Grambling Awaits 6th Year for QB

[TexasTerror]

Does not seem likely that Grambling will get this sixth year approved. The AD says himself that it is typically for injuries and hardships that a player receives an additional year, not because he was a walk-on that did not appear in any games...

Still, would be a lift for the G-Men, if they can get him in...


Dillon, who led GSU to a SWAC Championship in 2008, may not be able to play in 2010 because he has already been in college for five full years. College athletes are allotted five years to play four seasons of a particular sport.

Dillon began his career as a walk-on at ULM , and then walked on at GSU. He did not appear in any games for GSU until 2008, but at that point his NCAA "clock" was in its fourth year. The 2009 season was his junior year with the Tigers, but his fifth year with the NCAA.

Dawson said Grambling filed the necessary paperwork with the NCAA a few months ago, and said the process is "dependent on the committee that will make the ruling."


http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20100628/SPORTS/6280312/Grambling-should-get-news-on-quarterback-Dillon-soon

[lionsrking2]

Pretty cut-n-dry case, assuming he was enrolled full-time at ULM...once his eligibility clock started, the only way he could get a sixth year would be to have an extenuating circumstance or a major injury that cost him more than one year...walking on at one school and not appearing in a game is not considered an extenuating circumstance...no harm in trying though if you're Grambling.

[mikebigg]

Point is that there's exception to every "rule"... but either way, time will tell.

[TexasTerror]

Pretty cut-n-dry case, assuming he was enrolled full-time at ULM...once his eligibility clock started, the only way he could get a sixth year would be to have an extenuating circumstance or a major injury that cost him more than one year...walking on at one school and not appearing in a game is not considered an extenuating circumstance...no harm in trying though if you're Grambling.

I agree... xthumbsupx

There are exceptions to everything the NCAA has, but unless there's something extenuating that Grambling is not putting out there, tough luck!

If they grant an exception for a player that was not ready to take the reigns and rode the bench, this would set a bad precedent.

Baseball is a sport where the redshirt is quite easy to obtain because you could play a guy a few times against lesser opponents and he'd still qualify for redshirt, as long as the weaker foes were early in the season and the appearances were limited.

[lionsrking2]

Point is that there's exception to every "rule"... but either way, time will tell.

There may be something we don't know about, but having gone through this process ourselves with a couple of basketball players, I would say there's a 99.999999999999% chance he won't get a sixth year based on the info that's in the article.

[mikebigg]

Okay... maybe our AD should have contacted you guys to see what yall thought in advance. But apparently, they figured it was probable that an extra year would be granted. As you stated, there could be extenuating circumstances that you guys don't know about. Off the top of my head...perhaps being a walkon, he encountered financial difficulty and had to sit out for a time. Will that be deemed a "reasonable" hardship? I really don't know...but I'm sure that whatever his reason was, the NCAA will give it due consideration. After that...we move on. (Unless there's a particular Anti-SWAC poster on here who are so adamant about it that he appeals the ruling if it's in Dillon's favor).

[WestCoastAggie]

Okay... maybe our AD should have contacted you guys to see what yall thought in advance. But apparently, they figured it was probable that an extra year would be granted. As you stated, there could be extenuating circumstances that you guys don't know about. Off the top of my head...perhaps being a walkon, he encountered financial difficulty and had to sit out for a time. Will that be deemed a "reasonable" hardship? I really don't know...but I'm sure that whatever his reason was, the NCAA will give it due consideration. After that...we move on. (Unless there's a particular Anti-SWAC poster on here who are so adamant about it that he appeals the ruling if it's in Dillon's favor).


So I guess this is a Free Post now?

[TexasTerror]

Okay... maybe our AD should have contacted you guys to see what yall thought in advance. But apparently, they figured it was probable that an extra year would be granted. As you stated, there could be extenuating circumstances that you guys don't know about. Off the top of my head...perhaps being a walkon, he encountered financial difficulty and had to sit out for a time. Will that be deemed a "reasonable" hardship? I really don't know...but I'm sure that whatever his reason was, the NCAA will give it due consideration. After that...we move on. (Unless there's a particular Anti-SWAC poster on here who are so adamant about it that he appeals the ruling if it's in Dillon's favor).

I have no problem with an institution applying for an NCAA waiver. I am sure that my friend from the SLU fan base can agree with that.

