Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: SMU punted from AUS football final over eligibility controversy

Threaded View

  1. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2015


    A question.
    The statement made (paraphrased) was that "U sports ruled on all of the players being eligible going forward as of Oct 27th", did they not? The wording is very critical here, particularly when we are talking about lawyers. My interpretation would be that Jack was eligible to play the Looney Bowl, and that would be the correct ruling at that point.

    But did U sports ever rule that he was eligible from the first game. specifically? I have not seen that written, googled or that spud posted it 7 times. The quoted wording I have seen is actually:
    Margaret Murphy says SMU signed a binding, written agreement with U SPORTS on Oct. 27, which 'cleared all players to play.'

    That does not address, in lawyer speak, anything prior to that date.

    To further that comment as what I was thinking and what I said are not tied totally together:

    According to U Sports, Jack is eligible to play in the semi final and the Looney Bowl, and SMU has a binding agreement that this is so - true and as per the U sports eligibility rules this is correct.

    AUS has ruled that during the regular season, per U sports rules, Jack was not eligible to play prior to October 11th, (also true per the eligibility rules), and consequently SMU should never have made the playoffs at all as they would have lost 4 more games than previously recorded. - also a truism

    Consequently, both the U sports and the AUS are correct in their interpretations, and SMU would not have made the playoffs.
    Last edited by Football 101; 2017-11-10 at 05:28.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts