A question about Westbrook

[uconnfan68]

Why does that take months?

Banker's hours?

 

[hoopsfan22]

Why does that take months?

It's a massive bureaucracy.

 

[vtcwbuff]

It's a massive bureaucracy.

Not really. The NCAA has only 720 employees - unless you include the 1268 member schools, the 480,000 student athletes.

 

[JonathanXIV]

Why does that take months?

My vote is incompetence. With perhaps some apathy thrown in.

 

[CL82]

My vote is incompetence. With perhaps some apathy thrown in.

Probably but the cynic in me wants to add 'malfeasance' to that list.

 

[Huskee11]

Incompetence, apathy, malfeasance, no argument here on any of those observations.

Bureaucracies, large or small, love to protect their turf and reign supreme arrogantly over their domains.

They have a vested interest in secretive, vague, and/or mind numbingly complex rules and regulations. Lots of people with fingerprints on the file - leads to lack of individual accountability. Matters drag on forever but if a request is made from them to you, you darn well better get back pronto. All of that, of course, leads to entrenchment and job security.

The factual situation here is not that difficult to unpack.

 

[Alydar]

When an organization is enforcing existing rules it is a simple thing to process. But when they consider waiving their rules they want to cross every T and dot every I. There is a lot of butt covering and it wouldn't be unusual for higher ups to get involved anonymously.

 

[stamfordhusky]

My vote is incompetence. With perhaps some apathy thrown in.

There may be some of that. But the biggest issue is understaffing. With many thousands of recruiting violations to deal with, plus many requests for waivers, plus hundreds of prospective student athletes who haven't been able to submit the proper documentation to be eligible, there is a huge backlog in summer and fall.

 

[Longtime fan]

Westbrook's chances now looking less likely.

It does seem like this exhaustive process can only result in a negative decision. Otherwise, the NCAA will be subject to endless questions of, " what took you so long? " They have to claim the issues were unusually complex and difficult, and that they were forced to make a "precedent setting" decision without a precedent to draw upon. Their response will be six pages long and rife, I am sure, with inconsistencies.. I think we need to be prepared to not have Westbrook this season. It won't be all bad. She had knee surgery recently, and a year off can only solidify her return to 100% health.

 

[Golden Husky]

Here's a pretty good summary of the process. It's from a Wisconsin State Journal article about a UW player seeking a waiver.

The process

The organization doesn’t comment on specific cases, but NCAA officials answered questions from the State Journal about the transfer waiver process in general in an effort to clear up any confusion.

According to one official:

Once an institution submits a transfer waiver, typically a team of between 8-12 NCAA staff members initially discusses the case and reaches a consensus before rendering a decision. A rationale for the decision is given to the institution.

If the waiver is denied, an institution can appeal the decision to the NCAA Division I Committee for Legislative Relief. That group includes seven voting members made up of Division I athletic department, compliance and conference officials from around the country.

After reviewing the waiver documents electronically, the committee can discuss the case further before taking a vote. Majority rules, though the NCAA doesn’t provide information to the institution about how the vote played out.

Another twist: Members can recuse themselves from a case if there’s a perceived conflict of interest, so there’s a chance a vote could end in a 3-3 tie. In that case, the original ruling by the team of NCAA staff members is upheld.

According to the NCAA official, the CLR’s ruling is the final appellate opportunity for an institution. But there have been instances where cases can be reconsidered if some type of new information is presented that was not available at the time of the original submission of the waiver.

If that happens, the case goes back to the team of NCAA staff members. If the waiver is once again denied, the institution can appeal the decision to the CLR once again.

Badgers' Micah Potter appeals NCAA's eligibility ruling

An attorney representing Micah Potter says UW is filing a request for reconsideration of the NCAA's ruling that the Badgers junior forward must sit out the first semester this season.

madison.com

Well, thank you, Cat. That's helpful.

 

[pvdoggy]

Evina's latest post on her Instagram page says "Still on Standby"

 

[oldude]

Evina's latest post on her Instagram page says "Still on Standby"

Reading between the lines. Assuming the decision by Collins to redshirt means she already knows the NCAA’s decision. Evidently, the jury is still out on Evina. Maybe, just maybe, no news is good news.

 

[Vowelguy]

It does seem like this exhaustive process can only result in a negative decision.

No. Players have gotten approval the day before the season begins.

 

[CocoHusky]

Reading between the lines. Assuming the decision by Collins to redshirt means she already knows the NCAA’s decision. Evidently, the jury is still out on Evina. Maybe, just maybe, no news is good news.

Go back a few post. Collins DID NOT submit a waiver request. There was nothing for the NCAA to decide and no correlation to Evina's pending decision.

 

[oldude]

Go back a few post. Collins DID NOT submit a waiver request. There was nothing for the NCAA to decide and no correlation to Evina's pending decision.

So much for reading between the lines.....

 

[eebmg]

So much for reading between the lines.....

More like reading over the lines.

 

[vtcwbuff]

Go back a few post. Collins DID NOT submit a waiver request. There was nothing for the NCAA to decide and no correlation to Evina's pending decision.

