| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
22
Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 102
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/07/15 7:05 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd still be curious to hear an explanation of why she can rely on the "age 22" exception of Article XIII Section 1(b)(i) when paragraph (e) simply says "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " and says nothing about 1(b)(i). |
In or out of the US, if 22, you can choose to go into the draft. Which is why they are saying Loyd could declare, even though ND is saying she won't. It's pretty straight forward. No gobbedly gook needed. |
That plainly seems to be the way it's being applied. That's also plainly not what it says. I just find that interesting. |
I've got to disagree with you - the most obvious reading is that 1(d) is an exception that expands 1(b) to allow international players to be drafted at age 20 and that 1(d) is an exception to 1(d), not something that swallows up 1(b) for international players. |
Fine, then we disagree. But your back must hurt from those contortions. It's really not that complicated.
(e) is quite clear. You want to try to read it as saying "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b) above. And that's what they would have written if they wanted your outcome. But they didn't. They were very specific in their reference. They wrote "An international player who exercises intercollegiate basketball eligibility in the United States shall be subject to the eligibility rules set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) above. " They referenced 1(b)(iii) and only 1(b)(iii) and said that's what they're subject to. |
It's rather more of a contortion to assume that the "notwithstanding" language overrides 1(b)(i), when it's pretty obvious that 1(d) is intended to create additional eligibility for the draft, not to restrict it.
When people write contracts (or laws, for that matter), they almost always write the general rule first, then exceptions (and exceptions can either expand the general rule or narrow it). Think of the language as a flow chart for draft eligibility, which works like this:
1. Do you meet any of the 1(b) standards? If so, you're eligible; if not, move on to 2.
2. Would you meet the 1(b) standards if you weren't competing in the NCAA tournament at the deadline? If so, you can make yourself eligible later than the deadline. If not, move on to 3.
3. Are you an international player who's at least 20 years old? If no, you're not eligible; if yes, move on to 4.
4. If you're an international player and haven't exercised college eligibility, you're eligible for the draft. If you exercise college eligibility in the U.S., you can enter the draft if your class has graduated or is set to graduate this year.
One important point here is that reading the eligibility rule any other way would have the impact of making it harder for international players who play college ball in the U.S. to enter the draft than for U.S. players, which makes no sense. For instance, assuming that (e) overrides 1(b) means that an international player who has graduated isn't eligible for the draft. |
I understand your last point. But I don't know the reasons. Your reading permits one year wonders. A 22 year old foreign player could come to the US, play one year of college ball to get known, and immediately go pro. Maybe they wanted to prevent that. Maybe they wanted to follow the MLB and NHL approach of giving you a choice. Go to school, or go pro, but if you choose school you have to stay in school. It's actually a perfectly reasonable outcome.
I know how to write and interpret a contract. And when you set out a particular treatment for a specific class of persons it's because you intend that treatment to govern that class. If you intend it as only an alternative you'd better say so explicitly.
Besides, if (b) governs all college players - US and international - then the second sentence of (e) would be completely superfluous because by your view intl players in college would would already be covered by (b). Must mean something else than that. |
Oddly enough, I know how to write and interpret contracts, too.
Anyway, the explanation for (e) is simple enough - it's an exception to (d), narrowing it rather than broadening it. That's not very unusual. And you're incorrect to say it's superfluous. Imagine an international player who comes to the U.S. at 18 or 19 and plays 2 years - she's not 22, she hasn't graduated and her class hasn't graduated. She doesn't fit into (b) as a consequence, and (e) makes her ineligible for the draft even though under (d) she normally would be eligible as an international player. I don't know why they did it, but there are situations in which it would apply. Heck, as mentioned earlier in the thread, Letitia Romero falls into this category. |
Haha - not to open up a can of dead worms, and maybe this is what benighted was saying.... b is i ii OR iii so international players are subject to iii but not exclusively. The 'original class' language in iii also makes it confusing if it were exclusive as applied to internationals like AZB who don't come over at freshman age (maybe w unaccredited coursework?)
|
|
dtrain34
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 409
Location: Lacey, Washington
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/15 4:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
All this parsing of the WNBA rule when I seriously doubt she's leaving Minnesota early for the purposes of playing in the W.
She may well play in the WNBA and the age 22 rule gives her the graceful way off campus, but since her W salary will probably be worth just a tiny bit more than her scholarship the real point is for her to get away from college and make some big bucks overseas during the actual basketball season.
Moscow calling?
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/15 7:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtrain34 wrote: |
All this parsing of the WNBA rule when I seriously doubt she's leaving Minnesota early for the purposes of playing in the W.
She may well play in the WNBA and the age 22 rule gives her the graceful way off campus, but since her W salary will probably be worth just a tiny bit more than her scholarship the real point is for her to get away from college and make some big bucks overseas during the actual basketball season.
Moscow calling? |
If that were the case, why declare for the draft, all she has to do is sign with an agent, leave Minnesota and sign with a pro team of her choosing. There is no rule that says a person must declare for the draft to play overseas.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66899
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/15 7:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| dtrain34 wrote: |
All this parsing of the WNBA rule when I seriously doubt she's leaving Minnesota early for the purposes of playing in the W.
She may well play in the WNBA and the age 22 rule gives her the graceful way off campus, but since her W salary will probably be worth just a tiny bit more than her scholarship the real point is for her to get away from college and make some big bucks overseas during the actual basketball season.
Moscow calling? |
If that were the case, why declare for the draft, all she has to do is sign with an agent, leave Minnesota and sign with a pro team of her choosing. There is no rule that says a person must declare for the draft to play overseas. |
Indeed, she could have done that a year ago or even skipped school altogether.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5353
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/15/15 11:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| On a side note, it must be a lil off putting to be all set to go 1 or 2 in the draft then Zahui B. & J. Loyd show up and then ur looking at 3 (KML). |
|
|
|
