Kaveinga awaits NCAA decision

Not to toot my own horn on this subject, but:

http://deepshadesofblue.com/byus-kaveinga-could-play-in-2010/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DeepShadesOfBlue+%28Deep+Shades+of+Blue%29

Could you imagine a starting LB corps made up of three 4-star LB's and Jordan Pendleton (3-stars as a safety prospect)?

I am not going to get my hopes up on this one. I doubt they allow it. But man, if they did, we would have some real athleticism at the linebacker spot. I sure hope they do.

I would be surprised if they allowed it since he left before the NCAA sanctions were handed down.

MTM wrote:
I would be surprised if they allowed it since he left before the NCAA sanctions were handed down.

Why should that matter, really? Because someone left a few weeks before the ruling came down means they get punished?



BYU needs Kaveinga this year. I would be shocked if the NCAA denies this as they really nuked USC and have let players go easily, so why not allow him to play.

Lawboy wrote:

I would be surprised if they allowed it since he left before the NCAA sanctions were handed down.

Why should that matter, really? Because someone left a few weeks before the ruling came down means they get punished?



BYU needs Kaveinga this year. I would be shocked if the NCAA denies this as they really nuked USC and have let players go easily, so why not allow him to play.

He was not a USC player when the sanctions were handed down. He was released from USC in December. He had already enrolled at BYU.



I don't think the NCAA will recognize him as a casualty of the USC program as he had left 6 months prior that's all.

MTM wrote:



He was not a USC player when the sanctions were handed down. He was released from USC in December. He had already enrolled at BYU.



I don't think the NCAA will recognize him as a casualty of the USC program as he had left 6 months prior that's all.

If he sits a year, he is a casualty. If he gets to play, equal footing with the rest that left free and clear. It happened in the same academic year the sanctions came down is all I know, and he would have been a junior this year. So I would expect the NCAA to grant that waiver and let him play now.

MTM wrote:

MTM wrote:
I would be surprised if they allowed it since he left before the NCAA sanctions were handed down.

Why should that matter, really? Because someone left a few weeks before the ruling came down means they get punished?



BYU needs Kaveinga this year. I would be shocked if the NCAA denies this as they really nuked USC and have let players go easily, so why not allow him to play.

He was not a USC player when the sanctions were handed down. He was released from USC in December. He had already enrolled at BYU.



I don't think the NCAA will recognize him as a casualty of the USC program as he had left 6 months prior that's all.

I don't think they will either, but they should. His argument is simple, I saw the writing on the wall, i am not stupid, I just left early knowing it was coming. I was going to sit around and wait. I hope he made that argument because if that had a part to do with his decision then I think it would be unfair to not let him.

jonnylingo wrote:

Lawboy wrote:

I would be surprised if they allowed it since he left before the NCAA sanctions were handed down.

Why should that matter, really? Because someone left a few weeks before the ruling came down means they get punished?



BYU needs Kaveinga this year. I would be shocked if the NCAA denies this as they really nuked USC and have let players go easily, so why not allow him to play.

He was not a USC player when the sanctions were handed down. He was released from USC in December. He had already enrolled at BYU.



I don't think the NCAA will recognize him as a casualty of the USC program as he had left 6 months prior that's all.

I don't think they will either, but they should. His argument is simple, I saw the writing on the wall, i am not stupid, I just left early knowing it was coming. I was going to sit around and wait. I hope he made that argument because if that had a part to do with his decision then I think it would be unfair to not let him.

Agreed. He can argue that the situation at USC was so bad that he was willing to forgo a year of eligibility just so he could play somewhere else. It just so happens that the NCAA agreed with him but made their decision a few weeks slower than Kaveinga did. I see this as a slam dunk.



Also, I just heard USC is giving Bush's Heisman back?!?!?!?

BerliNY wrote:



Also, I just heard USC is giving Bush's Heisman back?!?!?!?

They gave it back today. Same day reports came out that AD garrett, a USC heisman winner, got canned and replaced by Pat Haden, a 2-time NC winner while QB at USC. Apparently, they love their former athletes as AD's.

BerliNY wrote:
Also, I just heard USC is giving Bush's Heisman back?!?!?!?

