Staiger and OU Football

**markshir** · 10-29-2007, 01:51 PM

Since Lucca already has incurred the maximum penalty for being declared a professional athlete can some rich ISU fan go back and pay him for those years he played in Germany and suggest to him to stay around Ames for a year? Just kidding... I think.

**Cyphor** · 10-29-2007, 02:33 PM

The real difference is that Iowa State doesn't line the NCAA's pockets. Let be real. Penalizing Oklahoma or USC ultimately costs the NCAA money. Penalizing ISU makes the NCAA look like vigilantes. It's a corrupt game. One of these days Miles Brand will get nailed with hookers and blow and everyone will see the truth.

**Cyphor** · 10-29-2007, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by markshir

Since Lucca already has incurred the maximum penalty for being declared a professional athlete can some rich ISU fan go back and pay him for those years he played in Germany and suggest to him to stay around Ames for a year? Just kidding... I think.

Ha! yeah let's buy him a car and a house ala Reggie Bush. The NCAA doesn't seem to notice that kind of stuff anyway.

**Clone9** · 10-29-2007, 02:43 PM

I agree with all of this, but furthermore, I have a little bit of a problem with penalizing a young man for what happened when he was 16 years old. I realize this was only like 2 years ago, but it seems like such a small infraction that it should be allowed to slide. This is in contrast to what happens all over the NCAA (OU, USC) where current student atheletes take benefits when they are in their programs and know very well the ruls of the game.

I think we realize that it is the rule itself that we have a problem with and not the judgement. Yes, comparing the OU situation to Lucca is somewhat apples to oranges, but Lucca is like one tiny little seed in an orange compared to the world-record all-time best apple ever.

**DaddyMac** · 10-29-2007, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by ISU4ME

The facts we know are:

#1. Stagier played on a team who had 2 players that were being paid.

#2. OU last year had 2 football players that were being paid illegally through a bogus job at a car dealership.

So why did the entire OU football team not get suspended last year for playing on a team of "professionals?"

You know, the rule itself isn't what bothers me so much. It's a little pointless to compare OU to Lucca's situation IMO, and here's why.

What really chaps my hide is the fact the NCAA is creating what appears to be a new rule and employing it retroactively. That's not right.

Had Lucca known about the rule, you have to wonder if he would've played on that team? Had they been deemed "professional" in 2005, would he have played with them?

It's kind of like creating a new rule that says "you can only have 3 players on your team over 6' 10"", then going back through the years and revoking wins for teams that don't meet up to that new rule.

I just don't see how you can create a rule and then enforce it against somebody who may have broken it - at a time when it wasn't yet a rule??????

**dbronco7sc** · 10-29-2007, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

What really chaps my hide is the fact the NCAA is creating what appears to be a new rule and employing it retroactively. That's not right.

This is why (if said statement is true) the NCAA will overturn the ruling. You cannot punish a person for a crime he committed while it wasn't a crime. If I remember from high school correctly... it's in the constitution. And yes... I realize that NCAA rules are not governmental laws... but it's pretty obvious that you cannot break a rule that has not been declared a rule.

Therefore Lucca never broke any rules... didn't even bend any rules. Yes it's a rule now... and guess what... Lucca hasn't played for a team "deemed professional" while this rule has been in effect.

Unfortunately the NCAA takes forever on decisions. So I want to know what they will do to make up for their mistake. They can take away things from people who did wrong in the past... but what is their policy on making up for them punishing innocent players?

EDIT:

QUESTION: Is the NCAA anything like the NFL where Lucca can still play while the appeal is in process? (See Travis Henry of the Denver Broncos)

Since the NCAA took so long to respond... they didn't give fair chance to appeal in time... therefore he can't be suspended until fully resolved. Right?

**aeroclone08** · 10-30-2007, 12:19 AM

Nope, he's out until he wins the appeal or the 1 year is up.

**rd4isu** · 10-30-2007, 08:44 AM

Let's be honest, this amateurism rule is aimed DIRECTLY at foreign students. The lesson the NCAA is trying to teach is that it's ok for you to cheat as long as you're not a foreigner.

**Llama006** · 10-30-2007, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by rd4isu

Let's be honest, this amateurism rule is aimed DIRECTLY at foreign students. The lesson the NCAA is trying to teach is that it's ok for you to cheat as long as you're not a foreigner.

There are hundreds of foreign players throughout the country in the same boat. Either they are going to have to take away a year of eligibility from all of them (they all played on the same kind of semi-professional teams so they could be seen), or they will have to rule in favor of Lucca. While the rule itself is disturbing, the fact that there is no consistancy among other players in the same possition (even freshman). They singled out 2 players out of no where.

I know of at least two more kids who had basically the exact same history as Lucca, but aren't facing any NCAA violations. I don't want to get into specifics because I don't want to lead the NCAA to their doorsteps, but the inconsistancy is alarming.

But I think we can all agree, the situation with the OU football team is completely different. While I think that violation should have a much larger punishment, it really isn't similar to what Lucca is going through in any way.