Dec 25, 2024
2:32:56pm
2:32:56pm
It makes sense from an athlete perspective, but the ruling is based on law. Not
based on what's best for the athlete.
There is no way IMO that the ruling will be able to be argued for just 1 year. Seems to me if the ruling deems 1 year of JC does not use up eligibility then any JC time will not use up eligibility.
This ruling is almost certainly going make JC time not start your eligibility clock.
BTW, this is also a big ruling for basketball eligibility.
There is no way IMO that the ruling will be able to be argued for just 1 year. Seems to me if the ruling deems 1 year of JC does not use up eligibility then any JC time will not use up eligibility.
This ruling is almost certainly going make JC time not start your eligibility clock.
BTW, this is also a big ruling for basketball eligibility.
- Bio page
- Lance71
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Last login
- Dec 26, 2024
- Total posts
- 15,021 (45 FO)
