Frustrating Coverage on Tuck's Status

[stamfordhusky]

It is frustrating to me that UConn has a number of writers who follow them closely and yet none of them have taken the time to understand the rules on medical hardship waivers. The rules generally are very clear and rarely is there any subjectivity involved. And yet all of the writers have posted very inaccurate info on whether or not she will get another year. For example Altavilla just said:

The normal threshold to qualify for a medical hardship is playing in fewer than 30 percent of a team’s regular-season games. Tuck still appears to qualify for a possible redshirt in that scenario. But a player also can not appear in any of the games after the midway point of the season, which for UConn would have been the 17th game since it has 31 regular-season games this season. Tuck’s last appearance was in the 16th game.
The NCAA will have final jurisdiction over the decision. It is possible they could view Tuck’s participation in three January games, or view a normal regular-season as 30 games, as reasons to deny the request.

For some bizarre reason, he seems to think the NCAA sits in a room and decides whether or not to throw out the very clear-cut rules in their bylaws and just make up something. This has NEVER happened in a "redshirt" situation. Why would participation in January matter since the rules clearly say that is irrelevant? Or why would the NCAA decide 30 games is the denominator in the formula when the rules clearly say it is 32? Bizarre logic - and it seems to indicate a total lack of understanding of the situation and a complete lack of any homework. Fuller has been no better and Rich Elliott only slightly better.

I appreciate their coverage when it comes to games - but they have totally dropped the ball on Morgan's situation.

 

[JS]

The rules generally are very clear and rarely is there any subjectivity involved. - - - For some bizarre reason, he seems to think the NCAA sits in a room and decides whether or not to throw out the very clear-cut rules in their bylaws and just make up something. This has NEVER happened in a "redshirt" situation. Why would participation in January matter since the rules clearly say that is irrelevant? Or why would the NCAA decide 30 games is the denominator in the formula when the rules clearly say it is 32?

Well, I can concoct a relevancy for January, though it's highly doubtful.

Yes, the half-season rule is clear, and it's based on regularly scheduled games plus one for the conference tournament. Nothing to do with the calendar.

But the medical hardship status isn't automatic. That's why you have to apply and let a NCAA committee decide. The rules say you "may" be granted a hardship waiver if you meet the stated criteria.

First, the application has to establish the facts as to how many games the player played in and when. Then it has to establish through medical evidence that the player could no longer play after her last game.

I suppose the committee could second-guess the medical evidence (though I don't think they play this in a hardnosed way, like a corporation investigating a claim for disability benefits, and I can't offhand name a case in which it's happened).

The theory for second guessing would be that her season didn't end this month due to an injury. She had surgery early on this season, came back and did very well in January, particularly in the second January game, a career-high in points scored.

Then, the theory would go, UConn, which can count, zeroed in on the second half of the season rule and decided it was time to call it a redshirt year and have some elective further surgery.

That's how the January games could be relevant.

Well, I told you it would be highly doubtful. But I'm offering it to John A. in case he wants to latch onto it. For a fee of course.

 

[tomcat]

Well, I don't know about any of the rules details -- I leave that to you -- but the concept that 17 is the midpoint of 31 is a complete and utter mystery to me. Either he didn't write a very clear sentence or he does not know elementary school math. One or the other, seems to me.

 

[reno tony]

Well, I can concoct a relevancy for January, though it's highly doubtful.

But the medical hardship status isn't automatic. That's why you have to apply and let a NCAA committee decide. The rules say you "may" be granted a hardship waiver if you meet the stated criteria.

First, the application has to establish the facts as to how many games the player played in and when. Then it has to establish through medical evidence that the player could no longer play after her last game.

I suppose the committee could second-guess the medical evidence (though I don't think they play this in a hardnosed way, like a corporation investigating a claim for disability benefits, and I can't offhand name a case in which it's happened).

The theory for second guessing would be that her season didn't end this month due to an injury. She had surgery early on this season, came back and did very well in January, particularly in the second January game, a career-high in points scored.

Then, the theory would go, UConn, which can count, zeroed in on the second half of the season rule and decided it was time to call it a redshirt year and have some elective further surgery.

That's how the January games could be relevant.

Well, I told you it would be highly doubtful. But I'm offering it to John A. in case he wants to latch onto it. For a fee of course.

Using those same games for relevancy would show that when she did play it caused swelling and pain so there is still some type of medical issue. Which would not make the surgery elective but necessary. Unless they determine there is some type of new injury. It will certainly be interesting to see what they determine and how they come up with their decision.