The process happens daily and hundreds of times a week, most certainly. We are just stating that it is pretty unlikely for it to come to fruition based on the information available.

If you are making any assumptions other than that, you are not just in your considerations...

[lionsrking2]

Okay... maybe our AD should have contacted you guys to see what yall thought in advance. But apparently, they figured it was probable that an extra year would be granted. As you stated, there could be extenuating circumstances that you guys don't know about. Off the top of my head...perhaps being a walkon, he encountered financial difficulty and had to sit out for a time. Will that be deemed a "reasonable" hardship? I really don't know...but I'm sure that whatever his reason was, the NCAA will give it due consideration. After that...we move on. (Unless there's a particular Anti-SWAC poster on here who are so adamant about it that he appeals the ruling if it's in Dillon's favor).

It's not a matter of what we think - it's what the rule is and what case history has been to this point.

Again, no harm in your AD trying to get the 6th year, but financial hardship and being a walk-on isn't considered an extenuating circumstance unless there's a major underlying issue...for Grambling's sake, hopefully there is and the extra year will be granted.

[kdinva]

Time for my xtwocentsx

By my thinking, you get nine semesters to get in your 4 years of playing, unless you leave school for a religious sabbatacle (BYU, etc), or Military service.

If you twice miss seasons due to injury, your 5-year clock should not pause. Same if you redshirt your first year, then later on miss another year due to injury.

[lionsrking2]

Time for my xtwocentsx

By my thinking, you get nine semesters to get in your 4 years of playing, unless you leave school for a religious sabbatacle (BYU, etc), or Military service.

If you twice miss seasons due to injury, your 5-year clock should not pause. Same if you redshirt your first year, then later on miss another year due to injury.

The clock doesn't pause, though an extra year is sometimes granted when two seasons are lost to injury...if you lose one season to injury, and took a redshirt year, chances are you will not be granted a sixth year...but if you lose two seasons to injury, there's a decent chance you'll get it, though it's not automatic by any means.

[mikebigg]

It's not a matter of what we think - it's what the rule is and what case history has been to this point.

Again, no harm in your AD trying to get the 6th year, but financial hardship and being a walk-on isn't considered an extenuating circumstance unless there's a major underlying issue...for Grambling's sake, hopefully there is and the extra year will be granted.

No, not for Grambling's sake...but for Greg Dillon. This isn't being done for Grambling...it's being done for Greg Dillon.

[lionsrking2]

No, not for Grambling's sake...but for Greg Dillon. This isn't being done for Grambling...it's being done for Greg Dillon.

Good point.xthumbsupx

[mikebigg]

A former athlete on TSPN informed me that the clock starts ticking when the student enrolls in school with 12 or more hours. If he takes less than 12 and pays his own way he is considered a gray shirt and is put on schollie the next year.

Some have a tendency to pass off what they think or how they would like to see things work out as being a fact. However, those persons don't know all the details and of any possible extenuating circumstances. It's very likely that Greg didn't have 12 hours, paid his own way and when not invited back, sat out and/or transferred the next year to Grambling.

That's just an opinion... I wouldn't want to be like those who attempt to pass off their personal petty and often negative opinions as a fact.

[lionsrking2]

A former athlete on TSPN informed me that the clock starts ticking when the student enrolls in school with 12 or more hours. If he takes less than 12 and pays his own way he is considered a gray shirt and is put on schollie the next year.

Some have a tendency to pass off what they think or how they would like to see things work out as being a fact. However, those persons don't know all the details and of any possible extenuating circumstances. It's very likely that Greg didn't have 12 hours, paid his own way and when not invited back, sat out and/or transferred the next year to Grambling.

That's just an opinion... I wouldn't want to be like those who attempt to pass off their personal petty and often negative opinions as a fact.

If he wasn't a full-time student and paid his own way the first year, chances are your administration wouldn't have to appeal for a sixth year...in that case, his clock would not have started until he got to Grambling and he would simply be a 5th year senior.

Only issue I can think of, assuming there's no medical hardship or dire family emergency, is that perhaps he was enrolled full-time initially at ULM and dropped a class (or classes) which would have made him a part-time student...if that's the case, I could see where there's a gray area worth appealing, but then again, the way I understand the rule, the clock begins immediately once enrolled full-time...I've searched for a hypothetical interpretation in regards to dropping from full-time to part-time but haven't found one yet.

[TexasTerror]

lionsrking,

I thought the clock started in your first full semester of eligibility following graduation from high school? With the exception being military service or as mentioned before - mission work. Always thought it was FIVE years to complete FOUR years of athletic eligibility for most.

[mikebigg]

Rather than speculate, I can await the NCAA's ruling. Either way, the young man and Grambling will be fine. He's still a student and from what I'm told in line to get his degree. That's the most important thing for me...especially since I know we'll continue to develop the kids we have and someone will step up.

[TSUalum05]

lionsrking,

I thought the clock started in your first full semester of eligibility following graduation from high school? With the exception being military service or as mentioned before - mission work. Always thought it was FIVE years to complete FOUR years of athletic eligibility for most.

It starts when you take a full course load...For example, I had a pair of cousins that went to NMST for two years, worked out with the football team both years with the intention of playing football. Their coach at the time made them take less than 12 hours both years for each semester and their clock never started, hence they were called gray shirts.

In my situation, I took 9 hours in my first fall (01) and 15 in the spring. My clock did not start until the spring according to the NCAA. So my eligibility ended the Spring of 2005 for baseball but since my clock didn't start until the spring, I could've played football if I was interested in playing (I was only a baseball player ). This is the reason high school football players graduate early to come in the spring - they'll still have 10 semesters to finish four years of sports at the D1 level.

[mikebigg]

You should have gone to a personal injury doctor...the one those shady lawyers refer their clients to.

[TSUalum05]

You should have gone to a personal injury doctor...the one those shady lawyers refer their clients to.

LOL, my surgery that I'm referring to was in 2001 when I attended Jr College. I never knew I would end up playing d1 baseball or that my clock had started. If I would've known all the intricacies of the "clock" I would've only taken 9 hours my second semester. Knowing that I wasn't going to play for that particular Jr College.

[mikebigg]

Life is one helluva teacher...

[smallcollegefbfan]

Rather than speculate, I can await the NCAA's ruling. Either way, the young man and Grambling will be fine. He's still a student and from what I'm told in line to get his degree. That's the most important thing for me...especially since I know we'll continue to develop the kids we have and someone will step up.

I was told it is a done deal already that he is coming back.

[TexasTerror]

I was told it is a done deal already that he is coming back.

Good for him, if true.

Guess there was a good reason for the exemption, which was not publicized by the Monroe News Star.

[smallcollegefbfan]

Good for him, if true.

Guess there was a good reason for the exemption, which was not publicized by the Monroe News Star.

I'm not sure of the reason but must have been a good one.

[TexasTerror]

So now you're guessing... oh well, that's what happens when opinions met up with facts.

The facts regarding a sixth year hardship are outlined by the NCAA, as are the five-year clock...


14.2.1.1 Determining the Start of the Five-Year Period. For purposes of starting the count of time under
the five-year rule, a student-athlete shall be considered registered at a collegiate institution (domestic or foreign;
see Bylaw 14.02.3) when the student-athlete initially registers in a regular term (semester or quarter) of an
academic year for a minimum full-time program of studies, as determined by the institution, and attends the
student’s first day of classes for that term (see Bylaw 14.2.2).

Yes, I stated an opinion regarding the difficulties in working around the by-law, because those are clearly drawn out as well, so there must have been a better reason than the Monroe News Star let out.

[TexasTerror]

I am glad we had the opportunity to discuss this player.

For those who do not follow the Grambling program, but Greg Dillon threw 153 completed passes last year and was a vital part to the football program, including the school's 2009 and most definitely 2008 Bayou Classic victories over Southern. The Bayou Classic is the school's big rivalry game held annually in the Superdome, mind you.

Seeing as this is a high-profile player on a high-profile team in the Football Championship Subdivision, it was important to discuss whether or not he was coming back. In other posts on AGS, similar discussions have taken place over the last month pertaining to the Cal Poly quarterback and the Villanova All-American wide receiver who chose missionary work and a Major League Baseball career, respectively.

As FCS fans, these discussions educate us on other schools within the classification and how these schools stack up - especially when those of us who vote on polls and awards have a chance to do so. Thanks SmallCollegeFBFan for sharing your insight and others as well!

