Jamal Robinson Out For Season

[CrazyCajun]

Justin Venable was injured for basically four years. His case was the first time in NCAA history a student athlete was given up to eight years and it hasn't happened since.

If someone wants to give me an example of what might be an extenuating circumstance in which an exception would be made for Robinson, let me know.

so why did you not call bullsht when hud said it? why is there even an appeal process? not saying he will or wont but if its that cut and dry then they would know the answer. maybe they take into account where he is with regards to graduation, his nfl career etc. was rodney gillis an extenuating circumastance? l'marcus gibson?

[Cajun_Engr]

I'd say that if an expectation was to be made, the fact that he played just barely over the % of games and barely played in 1/2 of those games ... that at least makes for a case I'd say.

But I agree that HUD would say that either way. Let things play out down the road and him being "disappointed" is better than if he said he didn't think Jamal would get it and be "pleased" when he did.

[Hudsheen#Fired]

I honestly think he will get a fifth year of eligibility. The fact that he didn't red shirt will play a factor imo

[BirdofParadise]

OK guys. Go ahead. But the rule is clear. The question then becomes, is there an extenuating circumstance that might help him out.

Because "barely over the percentage" isn't going to fly.

And, the fact he didn't redshirt makes no difference because he's over 30 percent. He's played four years. That's all you're allowed unless one of those years is under 30%

[CrazyCajun]

OK guys. Go ahead. But the rule is clear. The question then becomes, is there an extenuating circumstance that might help him out.

Because "barely over the percentage" isn't going to fly.

And, the fact he didn't redshirt makes no difference because he's over 30 percent. He's played four years. That's all you're allowed unless one of those years is under 30%

So why is there an appeal process if the rule is clear?

[CajunT]

So why is there an appeal process if the rule is clear?

I think what Jay is stating is correct in that you won't find any recent examples of the appeal process working in the athletes favor. But there is going to be an appeal process and Hud was just stating he didn't see why Jamal Robinson would not get his RS-year back. I was leaning more positive on his chances, but the more you look for recent examples of an athlete winning an appeal under the same circumstances the more I keep coming up with none. Jay is correct as per the 30% rule as others have posted as well.

[BirdofParadise]

I think what Jay is stating is correct in that you won't find any recent examples of the appeal process working in the athletes favor. But there is going to be an appeal process and Hud was just stating he didn't see why Jamal Robinson would not get his RS-year back. I was leaning more positive on his chances, but the more you look for recent examples of an athlete winning an appeal under the same circumstances the more I keep coming up with none. Jay is correct as per the 30% rule as others have posted as well.

ACtually, no I'm not correct.

This is crazy. There are two ways to calculate this thing. And, you come up with two different answers......

1. You play 12 games. A player plays in four games. That's 33%.

2. You play 12 games. You multiply by 30% and that's the number of games you can play in. In this case, it's 3.6. The NCAA says round up.

That's four games.

I'm doing an article right now on this whole thing. I'll link it when I'm done.

[CrazyCajun]

I think what Jay is stating is correct in that you won't find any recent examples of the appeal process working in the athletes favor. But there is going to be an appeal process and Hud was just stating he didn't see why Jamal Robinson would not get his RS-year back. I was leaning more positive on his chances, but the more you look for recent examples of an athlete winning an appeal under the same circumstances the more I keep coming up with none. Jay is correct as per the 30% rule as others have posted as well.

im not syaing he isnt, but thats the point of an appeal is to build your case. if he wants us to give him some personal aspect of jamal robinsons life or his schooling or whatever then i cant help. i dont think any case is the exact same. if it was so cut and dry, i would think the coaches would already know the answer, specifically the guy on our staff that is supposedly a guru at eligibility.

[UL_BayouCajun]

Justin Venable was injured for basically four years. His case was the first time in NCAA history a student athlete was given up to eight years and it hasn't happened since.

If someone wants to give me an example of what might be an extenuating circumstance in which an exception would be made for Robinson, let me know.

Refer to the granted 6th year medical redshirt for QB Case Keenum (Houston)

[CajunT]

ACtually, no I'm not correct.

This is crazy. There are two ways to calculate this thing. And, you come up with two different answers......

1. You play 12 games. A player plays in four games. That's 33%.

2. You play 12 games. You multiply by 30% and that's the number of games you can play in. In this case, it's 3.6. The NCAA says round up.

That's four games.

I'm doing an article right now on this whole thing. I'll link it when I'm done.

Well, he has played in two complete games and 2 first halves, so the comes out to 3.0 games does it not? If that is the case, it leaves him below the 30% or 4 game threshold. In either case, the appeal has to be filed and the process has to run its course. To me it matters not who is right, but what happens with the appeal and the NCAA's final decision.