Agree and I think "redshirt" is not the correct term. It looks to me that she has chosen to abide by the 1 year sit period following a transfer.

 

[UConnCat]

 

[Scrutiner]

How do you figure that the NCAA is "arbitrarily" holding up her career? She is receiving an athletic scholarship, and fully participating in practices which is all that the team is allowed to do right now.

It it delays her from going pro by a year it's holding up her career, isn't it?
Adding to the frustration has to be cases like Shepherd's at ND. No coaching change, yet almost immediate approval.

 

[UConnCat]

Why does that take months?

I suspect the reason it takes months is that in all but the most clear-cut cases the initial decision by the NCAA Staff will be to deny the waiver knowing it will be appealed. The NCAA Staff, like the staffs in all bureaucracies, will typically choose to leave closer, tougher decisions to the next level of decision-making. That makes sense. For example, the petitions by Louisville for the former Georgia Tech players were filed well after Westbrook's petition yet the decisions were made about a month after filing. Why? Those decisions were easy given the allegations at Tech and were probably made at the Staff level.

The tougher cases have to first go through the initial Staff review which takes at least a month and probably longer. Then, after the Staff says no waiver, an appeal is prepared and submitted to the Committee for Legislative Relief. As summarized above, this committee consists of "seven voting members made up of Division I athletic department, compliance and conference officials from around the country." In other words, the next round of review is by people who have other (day) jobs. Each of them has to find time to review the file of each appeal, discuss with other members and then vote. There are many appeals pending for both men's and women's sports. That's why it takes months.

 

[CocoHusky]

It it delays her from going pro by a year it's holding up her career, isn't it?
Adding to the frustration has to be cases like Shepherd's at ND. No coaching change, yet almost immediate approval.

Couple of major errors here.
1) The NCAA decision has no impact (delay ?) on Wesbrook going pro. Westbrook is going to be WNBA draft eligible April 2020 regardless if she plays this season or not.
2) The Shepard ND decision was not immediate. That decision came right before a (1st?) ND pre-season game.
3) Jessica Shepard left Nebraska where there was a coaching change to Amy Williams one full year before Jessica decided to transfer.

 

[Alydar]

I suspect the reason it takes months is that in all but the most clear-cut cases the initial decision by the NCAA Staff will be to deny the waiver. The NCAA Staff, like the staffs in all bureaucracies, will typically choose to leave closer, tougher decisions to the next level of decision-making. That makes sense. For example, the petitions by Louisville for the former Georgia Tech players were filed well after Westbrook's and other petitions yet the decisions were made about a month after filing. Why? Those decisions were easy given the allegations at Tech and were probably made at the Staff level.

The tougher cases have to first go through the initial Staff review which takes at least a month and probably longer. Then, after the Staff says no waiver, an appeal is prepared and submitted to the Committee for Legislative Relief. As summarized above, this committee consists of "seven voting members made up of Division I athletic department, compliance and conference officials from around the country." In other words, the next round of review is by people who have other jobs. Each of them has to find time to review the file of each appeal, discuss with other members and then vote. There are many appeals pending for both men's and women's sports. That's why it takes months.

Very good description except for it being the lower level employees choosing to move decisions to a higher level. In my experience it's the higher level that demands to be involved (but in stealth mode) and woe to any lower level employee who doesn't push any potentially newsworthy decision up a level. In my work situation that often led to dysfunction in the appeal process as those next higher employees are usually ruling in the appeal. It's tough to get a reversal when the person hearing it was (anonymously) involved in the original decision.
If Westbrook got even one threat from ticked off Vol fans the NCAA will have a tough time denying her waiver request. Zero tolerance would require it. And from my experience with Vol fans there were likely more than one.

 

[willtalk]

Being that there doesn't seem to be any set in stone standard and it take so long anyway, why not just have a wheel with all the options labeled and a team representative can just spin it and get the answer very quickly.

 

[BroadwayVa]

How do you figure that the NCAA is "arbitrarily" holding up her career? She is receiving an athletic scholarship, and fully participating in practices which is all that the team is allowed to do right now.

I respect your comment, always. Yet emotionally I'm in favor of doing anything to the NCAA to make waivers less of a rolly coaster. Until Westbrook is or is not qualified to play I shall assume she shall be.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Very good description except for it being the lower level employees choosing to move decisions to a higher level. In my experience it's the higher level that demands to be involved (but in stealth mode) and woe to any lower level employee who doesn't push any potentially newsworthy decision up a level. In my work situation that often led to dysfunction in the appeal process as those next higher employees are usually ruling in the appeal. It's tough to get a reversal when the person hearing it was (anonymously) involved in the original decision.
If Westbrook got even one threat from ticked off Vol fans the NCAA will have a tough time denying her waiver request. Zero tolerance would require it. And from my experience with Vol fans there were likely more than one.

The reasons given for the transfer to Uconn seemed like a pretty cut and dried --she had a work place atmosphere that was not conducive to doing her best. I.e. a hostile atmosphere.