its due diligence on Sarr, grant him a waiver, and then for the SEC to impose its own decision that would have the effect of overturning that decision would be a gross interference in the role of the NCAA.

But you see, that is exactly what the rule was put in place to do. If you weren't going to have higher standards than the minimum set by the NCAA, then why even make a rule?? Besides, if you look at the language in the rule, it is specifically to stop things like the situation with Sarr from happening. It is a common rule that a transfer must sit a year from the NCAA. In order to not do that, you have to obtain a waiver. Obtaining that waiver is the only way this rule even comes into play. No waiver, and the rule is meaningless, cause you have to sit regardless. This rule is not a general transfer rule, it is specific to athletes transferring with only 1 year of eligibility remaining. If you have more, this rule doesn't apply.

So the rule by the SEC is specifically for athletes doing what Sarr is trying to do, transfer, obtain a waiver, play a year and leave. If you had no intention of applying a rule, then there would be no reason to make it. Not saying I agree with it or not, but Sarr is the athlete the rule was written for. So no use arguing over whether they would enforce the rule or not, the rule is clearly made for this exact situation.

If someone is going to argue that he will in fact play, the best argument for that would probably be that he meets the requirements of one of the exceptions listed. The rule will be applied to him, the question is whether they will view him as having met the requirements of one of the exceptions, of which, surely UK was awake enough to make sure of when they submitted his paperwork.

 

[KyCat]

Just say you were wrong to make a big issue about how hard it was for Sarr to get a waiver from the NCAA. Looks like he had an approval early on in the process and all your histrionics were for naught. But your vast knowledge and experience as a lawyer with filing for waivers with the NCAA is interesting. You asked me once why I thought Sarr would receive a waiver and I said it was based on common sense which you evidently continued to ignore and that was when I remembered you were an attorney.

Let's do a poll on how many people think the NCAA makes its rulings using common sense! That's a good one. I got a good smile out of that.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

Let's do a poll on how many people think the NCAA makes its rulings using common sense! That's a good one. I got a good smile out of that.

Looks like they got this one right. Sarr is the only one I was concerned with.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

All's well that ends well. And Sarr will be cleared to play, just as some of us have emphatically said since May.

You can attempt to rewrite history as you have now in multiple threads, but there is no doubt among people here who followed this that you consistently said the NCAA rules would make it very unlikely for Sarr to be cleared. You can cling to the legalistic fig leaf that you never outright said he wouldn't be cleared. But that was the unambiguous message in all of your posting back then, in which you claimed some greater understanding of the process than any of us. That may be, but your superior knowledge led you to the precisely wrong conclusion.

It certainly doesn't matter now that Sarr has cleared the NCAA hurdle. That's enough for me. No need to continue to re-litigate the past. But it can't be changed either.

My posts yesterday and today accurately reflect what I’ve said all along, but folks can easily search through my old posts to verify there’s no re-writing of history here.

The fact that there are lots of other posters, all of whom are complete strangers to me, who are also reiterating that I didn’t discuss the likelihood of a waiver backs that up.

If I were re-writing history, then there wouldn’t be so many posters saying the exact same thing that I’m saying now.

 

[UK-Chulo]

My posts yesterday and today accurately reflect what I’ve said all along, but folks can easily search through my old posts to verify those no re-writing of history here.

The fact that there are lots of other posters, all of whom are complete strangers to me, who are also reiterating that I didn’t discuss the likelihood of a waiver backs that up.

If I were re-writing history, then there wouldn’t be so many posters saying the exact same thing that I’m saying now.

You are dealing with folks who have bad memories and skewed views. Probably standing in front of mirror while they rehearse this stuff that's typed. "I was right all along. Everyone else was so wrong." Weirdos.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

Just say you were wrong to make a big issue about how hard it was for Sarr to get a waiver from the NCAA. Looks like he had an approval early on in the process and all your histrionics were for naught. But your vast knowledge and experience as a lawyer with filing for waivers with the NCAA is interesting. You asked me once why I thought Sarr would receive a waiver and I said it was based on common sense which you evidently continued to ignore and that was when I remembered you were an attorney.