 

[UcMiami]

The other issue John was pointing out is that the typical season in WCBB is one game shorter than the Huskies season this year - the in season tournaments are usually only three games but this year it was four. So for a typical WCBB season the midpoint is 15 and the 16th game is part of the second half. The NCAA makes its own rules as they go - check out PSU and UNC situations as examples of totally arbitrary decisions being made - so you never can say definitively how they will approach something. Chances are they would grant Morgan another year, but ... I wouldn't bet my life savings on it however we may interpret their rules.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The other issue John was pointing out is that the typical season in WCBB is one game shorter than the Huskies season this year - the in season tournaments are usually only three games but this year it was four. So for a typical WCBB season the midpoint is 15 and the 16th game is part of the second half. The NCAA makes its own rules as they go - check out PSU and UNC situations as examples of totally arbitrary decisions being made - so you never can say definitively how they will approach something. Chances are they would grant Morgan another year, but ... I wouldn't bet my life savings on it however we may interpret their rules.

When it comes to hardship waivers, the NCAA does NOT make up its own rules when it comes to eligibility. They are very clear and objective. There is not one documented case in the past decade or more of them making an arbitrary decision when it comes to whether or not a player is eligible. The PSU and UNC situations are totally different than this situation.

What John pointed out was TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the situation. It doesn't matter at all what a typical season is. The only thing that matters is how long THIS season is. The rules could not be any clearer. There is no decision here at all - but sadly all of the writers who cover UConn haven't taken the time to do any homework.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Using those same games for relevancy would show that when she did play it caused swelling and pain so there is still some type of medical issue. Which would not make the surgery elective but necessary. Unless they determine there is some type of new injury. It will certainly be interesting to see what they determine and how they come up with their decision.

In Morgan's case, clearing the medical part is automatic. The NCAA would only second-guess something like a player not playing the final 10 weeks of a season due to a moderate ankle sprain - especially if it was a player who wasn't contributing anyway. And even then, if the doctor certified it as a situation where the player should sit out, approval for a redshirt would still be likely. This procedure is only to weed out the very occasional flagrant cheater.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Well, I don't know about any of the rules details -- I leave that to you -- but the concept that 17 is the midpoint of 31 is a complete and utter mystery to me. Either he didn't write a very clear sentence or he does not know elementary school math. One or the other, seems to me.

I think it's the latter. It also shows once again that he didn't bother to read the bylaws. They go through a very clear exaple of how to determine whether the middle game of a schedule with an odd number of games counts as first half or second half. Applying their guidance to a 31-game schedule (irrelevant anyway since UConn has 32 games), playing in the 16th game of a 31-game schedule would be considered the second half and prevent a player from getting a hardship waiver. Fortunately, playing the 16th game of a 32 game schedule - which is Morgan's case - is still the first half.

 

[Phil]

I think it is fair to cut the writers some slack, although of course, we expect them to earn their humongous salaries by doing the necessary research.


JS, who knows the rules very well, says "Yes, the half-season rule is clear, and it's based on regularly scheduled games plus one for the conference tournament."

But is it that clean?

If you read 14.2.4 (d) you will find:

the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than
three dates of competition or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the maximum permissible number
of dates of competition as set forth in Bylaw 17 plus one date for a conference championship (e.g., gymnastics:
13+1=14, wrestling: 16+1=17), regardless of whether the team participates in the conference championship,...​

Seems pretty clear you have to add one for the confernce torunament, however, paragraph (d) applies to individual sports, not team sports.

The paragraph applicable to team sports is paragraph (c), which I reproduce in its entirety for your reading pleasure:

(c) In team sports, the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than three contests or dates of competition (whichever is applicable to that sport) or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the institution’s scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in his or her sport. Only scheduled or completed competition against outside participants during the playing season that concludes with the NCAA championship, or, if so designated, during the official NCAA championship playing season in that sport (e.g., spring baseball, fall soccer), shall be countable under this limitation in calculating both the number of contests or dates of competition in which the student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition during that season in the sport. Dates of competition that are exempted (e.g., alumni contests, foreign team in the United States) from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition shall count toward the number of contests or dates in which the
student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in the season, except for scrimmages and exhibition contests that are specifically identified as such in the
sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations. Scrimmages and exhibition contests that are not exempted from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition may be excluded from the calculation only if they are identified as such in the sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations;
and (Revised: 1/10/92, 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 3/10/04, 5/11/05, 8/4/05, 4/26/07,
9/18/07, 4/24/08)​

I would love to find the plus one reference, so the denominator is 32, not 31, but I'm not seeing it. Can someone fnd it for me?

 

[Phil]

Here's another reason why it may not be obvious how to apply the rules:

Do you know how many games UConn has scheduled in their regular season?

