Re: "Covert" revision of D2 elligibility rules


> The second more meaningful issue is that teams are understably a 
bit 
> miffed over what happened but it is certainly no fault of UCLA's 
that 
> they finished how they did - I wouldn't have told the UCLA D2 team 
> last year something along the lines of "hey because you're an 
> exhibition team can ya kinda just, oh I dunno, not play well?" 

OK let's try this on for size.  When Witchita State ran an 
exhibition team last year in D2 at SCT (and despite what Mueller 
tells you what he thinks happened with this is just WRONG), they 
were listed on the NAQT site as having their wins not count because 
of the ineligible player and the individual stats were expunged.  
Now BY DEFINITION, the point of being an "exhibition" is that the 
wins and losses count for squat.  The individual stats would then 
too.  But NAQT awarded Meigs a scoring title, as a result of his 
COMPETITIVE performance.  His and UCLA's stats are also listed on 
the NAQT site 

http://naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divii-results.html

So, basically NAQT (conciously or not) broke with how it treated 
Witchita and basically (intentionally or not) misrepresented to 
everyone what that UCLA team was.

Course this is what we get for insisting on coddling newbies for a 
year by even having D2 to begin with.  But that's a separate thread.

Sean Phillips
talking for himself, the crazy homeless lady on my street with a 
killer mullet, and the mouse living in my stove.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST