Even more scholly discussion
Beofre I get started... a quick clarification of the issue regarding USAH's citation of the NCAA regs... they were citing 12.1.1(a) based on D-III manual, not the D-I. My D-I citation contains the same language, but is in a different location. More follow up on the scholarship debate... let's start with the following NCAA reg: 12.02.4 Professional Athletics Team Remember, this is not pay, this is reimbursement of expenses, so when going back to 12.1.1(a): An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport if the individual: ...we still find what appears to be an invalid justification for the "rule" (I put that in quotes because it's not actually in the USAH Rules and Regs, see earlier discussion for details). In any case, this is a much more elegant argument than what I have previously written. As there still concerns with it? Yes. USAH addresses "pay for athletic skill," whereas I'm arguing that "reimbursement based on athletic skill" is not addressed, and thus fair game. The argument might be made that reimbursement based on athletic skill equals pay. If that argument is validated by the NCAA, then (*gasp*) I'm flat out wrong. I'm not seeing anything up front from the NCAA that supports the argument, but will keep looking. |
Comments on "Even more scholly discussion"