Before you respond that the answer is obviously 31, may I invoke the very lovely Marissa (Tomei, not Moseley) who would respond, and I paraphrase, "It's a BS question"

Why? Because the NCAA doesn't have rules in term of number of games. OK, you may think I'm being picky, what does the NCAA call them? Well, they refer to contests. Fine you respond, so UConn has scheduled 31 contest.

No, they haven't. They have scheduled 27 contests and one Multiple-Team Event.

The rules apply the 30% to "contests or dates of competition(whichever is applicable to that sport)". I think it is clear, if one reads carefully, that dates of competition apply, [edit: not so clear] but I can forgive a writer who read the rules some time ago, and didn't recall exactly whether the 30% applies to contests or something else.

Frankly, I was worried that the Multi-Team event might be considered a single contest or evaluated as two contests (which seems consistent with the maximum of 29 or 27 plus a multi-team event. That doesn't appear to be the case, but it is hardly the case that the NCAA rules are a beacon of clarity.

 

[Phil]

Applying their guidance to a 31-game schedule (irrelevant anyway since UConn has 32 games),

What is the 32nd game?

 

[rvwsleep]

Evidently, not so cut and dried. Here's Geno's quote re: Tuck's medical hardship wavier via Nan's link.
"There is no rhyme or reason to [the decision-making process]," Auriemma said. "I have seen kids denied it [the waiver] that you would think would be automatic. So I don't know. Once you play, it is kind of out of your hands. If you never play, that is different, that is easy, but once you play and you play the number of games that Morgan has played, we will go through the process and see what happens."

 

[arch]

It is frustrating to me that UConn has a number of writers who follow them closely and yet none of them have taken the time to understand the rules on medical hardship waivers. The rules generally are very clear and rarely is there any subjectivity involved. And yet all of the writers have posted very inaccurate info on whether or not she will get another year. For example Altavilla just said:

The normal threshold to qualify for a medical hardship is playing in fewer than 30 percent of a team’s regular-season games. Tuck still appears to qualify for a possible redshirt in that scenario. But a player also can not appear in any of the games after the midway point of the season, which for UConn would have been the 17th game since it has 31 regular-season games this season. Tuck’s last appearance was in the 16th game.
The NCAA will have final jurisdiction over the decision. It is possible they could view Tuck’s participation in three January games, or view a normal regular-season as 30 games, as reasons to deny the request.

For some bizarre reason, he seems to think the NCAA sits in a room and decides whether or not to throw out the very clear-cut rules in their bylaws and just make up something. This has NEVER happened in a "redshirt" situation. Why would participation in January matter since the rules clearly say that is irrelevant? Or why would the NCAA decide 30 games is the denominator in the formula when the rules clearly say it is 32? Bizarre logic - and it seems to indicate a total lack of understanding of the situation and a complete lack of any homework. Fuller has been no better and Rich Elliott only slightly better.

I appreciate their coverage when it comes to games - but they have totally dropped the ball on Morgan's situation.

Is it frustrating to you that UConn has a coach who follows the team pretty closely who echoes the writers who frustrate you? Has the Hall of Fame coach dropped the ball.

 

[jsloanjr]

IMO, she is fine and I am sure Geno and his management staff have reviewed this situation from top to bottom..............Best wishes MT......We will all know soon enough......

 

[huskybill]

IMO, she is fine and I am sure Geno and his management staff have reviewed this situation from top to bottom....Best wishes MT.We will all know soon enough.

Actually they called me to get my opinion on the matter and I explained it gnominally enough for nobody to understand it.

 

[uconnfan68]

Is it frustrating to you that UConn has a coach who follows the team pretty closely who echoes the writers who frustrate you? Has the Hall of Fame coach dropped the ball.

I missed the smiley face... it's the NCAA... no one knows what they will do. <no smiley face here>

 

[JS]

I would love to find the plus one reference, so the denominator is 32, not 31, but I'm not seeing it. Can someone fnd it for me?

14.2.4.3.6.1
Denominator in Percent Computation.

14.2.4.3.6.1.1
Team Sports.
The denominator in the institution’s percent calculation shall be based on the institution’s number of scheduled or completed varsity contests or dates of competition [see Bylaw 14.2.4-(c)] as computed for playing and practice season purposes in Bylaw 17 for the applicable sport. [Note: Exempted events in Bylaw 17 are included in the percent calculation, except as provided in Bylaw 14.2.4-(c).] An institution participating in a single-elimination event may only count the actual contests in which the institution participates (as opposed to the number of contests scheduled in the event) in determining the number of scheduled or completed contests in the denominator.
(Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 2/11/98, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 6/21/01,
8/4/05, 4/24/08)

14.2.4.3.6.1.1.1
Conference Championships.
A conference championship shall be counted as one contest or date of competition in determining the institution’s scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in that sport, regardless of the number of days or games involved in the championship. However, for purposes of this regulation, the calculation
of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in a particular season does not include postseason competition conducted after the completion of the institution’s regular-season schedule and conference tournament.
(Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 8/4/05)​

 

[pap49cba]

This starting to remind me of trying to decipher an IRS 'instruction'.

