If we ignore all of the other potential domino’s that could fall pending whatever Rising decides to do, I think he’s got two different options to get another year. Throw 2020 out because I just don’t see the NCAA doing anything other than saying “we already gave you a free year for covid, now you want us to give you a 2 for 1?”
Option 1 – Don’t play this year. Use the comparables of players like Hooker and Murray who have shut it down for 2023. Say that the knee wasn’t structurally sound enough to play without risking permanent damage. It’s a decent argument for why he lost his last year of eligibility.
Option 2 – Play this year and still apply for a waiver. In this case, he would be claiming disparate treatment in 2019. Since waivers to play immediately were necessary because the one free transfer rule had not been adopted yet, it required the school he was leaving from to approve as well as the NCAA. Chip Kelly told the NCAA that UCLA would not oppose anyone transferring and all UCLA transfer were rubber stamped. Justin Fields claimed he heard one person in a crowd drop an N bomb and got to play. Texas opposed transfers and so Rising was forced to sit.
It was because of schools like Texas that the one free transfer rule was put in place. Someone more familiar with the law would have to say whether what I’m proposing has a chance. That time period was also when the Mississippi players sued the NCAA to get to transfer after their coach got fired which is why Deion and Dillingham were able to clean out their rosters this year after that rule change. So essentially Rising would be arguing that the NCAA had bad rules which they changed, but because of the timing he was negatively affected.
.
Loading ...