[TexasTerror]

The latest - at least via the Monroe News Star - is that Grambling is still waiting and the NCAA has asked for more documents...


GSU athletics director J. Lin Dawson said the NCAA has asked for additional documents, its third such request since the school petitioned to gain a sixth season for Dillon.

The NCAA mandates that athletes have five seasons to play out four years of eligibility, barring injury or some other unforeseen circumstance. Dillon's clock started in 2005, when he participated at ULM as a walk-on, but the two-sport star has only been a scholarship player for two seasons, both at Grambling.

"Certainly, he deserves another year "” and we are hoping he gets that," Dawson said. "They have been emphatic about the five-year rule, but there has to be a hardship."

http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20100703/SPORTS/7030311/1006/Grambling-reportedly-set-to-cut-golf--tennis-

[smallcollegefbfan]

The person on the football team I talked to knows more than any of us about the situation. Looks like the person who wrote that is CSN's own Nick Deriso which would explain why you are taking their word over the word of someone on the football team. Maybe Nick just has not heard yet? I have nothing against Nick as I don't know him but perhaps he just hasn't heard yet. I have Dillon as officially coming back until someone within the program contradicts what someone within the program told me this week. xthumbsupx

[TexasTerror]

The person on the football team I talked to knows more than any of us about the situation. Looks like the person who wrote that is CSN's own Nick Deriso which would explain why you are taking their word over the word of someone on the football team. Maybe Nick just has not heard yet? I have nothing against Nick as I don't know him but perhaps he just hasn't heard yet. I have Dillon as officially coming back until someone within the program contradicts what someone within the program told me this week. xthumbsupx

Nick is a trusted source and he went right to the athletic director who stated that the NCAA requested more paperwork. Just part of the process, a back and forth between the school and the NCAA. If there are more questions in the eligibility office, they request more paperwork. Nothing unusual in the least bit...

I am not doubting your source, since you have been very accurate on these boards in the past. Thanks for your feedback!

[smallcollegefbfan]

Nick is a trusted source and he went right to the athletic director who stated that the NCAA requested more paperwork. Just part of the process, a back and forth between the school and the NCAA. If there are more questions in the eligibility office, they request more paperwork. Nothing unusual in the least bit...

I am not doubting your source, since you have been very accurate on these boards in the past. Thanks for your feedback!

You don't have to patronize me and try to do a complete 180 but you need to stop acting like anything CSN says is 100% fact ALL the time and that their words trump others. Heck Dillon coming back is not my words I was stating what someone ON the team said. I think a player or coach knows more about his own team than his AD and especially a media outlet. I'm not saying Nick is wrong but I am saying that you don't have to act so skeptical of someone else when their word contradicts that of Nick.

You are coming off as a jerk and I know you aren't meaning to it is just how you come off. It just comes off as smug. Heck I am very close friends with someone at the Phil Steele office but you didn't see me kissing their butts and acting like the W&M #1 pick was the best in the world or that they are smarter than we are by picking that. You need to be completely unbiased to have people take you seriously. Just because someone at CSN does not like me does not mean that I am going to smack on CSN all the time but that is exactly the vibe I get from you and others there. Mr. C is a good friend of mine and I know he does not like the attitudes either. Why can't everyone just be friends instead of acting like they are better than everyone else or harboring ill will towards someone? You don't know me or my sources and I don't know you or your but unless someone from the NCAA, the GSU team, or Dillon's parents say otherwise I have to stick with the words of someone on the team rather than a writer who is not on the team.

[TexasTerror]

You don't have to patronize me and try to do a complete 180 but you need to stop acting like anything CSN says is 100% fact ALL the time and that their words trump others. Heck Dillon coming back is not my words I was stating what someone ON the team said. I think a player or coach knows more about his own team than his AD and especially a media outlet. I'm not saying Nick is wrong but I am saying that you don't have to act so skeptical of someone else when their word contradicts that of Nick.

No one at CSN has said anything about Dillon! There has not been an official article from the SWAC beat writer for CSN or a blog from anyone on CSN or any information from anyone that covers FCS nationally from CSN. Now, you are just making baseless accusations...


You don't know me or my sources and I don't know you or your but unless someone from the NCAA, the GSU team, or Dillon's parents say otherwise I have to stick with the words of someone on the team rather than a writer who is not on the team.

