Boise State's D.J. Harper, Boston College's Ifeanyi Momah And The NCAA's Hypocrisy
by Brian Favat on Feb 1, 2012 8:00 AM EST
in Boston College Football
Email
Print
We interrupt today's National Signing Day coverage to crib about the N.C.A.A. ...
A few week ago when the NCAA rejected BC's appeal for a sixth year of eligibility for Boston College WR Ifeanyi Momah, Superfans were understandably peeved at the NCAA's seemingly arbitrary decision. The NCAA generally gives athletes five years to complete four years of competition, but exceptions can be granted to compete for a sixth season. The NCAA had proven rather generous in granting a sixth year of eligibility in the past, including granting a sixth year to Houston's Case Keenum and Purdue's Robert Marve earlier this year.
So why the about-face in Momah's case?
Several readers pointed out that what seemed different in both Keenum and Marve's cases was the timing. Both Keenum and Marve had redshirted as freshmen before their careers started, while Momah had played as a true freshman, missed the entire 2009 season due to injury and applied for a second medical redshirt in 2011, having missed the entire 2009 season due to injury.
Now Eagles fans can point to the total and utter hypocrisy of the NCAA, as yesterday Boise State announced via Twitter that tailback D.J. Harper has been granted a sixth year of eligibility.
Get this. Harper has played in EACH of the last five seasons, but he played in just three games during the 2009 and 2010 seasons. Both seasons were cut short by ACL injuries to the same knee. Last season, Harper rushed for 557 yards and 9 TDs on 115 carries for the Broncos. He's the projected starter in Boise State's backfield next season.
So injuries cut two of Harper's seasons short, where he played in a total of six games. In contrast, injuries also cut two of Momah's seasons short. He played in all of one game for the Eagles over the 2009 and 2011 seasons, catching 8 balls for 157 yards in the season opener against Northwestern.
How is Harper's case any different from Momah's? What is going on here?
I have no problem with the NCAA if they are consistent in their granting of medical hardship waivers and a sixth year of eligibility. However, I fail to see how Momah's request is any different from Harper's. If anything, the fact that Harper played in one more season than Momah and five more games would suggest that Momah deserves a sixth year as much as, if not more than Harper.
Fix this, NCAA.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
really interesting stuff
I find these decisions by the NCAA to be really interesting stuff and would love to see/hear more digging on how/why this has gone done this way. By all available, i.e. public, information, you would have to categorize the NCAA’s actions as arbitrary and capricious (a common law appellate standard for overturning decisions of a lower court). Accordingly, there HAS TO BE something we don’t know going on here. I’d really like to see this pressed by somebody. Why has BC been so passive on this? Again, something else is afoot.
by rcmbc81 on Feb 1, 2012 9:30 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
This is beyond ridiculous...
The NCAA needs to either disallow this practice or put some objectivity and transparency into these decisions. I also wonder if the school itself can help influence each case. For example, I am a Purdue and BC alum and follow both. A couple of years ago Purdue had a great receiver (Keith Smith) who tore an ACL on the second or third game. He was their best weapon, captain, and a character guy. They denied him and I felt that it was a failure of Purdue’s administration to get it done. Marve’s past has been well-documented and he has apparently been a model citizen since transferring from Miami. However, he’s seemingly been in college for 10 years. I like many Purdue fans was stunned to hear he was granted another year of eligibility and I’m not even sure if they’ll use him b/c they may be breaking in a younger QB that will be there beyond next year. Momah got screwed and I wonder if it came down to BC having so many guys banged up. Maybe BC should just start signing 50 players on each recruiin class like the SEC b/c that seems ethical for the guys that eventually get dropped. The NCAA needs and overhaul.
by grebek on Feb 1, 2012 9:57 AM EST via iPhone app reply actions
No, this is not ridiculous and Momah in not a victim of NCAA whim
I looked into the standards. The standard is that a school must demonstrate that due to injury a player could not compete in two full seasons. If you get hurt before game 4 (or 5?) of a season, it counts as a full lost season even if you played in those first games.
Key is the the school must establish with objective evidence that the injury kept the player out. That means clear medical records and medical expert opinion that the injury was season ending.