Even assuming Vitale’s reported timing is accurate, the NCAA’s review of Sarr’s request took four times longer than the review time needed for the vast majority of approved waivers this summer.

That seems pretty consistent with what I’ve been discussing throughout the process.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

"What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass." 19th century British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne.

That seems to be the prevailing attitude here. Sure, the NCAA has cleared Sarr, just like some of us said from the first day. But those persistently citing arcane NCAA rules that they said made it very unlikely he would be cleared are still convinced they were somehow right all along.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

You are dealing with folks who have bad memories and skewed views. Probably standing in front of mirror while they rehearse this stuff that's typed. "I was right all along. Everyone else was so wrong." Weirdos.

Yeah, I’m not sure what is the underlying issue. That said, I do find it amusing watching them tilting at windmills.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

Even assuming Vitale’s reported timing is accurate, the NCAA’s review of Sarr’s request took four times longer than the review time needed for the vast majority of approved waivers this summer.

That seems pretty consistent with what I’ve been discussing throughout the process.

Not really. Your main discussions up and until you realized Sarr was going to get the waiver was how hard it was going to be for Saar to get approved by the NCAA.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

Not really. Your main discussions up and until you realized Sarr was going to get the waiver was how hard it was going to be for Saar to get approved by the NCAA.

Exactly. I said it would be hard. That statement speaks to the amount of time and effort required and has nothing to do with the expected outcome.

I know of two people who are finishing their basements, one is hiring a contractor and one is doing the work themselves. Absent an awful contractor, that process is going to be a lot harder and require a lot more work for the person doing it themselves.

And just because I state that it will be harder for that person, that does not also mean that I think they’re likely to fail. I can talk about difficulty of an action without getting into the likely outcome. The difficulty of something and it’s probability of success are two separate things and aren’t necessarily directly related.

 

[LowCountryCat]

One issue I see here with the later portion of this post is that your understanding of what was said on this board is flawed and inaccurate (I’m assuming this is a veiled reference towards me).

If my assumption is true, I have not continually weighed in on the likelihood of Sarr’s waiver. To the contrary, I’ve been explicit and unequivocal in stating that I did not know how things would play out and would not make a prediction. That’s been consistently stated since May.

Yeah, you went to great lengths to explain how hard it was to get Sarr cleared and why it was taking so long, and then we found out that he was cleared almost immediately and everything you said was completely null and void.

And now you jump on this bandwagon trying to act like you know all about the SEC's process too.

Unbelievable hubris.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

Yeah, you went to great lengths to explain how hard it was to get Sarr cleared and why it was taking so long, and then we found out that he was cleared almost immediately and everything you said was completely null and void.

And now you jump on this bandwagon trying to act like you know all about the SEC's process too.

Unbelievable hubris.

Actually the timing of this is still pretty consistent what I’ve described previously.

That aside, there’s a real simple solution for this. If you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, then I’d suggest you simply put me on ignore.

It’s never good to let other people’s comments get to you like this and simply ignoring my posts would take care of that right away. Something to think about.

 

[Bratkartoffeln]

Not clearing Sarr will mean they effectively take him out of school. He will leave for a professional contract if he is not eligible. That's possible I guess, but isn't it highly unlikely that the SEC would interdict his effort to stay in school? They need to put their money where their academic mouths are. Not sure why they even have that kind of rule which says transferring in your last year of eligibility means an automatic year sitting out. But then again, I know lots of stupid rules exist when it comes to complying with both NCAA and SEC governing bodies. Here's just one...if you are an event staff worker at UK, you are not allowed to participate in the ESPN March Madness bracketology game. Bet you all didn't know the importance of those guys in the parking lots being squeaky clean in terms of sports game participation.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Whenever they have everyone a free season of eligibility, they should've approved all transfers for immediate eligibility too. Anything less is mind numbing stupidity. Yet here we are

 

[crxohio]

Well who was it technically... That ruled kanter ineligible. If letter of law resides in sec authority. Why didnt we appeal to them.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

Well who was it technically... That ruled kanter ineligible. If letter of law resides in sec authority. Why didnt we appeal to them.

The NCAA has to rule on eligibility first. They were the ones that ruled Kanter ineligible.