Had a bad conversation last night reg. Lucca

**jahfg** · 11-07-2007, 01:23 PM

They are no longer separate.

**Clonehomer** · 11-07-2007, 01:23 PM

The NCAA purchased the NIT last year after the NIT committee sued them over antitrust because the NCAA won't let teams selected by the NCAA to play in the NIT.

**mustangcy** · 11-07-2007, 01:24 PM

Can someone explain why eveyone thinks Lucca might leave if the decision is upheld? I mean the guy came to ISU to play 4 years of basketball...the NCAA takes away one of the those four years and people think he would bolt to Europe. That makes no sense. He would still have 3 years to play, get a free education and better prepare him to play professionally.

As much as I hate to say it, while losing him this year would be a big loss we would still have him for 3 more years and he would still be an asset to this team in practice...it wouldn't be the end of the world that some are making it to be.

**ISUFan22** · 11-07-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by dbronco7sc

I remember somebody posting that we should make a statement and play Lucca every game and then be assigned a loss for every game on our schedule. The media would go crazy over it. It shows players that we're willing to stick up for them and fight for them (good recruiting) and couldn't we still make the NIT? Aren't they separate from the NCAA. So our "NCAA" record might show 0 wins... but the NIT could look at how many games we actually won and give us an NIT bid? Maybe? Just a thought, but maybe I'm completely wrong about the NCAA and NIT being separate.

As noted, the two are linked.

Regardless though, while sticking it to the man would be very fun and garner some interesting media attention, I think ISU would be faced with more than just forfeiting games for ignoring an NCAA ruling.

They would give us a nasty spanky and not the fun kind.

**ISUFan22** · 11-07-2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by mustangcy

Can someone explain why eveyone thinks Lucca might leave if the decision is upheld? I mean the guy came to ISU to play 4 years of basketball...the NCAA takes away one of the those four years and people think he would bolt to Europe. That makes no sense. He would still have 3 years to play, get a free education and better prepare him to play professionally.

I think part of it is based on him being able to make money now overseas rather than being forced to watch a year. I think another part is the principle of the whole thing - "taking my ball and going home" if you will. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

If a governing body over the sport I was playing in ruled unjust against me in a very severe way, I'd have a hard time sticking around too.

I hope he stays if it comes to that but wouldn't blame him at all for giving the NCAA the finger and shipping out.

**Cloned4Life** · 11-07-2007, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

I think part of it is based on him being able to make money now overseas rather than being forced to watch a year. I think another part is the principle of the whole thing - "taking my ball and going home" if you will. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

If a governing body over the sport I was playing in ruled unjust against me in a very severe way, I'd have a hard time sticking around too.

I hope he stays if it comes to that but wouldn't blame him at all for giving the NCAA the finger and shipping out.

Sadly, I agree. The chances of Lucca sticking around IF he can't play this year I'd say are about 50/50 at best.

**PolkCityClone** · 11-07-2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by goldmember

Maybe we can invite the NCAA over for tea and strumpets.

how about tea and an *** kicking?

**cyclonekj** · 11-07-2007, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by PolkCityClone

how about tea and an *** kicking?

OK, but we're fresh out of tea.

**Cyclonepride** · 11-07-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by mustangcy

Can someone explain why eveyone thinks Lucca might leave if the decision is upheld? I mean the guy came to ISU to play 4 years of basketball...the NCAA takes away one of the those four years and people think he would bolt to Europe. That makes no sense. He would still have 3 years to play, get a free education and better prepare him to play professionally.

As much as I hate to say it, while losing him this year would be a big loss we would still have him for 3 more years and he would still be an asset to this team in practice...it wouldn't be the end of the world that some are making it to be.

He's a kid, and a year to a kid seems a lot longer than to an older person (I've been on a rocketslide since I turned 30). And he does have options in Europe. I really hope he gets reinstated, or at least stays, but I wouldn't be shocked if he left.

**HandSanitizer** · 11-07-2007, 05:22 PM

If he gets denied and he leaves.....I am going to break somebody's legs. Then I will get the last laugh. I will be wearing my red ski mask if anyone cares.

**PolkCityClone** · 11-07-2007, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Knownothing

Spoke with my people. It does not sound good for Lucca Staiger at this point. I think the crowd support is helping him make his decision to stick around. I would encourage everyone to keep up the freelucca chants. Let him know we want him.

I think you know nothing, Knownothing.

**c.y.c.l.o.n.e.s** · 11-07-2007, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by sunset

Somebody left a comment in the Rag article about a freshman for Texas, Dogus Balbay, that played for Fenerbahçe Ülkerspor in Turkey. He has not been ruled inelligelbe and, searching the web, it sure looks like this is a pro team. Not a matter of one or two players receiving a few dollars, it looks like this is a pro team. Check out the description and some of the former players:

FenerbahÃ§e Ãœlkerspor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anybody know anything about this?

I believe that Balbay would have had to miss something like 4 games. The rule is 1 for 1. One game suspension for each game played. He played in something like 4 or 6 game for that team. He is injured and is expected to miss a lot of games which renders his suspension meaningless.

Lucca played for 3 years on his so-called "professional" team. In the NCAA's eyes, he should be suspended for 3 years but the maximum suspension is 1 year.

**TedKumsher** · 11-07-2007, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by mustangcy

Can someone explain why eveyone thinks Lucca might leave if the decision is upheld?

I'm pretty sure I remember Lucca being quoted in the Register stating that he'd probably go back and play pro if he can't play this year. (This was when the ruling first came out.)

I think I found the relevant article, but apparently you have to pay for archived articles on the web.

**dinger** · 11-07-2007, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by PolkCityClone

I think you know nothing, Knownothing.

very clever

**jumbopackage** · 11-08-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by wesley_w

I don't even know if it still exists, but in about 1981 or around there, 63 schools formed the CFA, or College Football Association. There were 63 members but it was spearheaded by Oklahoma and one other school that I can't remember. But the essence was, they were fed up with the NCAA.
In fact, when games would come on TV they would announce it as CFA Football.

I'm editing to say I think the other school may have been Ohio State.

I believe this was more of a marketing cartel than a attempt to get away from the NCAA. They were still NCAA schools, they just negotiated their TV deals en-masse. Notre Dame pretty much toppled it when they left and made their own deal in '91. After that, it was every conference for themselves.

As far as I know, there has never been a major push away from the NCAA.

edit: It appears that the Big 10 and Pac 10 were not parties to the CFA, and were pretty much direct competitors. The thought must have been that the SEC, Big 8, Big East, ACC, SWC etc. needed to pool together to combat the Big 10 and Pac 10 in terms of influence.