 

[reno tony]

Is it frustrating to you that UConn has a coach who follows the team pretty closely who echoes the writers who frustrate you? Has the Hall of Fame coach dropped the ball.

Geno has never been a beacon of optimism.

 

[Phil]

14.2.4.3.6.1
Denominator in Percent Computation.

14.2.4.3.6.1.1
Team Sports.
The denominator in the institution’s percent calculation shall be based on the institution’s number of scheduled or completed varsity contests or dates of competition [see Bylaw 14.2.4-(c)] as computed for playing and practice season purposes in Bylaw 17 for the applicable sport. [Note: Exempted events in Bylaw 17 are included in the percent calculation, except as provided in Bylaw 14.2.4-(c).] An institution participating in a single-elimination event may only count the actual contests in which the institution participates (as opposed to the number of contests scheduled in the event) in determining the number of scheduled or completed contests in the denominator.
(Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 2/11/98, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 6/21/01,
8/4/05, 4/24/08)

14.2.4.3.6.1.1.1
Conference Championships.
A conference championship shall be counted as one contest or date of competition in determining the institution’s scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in that sport, regardless of the number of days or games involved in the championship. However, for purposes of this regulation, the calculation
of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in a particular season does not include postseason competition conducted after the completion of the institution’s regular-season schedule and conference tournament.
(Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 8/4/05)​

Thanks.

That helps a lot.

It seemed hard to believe that they'd treat individual and team sports differently, but the wording is different, so I was mildly concerned.

 

[reno tony]

​

(c) In team sports, the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than three contests or dates of competition (whichever is applicable to that sport) or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the institution’s scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in his or her sport. Only scheduled or completed competition against outside participants during the playing season that concludes with the NCAA championship, or, if so designated, during the official NCAA championship playing season in that sport (e.g., spring baseball, fall soccer), shall be countable under this limitation in calculating both the number of contests or dates of competition in which the student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition during that season in the sport. Dates of competition that are exempted (e.g., alumni contests, foreign team in the United States) from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition shall count toward the number of contests or dates in which the
student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in the season, except for scrimmages and exhibition contests that are specifically identified as such in the
sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations. Scrimmages and exhibition contests that are not exempted from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition may be excluded from the calculation only if they are identified as such in the sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations;
​

It seems like completed competition would include tournaments but I didn't read the later entry that states how completed is calculated. Never mind

 

[stamfordhusky]

Evidently, not so cut and dried. Here's Geno's quote re: Tuck's medical hardship wavier via Nan's link.
"There is no rhyme or reason to [the decision-making process]," Auriemma said. "I have seen kids denied it [the waiver] that you would think would be automatic. So I don't know. Once you play, it is kind of out of your hands. If you never play, that is different, that is easy, but once you play and you play the number of games that Morgan has played, we will go through the process and see what happens."

Actually it is very cut-and-dried. Apparently Geno just hasn't taken the time to read the rule since he's busy trying to coach the team.

 

[rvwsleep]

Actually it is very cut-and-dried. Apparently Geno just hasn't taken the time to read the rule since he's busy trying to coach the team.

So the head coach for more than 25 years didn't have a clue regarding a procedure that he must have been involved in on numerous occasions over those years. Interesting.
And apparently no one on his staff did their due diligence or, if they did, neglected to inform the head coach of their findings. I guess it's possible.

 

[RadyLady]

GAH!!!

just sayin'

 

[JS]

GAH!!!

just sayin'

Don't blame you. The only kinds of people who like to get down in these weeds are:

1) people whose jobs involve parsing regulations (see Pap comment);

2) coaches who are hands-on with the rules and may have worked them out in real cases; and

3) people who like getting down in the weeds, especially where it involves numbers.

All three types have participated in this thread.

I'm with Phil on his earlier comment that we ought to cut the writers some slack and am a little surprised at the persistent angry tone of some of these posts.

It's also occurred to me that writers suspecting more subjectivity than is there may have in the back of their minds the more subjective "justice will be served" waiver (as I think of it; I'm not looking it up right now) that's been granted from time to time in the past. Jamie Carey got it, I think. Imprecise thinking, I know, but generalists working under deadline can think imprecisely.