98lberEating2Lunches

"The Donut King" is good.

The best news is that there is still hope for Kyle, and Wisconsin's AD is still working with Nebraska's. Good attempt to clarify some things by Bader. Not so good that he didn't just ask Manning whether the form linked here was the NPO, what certifying item 1 means, and whether Manning thought Kyle's circumstances satisfied it. He even could've asked whether the NCAA is getting rid of the NPO form in 2023. Manning seemed to side-step the initial waiver request for an exemption, since the May 1 date was missed. He seemed ill-informed about all sports having defined portal entry windows at the end of a sport's championship to ensure no loss of eligibility. But maybe Manning isn't that familiar, because, as he stated, it's a responsibility of the AD compliance. That'd be understandable. Bader probably should interview an NCAA compliance expert, if he really wants to know the purpose of the May 1 deadline and processes available to athletes who miss there open portal deadline. Clearly the free-for-all Manning referenced was intended to be modestly reigned in.

Ok. You got me there. The 51k views of the Tweet was a great way mislead everybody.

My point was one has to actively follow or search for it, unless someone they follow reTweets it. So it isn't effective at reaching everybody and is of limited use in everybody finding it.

We don't know why. The actual content of that request or its rejection wasn't made public, to my knowledge. I believe his waiver request was based on not being informed about the May 1st deadline. But it could've also included arguments he was being replaced by Taylor Lamont. Waiver request are typically granted for things like need to transfer to be closer home to sick family. In other words an exigent circumstances that one couldn't anticipate before May 1.

Tweets only go to a Twitter account's followers. So it's a bit of hyperbole on your part to say he was trying to mislead everybody. More likely he was trying to explain his thinking to his constituency. If instead Bono made the statement publicly that Kyle didn't qualify for the NPO, would that increase or decrease Kyle's likelihood of becoming eligible this year? Or would it be irrelevant? If Bono didn't understand the NCAA guidelines then, and Wisconsin didn't know to inform its athletes of the May 1st deadline, would you expect a clear concise explanation from Bono? And doesn't his Tweet tend to reinforce Kyle's likely transfer waiver basis? Bono could be incompetent where the rules are concerned or Bono could be crazy like a fox by putting that out there for future NCAA consideration. But at this point we know the NPO is signed by the Wisconsin AD, so again it's really not about Bono now. It's about what the NPO asks Wisconsin to certify.

Who is doing this? I re-read Jason's post. Was I supposed to object to something in it? I agree with everything he wrote. If he quoted me or replied to something I wrote, then I'd appreciate a heads up. But I don't see where he did. The NCAA could've ruled the lack of Wisconsin informing its athletes of the May 1 deadline was a circumstance they hadn't considered, and perhaps used that rationale to make Kyle immediately eligible. It appears the NCAA chose not to.

Thanks for the reminder of that article. It does include NPO mentions without showing what it actually requests be certified. What did Jason Bryant add to what has transpired that explains the purpose and content of the NPO? I will go back and try to see.

Did not say anyone was conspiring. Didn't see any mention of NPO in that article. If you say so. I guess when I found the NPO form and pointed out corresponding NCAA guidance that was emblematic of something else. I said before I hope Kyle gets his eligibility. I just don't think he will for plenty of objective reasons already stated. I don't root for or against Wisconsin or Nebraska.

You appear to assume the worst intent based on available information and absent certain information. With the same information, I choose to assume no ill intent. I believe that's how we differ in our perspectives on this topic.

No. They already said they are no longer commenting on it. Probably details of a specific decision aren't something they broadcast. They already said they supported Kyle's immediate eligibility. How would saying more satiate the blood lust of the few? Not worth their time.

Funny how some people are so sensitive about a quote. I don't believe or think many, if any, who are the least bit informed, think a coach has "nothing to do with transfer eligibility" and that's why I excluded that part of your quote. Same for medical redshirt eligibility. They have to keep the records to support such claims.

Unfortunately, it appears the coach isn't in a position to provide information (read records qualifying for an NPO) to his AD to allow his AD to truthfully certify the NPO. I believe that's because none existed then and the timeline is important. Kyle was in good standing and wasn't prevented from competing or practicing before he entered the portal late (based on being uninformed). I don't believe the NCAA sees adding another wrestler at a weight as a qualifying event for an NPO. There is generally more than one wrestler at a weight in the room, and there are new recruits every year. That's just part of building a team. And the portal window dates, created in the interest of increased team stability, doesn't seem to be going away. Only the use of the NPO in the fashion that Kyle would want it used for him this semester seems to be going away. Kyle released information publicly that didn't help his case. Kyle might've benefited from having a better advocate and advice than he he appears to have had.

Agree 100%. But some seem to think stating one supports Kyle's immediate eligibility AND refusing to certify a form untruthfully are mutually exclusive positions. That cohort would seem to largely consist of Nebraska fanatics, Bono detractors, and haters of the NCAA as a large bureaucracy.

Maybe to probably. And maybe these kinds of student athlete decisions are typically not talked about publicly, so NCAA institutions typically are vague when they speak to them.

An unsigned version is linked above in this thread. It's a misnomer to call it a waiver. It's certifying facts that might allow for immediate eligibility at a new NCAA institution.

1) Incompetence. 2) They believe from how they understood what was said to them then, and it was true then only to be later clarified to have a later break-in date. 3) Too troll.

You mean Ben Askren ... the epitome of objective investigative reporting? Where's Pat Mineo's or @Husker_Du's deep dive?

Nah. They were clear they support Kyle. I believe they will do anything within the NCAA Bylaws as long as they can do so truthfully. Their support doesn't extend to falsifying a certification that the gave Kyle no participation opportunity. It's as simple as that.

Missing the portal transfer window IS what necessitated the "No Participation Waiver" ONLY AFTER the request for Transfer Portal waiver via exception failed.

Sort of. The normal Transfer Waiver exception, which does not include a "No Participation Opportunity" certification, was rejected by the NCAA. So something else would need to be done for Kyle to compete for Nebraska this year without a loss of eligibility. Wisconsin would have to certify that Kyle had "No Participation Opportunity" in accordance with NCAA bylaws for Kyle to compete. If Wisconsin felt comfortable doing so, in a manner that did not leave their program at risk of some sanction because they would be doing so truthfully and without contradiction to public information released by Kyle, then I believe they would have done so already. Wisconsin doesn't need to do anything.

Nah. The proposal is sitting on a desk. Just need Bono to sign it.

#.02 of NCAA bylaws are definitions. Bylaw 14 governs "Eligibility." The definitions of Bylaw 14 (in 14.02) include what constitutes "practice" and "competition" which combined equal "participation." I would suggest any version of the bylaws that contain "14.02.12" as "Grade-Point Average" are not current. For example a Google search may returns a version that has 14.02.7 Intercollegiate Competition 14.02.9 Participation in Intercollegiate Athletics (which points to 14.02.7).

There all listed on the Rokfin page here: https://rokfin.com/ppv/22/Collegiate-Duals-20

I understand its defined by the rules referenced on the NPO form for item 1. "no longer given an opportunity to participate (practice or compete per NCAA Bylaw 14.02.12)" Voluntary member NCAA institutions agreed to abide by the NCAA bylaws. That's just how large organizations function. They agree to the rules ahead of time.