Are they going to give it to Vince Young?

I saw the Bush story on Bleacher Report. I did not read it though.

tmoney35 wrote:

Also, I just heard USC is giving Bush's Heisman back?!?!?!?

Are they going to give it to Vince Young?

From what I understand from ESPN's college football live, USC is to remove all images of Bush & Mayo from the University and that includes USC's copy of Bush's Heisman. The downtown athletic club has not revoked the award from Bush.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If he was transferring anywhere else it would be allowed, but since it's BYU...







Can BYU go independent from the NCAA too?

Lawboy wrote:

He was not a USC player when the sanctions were handed down. He was released from USC in December. He had already enrolled at BYU.



I don't think the NCAA will recognize him as a casualty of the USC program as he had left 6 months prior that's all.

If he sits a year, he is a casualty. If he gets to play, equal footing with the rest that left free and clear. It happened in the same academic year the sanctions came down is all I know, and he would have been a junior this year. So I would expect the NCAA to grant that waiver and let him play now.

He's not a casualty. He transferred by his own free will long before anyone knew what would happen to USC. The NCAA rules stipulate a player transferring must sit a year. He transferred 6 months before any ruling. I think the NCAA will say 'hey, you were enrolled at BYU when the sanctions were levied. You weren't subject to USC's penalties. Sorry but you must sit.'



I have no vested interest in how they rule and it makes no difference to me. I'm just stating my opinion. I am curious, however, how those of the LDS faith feel that it has been suggested his decision to go on a mission is subject to how the NCAA rules. That seems contadictory to what I understand a mission is all about.

Lawboy wrote:

Also, I just heard USC is giving Bush's Heisman back?!?!?!?

They gave it back today. Same day reports came out that AD garrett, a USC heisman winner, got canned and replaced by Pat Haden, a 2-time NC winner while QB at USC. Apparently, they love their former athletes as AD's.

I'm a big Haden fan. Good QB, rhodes scholar, intelligent broadcaster without being Christensenesque.

MTM wrote:

MTM wrote:

I am curious, however, how those of the LDS faith feel that it has been suggested his decision to go on a mission is subject to how the NCAA rules. That seems contadictory to what I understand a mission is all about.

At this point I don't think it honestly matters when he decides to serve a mission. He obviously wants to and if he wants to do it a little bit later and play college football in the mean time then all power to him. (Like Tilavea) It's his own choice, and for my own selfish reasons I think it would be great if he could play now, but if he decided to serve a mission rather than play, then you know? I think that's just peachy too! but I also understand what you mean, and I don't believe that to be a reason to serve a mission or not, but I'm glad that doesn't have to do with me and it's between him and god.

MTM wrote:

He's not a casualty. He transferred by his own free will long before anyone knew what would happen to USC. The NCAA rules stipulate a player transferring must sit a year. He transferred 6 months before any ruling. I think the NCAA will say 'hey, you were enrolled at BYU when the sanctions were levied. You weren't subject to USC's penalties. Sorry but you must sit.'



I have no vested interest in how they rule and it makes no difference to me. I'm just stating my opinion. I am curious, however, how those of the LDS faith feel that it has been suggested his decision to go on a mission is subject to how the NCAA rules. That seems contadictory to what I understand a mission is all about.

Serving a mission - the reality is - if you are a committed Christian - every day you serve - the rest of your life. That sounds a bit hoakie - but I believe it's true.



One of my best friends was a full athletic scholarship student & he did not go on a mission. He's been on the High Council for 5 yrs. now. He is a solid & dedicated member.



I believe Kaveinga would really like to serve. But, whether he serves a 2 yr. mission now, or later, or serves his whole life - it's his choice & respected. It's all good & I support him regardless.

8)

Ddawg wrote:

I believe Kaveinga would really like to serve. But, whether he serves a 2 yr. mission now, or later, or serves his whole life - it's his choice & respected. It's all good & I support him regardless.

8)

Simple and true.

Thanks for the perspective.



How common is it for men and women to go on missions at an age other than 19 or so? I know of several folks who serve later in life like retirement but is it common for someone to serve say in their mid to late 20s?