If a player is out on a normal red shirt year and then get seriously hurt in his 5th year, he in NOT ELIGIBLE for a 6th year. The team must show serious injury for two years, not one plus a red shirt. If player was out freshman year due to injury (not a regualr red shirt), and get’s hurt again, the player can qualify. This was case with Houston’s QB: Houston proved the QB’s frosh year was not a redshirt year, but was an injury year.
Here the is no question Momah was hurt last year. The issue is the prior injury year, 2009. Was Momah really hurt? Was it season ending? Can BC prove it with objective evidence?
At most, I have seen remarks from Spaz saying that in 2009 Momah had a sprain that kept him oput of Spring ball, and that he was transistioning to DE from WR.
So this is pretty easy: can BC produce solid medical records and medical opinion showing Momah had season-ending injury in 2009 or not? Sounds like they can’t prove their case
But, please, let’s not join the BC-As-Victim crowd. The NCAA has standards and appears to be following those standards in Momah’s case.
What are you talking about?
I provided a clear explanation to a problem that people are confused about and you give me some bullshit about it?
by eagleosprey on Feb 1, 2012 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good take from the Heights
The committee behind the decision issued a statement saying, “The committee was unable to identify compelling factors that might be viewed as beyond the control of the student-athlete and the University of Cincinnati.”
It is possible that Momah is facing the same issue with the NCAA that Mauk did. Momah was in the process of being moved to a defensive lineman in 2009 before being redshirted with a knee injury. The NCAA may be preventing Momah from receiving a sixth year over a dispute on whether or not he missed the 2009 season because of reasons outside of his control. The NCAA might be concerned that Momah’s position change had more to do with the redshirt than the knee injury did. If BC can prove this is not the case in its appeal, hopefully the NCAA will change its decision.
http://www.bcheights.com/sports/column-inconsistent-ruling-hurts-momah-1.2745308#.Tyld9OOkBXc
So prove it, BC. Everything I’ve read said Momah suffered a knee injury in 2009, too. Go out and prove that it ended his season.
Editor, BC Interruption
so you are just rephrasing what i said??
Today your wrote:
Now Eagles fans can point to the total and utter hypocrisy of the NCAA, as yesterday Boise State announced via Twitter that tailback D.J. Harper has been granted a sixth year of eligibility.
I clarifed your misperception:
So this is pretty easy: can BC produce solid medical records and medical opinion showing Momah had season-ending injury in 2009 or not? Sounds like they can’t prove their case
You described my analysis as being part of some “pissing contest,” apparently because i disagreed with your post. Now, you present yourself as some kind of sport jouranlist when you ignore what I wrote and minutes later say:
So prove it, BC. Everything I’ve read said Momah suffered a knee injury in 2009, too. Go out and prove that it ended his season.
You are just saying what i said and what you criticized me for saying. Weird.
by eagleosprey on Feb 1, 2012 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
did I miss BC's appeal?
I don’t recall reading that BC was appealing. Are they? Osprey gives a pretty good explanation. If the NCAA thinks 2009 was shenanigans and not a real, season-ending injury beyond the school’s and player’s control, we’d be SOL. Of course we’ve been told that the 2009 injury was legit. So as Brian says, the onus is on BC – prove the 2009 injury was real and not shenanigans. If we’re not even trying, what’s that tell you?
Momah should have at least gotten a hearing with the NCAA
I know what you think it means, sonny. To me it’s just a made up word. A politician’s word, so young fellas like yourself can wear a suit and a tie, and have a job. What do you really want to know? Am I sorry for getting hurt? There’s not a day goes by I don’t feel that ACL. Not because I’m limping, or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then: a young, stupid kid who listened to his coach tell him to play special teams. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him, tell him that normal wide receivers don’t have to do that. But I can’t. That kid’s long gone and this old man is all that’s left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It’s just a bullshit word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don’t give a shit.
Salzie
After I win tonight’s $70M after taxes Powerball, I will let you kids wave to me when my huge BC Yacht sails in the Res full of giggling scantily clad coeds.
That’s just the cut of my jib!
Now that’s yachtin’!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on BC Interruption
Related FanShots on BC Interruption
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
