Quote Originally Posted by bogmunds View Post
As it is being interpreted:>>
if Player 1 is on a CFL rosteron Nov 1 2016, he has to miss the entire next season of U-sports to regaineligibility (365 days)>>
fast forward to Aug 14 2017.>>
if Player 2 is on a CFL rosteron Aug 14 2017, he can leave and play U immediately?>>
Player 2 despite being morerecently involved with the CFL is more eligible to play than player 1? Thatcan't be the intent. Clearly the intent was "academic year" not 365days.>>
But here is the real ambiguityof the 365 day interpretation.>>
Aug 14 2017 is after Aug 152016, right? Legally?>>
So player 2 is on a CFL rosteron Aug 14 2017, so when he leaves he is therefore required to wait 365 days tobe eligible (and would miss the season). which is directly against thestatement in the eligibility requirements which explicitly states he can go toU sports directly. >>
The 365 day interpretation is so wrong. Academic year is theintent. The officials all know that. >>
Here I wI'll post the exact same comment again for you. That makes 7 times.

This is not acg. You don't need to post and repost the same thing in multiple threads or multiple times in the same thread