Not being transparent?
It's between them and Hammond. It's none of our freaking business why.
Rodney Hammond
- Thread starter jivecat
- Start date
It's between them and Hammond. It's none of our freaking business why.
The schools absolutely are the ones who declare a player academically ineligible. Do you suppose that the NCAA gets the transcripts of all players in all sports at all schools and combs through them trying to figure out who may or may not be academically eligible or not?
The schools certify academic eligibility to the NCAA, not the other way around.
Right, but every indication is that it is something other than academics in this case.
Yes, absolutely. I was just responding to the obviously incorrect notion that the schools never declare a player ineligible.
The schools have to self-report academic eligibility. Players have to meet NCAA minimum requirements. Pitt cannot have players under the NCAA minimum and not "report" these players. So, again, its the NCAA declaring them ineligible.
No, it simply is not. The school declares them ineligible. The school reports that to the NCAA.
It's as if you can't figure out that the people who make the rules aren't the ones enforcing them. Do you have the same problem separating Legislators, police officers and judges?
Well, this is unexpected. Makes more sense why he's been around all season now. If this happens, could be huge. Reid gets banged up and Hammond would be fresh.
So now we're turning into the Stillers? These kids are professionals, they are paid to play football and boosters pay them. Transparency is a requirement. Unless, of course, the players don't want the money. They asked for this when they went on this NIL rampage.
Its semantics. I dont view it as the school declaring them ineligible. There are NCAA academic requirements. If those are not met, the player cannot play by NCAA rule and is ineligible. So its not like the school is taking it upon themselves to do this. They are required to.
Take your complaint up with the NCAA. They're the ones that don’t want players to be recognized as employees.
For someone who had repeatedly says he doesn’t care, he seems to care.
Nobody is required to disclose personal information to you. In other words, it's none of your business.
If I had a dollar for every post about how he was done with Pitt athletics, I could probably cover Hammond’s NIL budget.
Sometimes it's a process. If the school finds some NCAA issue that will affect eligibility, they often declare a player ineligible, self-report, and run it through the NCAA enforcement staff. If you the school lets an athlete play when they know there is an issue, they risk vacating wins.
The term suspension has negative connotations that implies the player did something wrong.
FWIW, there is also a reinstatement process, which I assume Pitt has initiated and that's what Pierre's sources are alluding to. Here's to hoping that works out Rodney is back on the field.
Just spitballing here... Wasn't Heather's background in compliance? Just wondering if this had at least some part in making her walk the plank a few months early instead of just letting her fade out.
Last edited:
Hammond is ineligible for the season. He wont be coming back. The only way he possibly could is if its just a 1 semester suspension, which often times these are. Then he could come back for a bowl or CFP. I believe he would also be allowed to redshirt if that were the case. But 0% chance he's back this semester.
I am never wrong on these:
Gilbert Johnson
Durand Johnson
Elijah Fields
Dior Johnson
Its really easy to understand
How do you know?
I have no idea why you would say something with such absolute certainty only a year removed from the Devontez Walker situation.
Walker was a transfer waiver issue. Everyone knew he would be eligible. I also said Raequan Battle would be eligible for WVU bball because I knew that everyone who needs a transfer waiver eventually becomes eligible. Hammond's situation is different. He broke an NCAA rule and is ineligible for the season or semester.
Let's hypothetically say that a random college football player was caught for sports wagering and let's say that his violation was that he bet on his sport at other schools ....... the NCAA penalty for that violation would be the loss of 50% of one season of eligibility or 6 games in football ...... if the penalty began before the first game of the season, that player would have to sit out the first 6 games and would be eligible for game 7 ........ if the team had played 4 games, he would thus be eligible in 3 games ...... Hmm !
If that's what the rule actually is, then that's not a rule he broke because he is ineligible for the full season. Pitt has literally already said this.
I dont know but it can only be 3 things:
- academics
- wagering
- banned substances
Whatever rule he broke, he is done for the season or semester.
In other words, you have no clue.
Hypothetically if a college player is caught for sports wagering, the penalty depends on what they wagered on or in other situations how much their cumulative wagers were and depending on these circumstances the penalty could be anything from no loss of eligibility to total loss of eligibility in all sports ...... I just gave a scenario where what pierre93 said could be true in the eligibility penalty of some athletes caught for sports wagering ,,,,, we will see in 3 games if pierre93 is correct (and remember, we don't know for sure what Hammond's offense was and if it had anything to do with sports wagering).
If Pitt (and not the NCAA) mandated the one year of ineligibility for Hammond then he could potentially redshirt this season and play for Pitt next year ....... if he was found to have violated NCAA rules, then sanctions would depend on what rules he violated and that would determine whether he has any college eligibility left or not.
Pitt obviously did not mandate the penalty because the word, ineligible, was used. If it was a university penalty, he the word, suspension, would have been used. This isnt difficult to understand. He broke an NCAA rule and Pitt has stated he is ineligible to play this season. I promise you he will not play until at least mid-December and probably not then either.
And he will get a RS year. Even if the NCAA denies that, which they wont, he can sue and get it. 1 million percent guaranteed redshirt.
Nah, I'm going with them discovering the Locker Room Board and our idiot far-right fanbase contingent who were in DC on Jan 6. I am right about Hammond. Never wrong about these eligibility issues.
Can we line them up with those who were burning cop cars, looting stores and beating up people from the Lefties during the mostly peaceful Summer of Love in 2020?
