I kind of agree. I would love to see him stay, but this is just wrong. I would be REALLY pissed if I were him.
Hope for Lucca
- Thread starter BryceC
- Start date
I kind of agree. I would love to see him stay, but this is just wrong. I would be REALLY pissed if I were him.
Really? I hope he sucks it up, comes back next year, tears the NCAA up so he becomes a national story, and constantly refers to how the media F'd him out of a year. Then in his final game where ISU wins the national championship, he walks off the court with both middle fingers in the air, and when he's later interviewed about it, he says:
"I'm Lucca Staiger, ze German steel machine. Zey call me ze steel machine because eet ez STEEL, steel in ze heart, steel in ze arms, and steel in ze head. Essen mine shyza, Myles Brand".
Yes, this is what I do at work all day.
If this is the case, I really hope ISU sues the NCAA. This wreaks of discrimination, and someone needs to make a stand. I can't imagine a court upholding a player as a professional that did not accept payment for participation.
I'm still trying to figure out the NCAA's true objective. If a player didn't accept money, it is obvious that they shouldn't be deemed professional, so what is behind this rule?
This is why I hope someone sues this organization.
Last edited:
If Lucca does not get his penalty reduced, I am going to email a request to get the text of the penalty that USC got for employing Reggie Bush. I'll conduct myself just like I do in everyday life. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that logical minds will prevail, up to and not beyond the point where I know for a fact that someone is getting screwed. Then I am going to get rude.
Why don't cops pull people over for going 26mph in a 25 zone, or issue more tickets for j-walking? It's illegal right? Answer:COMMON SENSE; something the NCAA COMPLETELY lacks...the sad thing is that this stupid rule will probably be changed after it gets enough complaints...but it will most likely be far to late for Lucca.
My thoughts exactly.... plus this is a one sided debate... NOBODY (outside of the NCAA committee (if even them)) is arguing that Lucca should not be allowed to play. The only reason argument on the other side is people who think... "rules are rules and they must be followed no matter how stupid they, and how poorly worded they are when they were clearly created for a different reason so we should apply them to cases they weren't intended for"
I think ISU and Lucca should sue... and if not that, I would look into getting other teams who support us (knowing that we'll support them in similar situations) and strike. If the NCAA is going to be allowed to create new rules and apply them retro-actively then it could happen to any team in the future.
This is one of the best posts on this site. Not just today. Not even this week. But ever.
One of the best ever.
Hilarious.
He played with a US high school last year - why does that not count as a year sitting out. Give him three years of eligibility and let him play now.
I brought up that Lucca played HS ball year last year awhile ago and it got lost in everyone's venting. I think this is a key point because the NCCA's "pro" rules only went into effect last year. The year Lucca was already in the US. So even if he violated the new pro rules he did so before those rules were even in existance. Right? Someone tell me if I'm wrong about this ...
Re: Hope for Lucca - from NCAA board today
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Recent media reports from the Des Moines Register and other outlets regarding the initial eligibility of Iowa State freshman Lucca Staiger are inaccurate.
In these press reports, it has been stated that Iowa State has filed an appeal with the NCAA regarding this student-athlete. This is not accurate. In fact, the NCAA did not receive the final and complete set of facts of the case from the school until Tuesday (November 6). The NCAA is now reviewing these facts and determining the student-athlete's amateur status. Thus, an appeal has not been filed.
The NCAA has a longstanding rule regarding what constitutes a professional team. A student-athlete cannot compete on a professional team without a potential impact to his or her athletic eligibility at the collegiate level. It is well known among our member colleges and universities that if one person on a team is paid for the athletic performance, the entire team is considered a professional team.
The NCAA will consider the individual circumstances of this case – as it does with all initial eligibility cases -- when considering if or how the student-athlete’s eligibility should be impacted.
Stacey Osburn
Associate Director for Public and Media Relations
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Recent media reports from the Des Moines Register and other outlets regarding the initial eligibility of Iowa State freshman Lucca Staiger are inaccurate.
In these press reports, it has been stated that Iowa State has filed an appeal with the NCAA regarding this student-athlete. This is not accurate. In fact, the NCAA did not receive the final and complete set of facts of the case from the school until Tuesday (November 6). The NCAA is now reviewing these facts and determining the student-athlete's amateur status. Thus, an appeal has not been filed.
The NCAA has a longstanding rule regarding what constitutes a professional team. A student-athlete cannot compete on a professional team without a potential impact to his or her athletic eligibility at the collegiate level. It is well known among our member colleges and universities that if one person on a team is paid for the athletic performance, the entire team is considered a professional team.
The NCAA will consider the individual circumstances of this case – as it does with all initial eligibility cases -- when considering if or how the student-athlete’s eligibility should be impacted.
Stacey Osburn
Associate Director for Public and Media Relations
Keith Murphy just gave some good face time to the story with Lucca, basically bashing the NCAA for being "hypocrites". Gave a plug for FreeLucca.com too.
The players playing in those camps are playing with professional players, but the team they are playing for at the camp is not proffession.
By the letter of the law, Lucca's team payed some of its players, so it is profession.
In contrast, when pros play in the Cap City or Prime Time league, the team they are playing for is not paying any player, so the TEAM is not a pro team and no one has violated.
I think it is a BS rule, but it appears to be much more consitant than most fans give it credit for.
I doubt if players involved with a camp, tryout, summer league, etc sign a formal contract that spells out their relationship with the organization. The existance of contracts appears to be a key factor in how the NCAA interprets this issue. It is my understanding that the guys getting paid signed contracts specifying so and the amateurs like Lucca signed some type of amateur agreement. If all agreements were the amateur variety, no problem. The mixed variety is a no-no per NCAA regulations.
These signed agreements to evaluate obviously do not exist in cases such as Reggie Bush where boosters provide benefits so complaints along that line are not relevant to this case.