What about the athletic director? Is he not part of the GSU team? I am not saying you are wrong, but why would the AD say something different than fact? The NCAA may have informed Grambling that once they turned in paperwork XYZ that it should be a slam dunk, which could be why you have your information from a member of the football team...

However, based on information available at this stage according to the athletic director, who is a paid employee of Grambling State University and the state of Louisiana, they are submitting more feedback to Grambling. This is not even Nick Deriso who is coming up with this information, but the athletic director who is making a statement on behalf of his institution.

I do not see why it is so difficult to comprehend and definitely no reason to get defensive. At the end of the day, you may be right (via information from your source), but until the school says something officially with a final 'yay' or 'nay', all we have to go off of is the official statement from the athletic director to the Monroe News Star - with CSN not involved in the least bit in anything pertaining to Dillon, information that has come out on Dillon or Grambling State University.


I have Dillon as officially coming back until someone within the program contradicts what someone within the program told me this week. xthumbsupx

Again - the update clearly has a quote from the athletic director, who is someone within the program. This is not Nick making up information out of thin air! He has gone right to the horse's mouth and I have a hard time believing the AD would be putting out false information.

See below...

GSU athletics director J. Lin Dawson said the NCAA has asked for additional documents, its third such request since the school petitioned to gain a sixth season for Dillon.

"Certainly, he deserves another year "” and we are hoping he gets that," Dawson said. "They have been emphatic about the five-year rule, but there has to be a hardship."




We probably need to just drop this discussion until a final verdict comes out.

It is quite obvious that until it does, that people on this board can not make sense of an official statement from a university administrator saying the process is ongoing.

Best of luck Dillon! I hope SmallCollegeFBFan is right and that you can get a sixth year of eligibility.

[smallcollegefbfan]

No one at CSN has said anything about Dillon! There has not been an official article from the SWAC beat writer for CSN or a blog from anyone on CSN or any information from anyone that covers FCS nationally from CSN. Now, you are just making baseless accusations...



What about the athletic director? Is he not part of the GSU team? I am not saying you are wrong, but why would the AD say something different than fact? The NCAA may have informed Grambling that once they turned in paperwork XYZ that it should be a slam dunk, which could be why you have your information from a member of the football team...

However, based on information available at this stage according to the athletic director, who is a paid employee of Grambling State University and the state of Louisiana, they are submitting more feedback to Grambling. This is not even Nick Deriso who is coming up with this information, but the athletic director who is making a statement on behalf of his institution.

I do not see why it is so difficult to comprehend and definitely no reason to get defensive. At the end of the day, you may be right (via information from your source), but until the school says something officially with a final 'yay' or 'nay', all we have to go off of is the official statement from the athletic director to the Monroe News Star - with CSN not involved in the least bit in anything pertaining to Dillon, information that has come out on Dillon or Grambling State University.



Again - the update clearly has a quote from the athletic director, who is someone within the program. This is not Nick making up information out of thin air! He has gone right to the horse's mouth and I have a hard time believing the AD would be putting out false information.

See below...

GSU athletics director J. Lin Dawson said the NCAA has asked for additional documents, its third such request since the school petitioned to gain a sixth season for Dillon.

"Certainly, he deserves another year "” and we are hoping he gets that," Dawson said. "They have been emphatic about the five-year rule, but there has to be a hardship."




We probably need to just drop this discussion until a final verdict comes out.

It is quite obvious that until it does, that people on this board can not make sense of an official statement from a university administrator saying the process is ongoing.

Best of luck Dillon! I hope SmallCollegeFBFan is right and that you can get a sixth year of eligibility.

Nobody at CSN said anything? Nick and you work for CSN and he is the one who wrote it and you posted it here. Not saying the AD is not part of the GSU team but he is not a coach or player and I talked to one of the two, not an administrator. Remember that ADs have to deal with so much so it is possible that a coach or player would know something going on with the team that the AD does not know yet. I said before we needed to wait on this instead of making assumptions but I just get tired of the crude remarks, patronizing other folks, and arguing pointless stuff. I keep my mouth shut most of the time and you should know that by now. I don't just run my mouth on things unless I have legit information. You just made it seem like Nick's word is always law and he has better sources than I do without even knowing who my source was. If you believe a football coach or football player knows less about the football team than the AD then so be it but make sure you know who a person's source is before calling them out.

I'm sure you don't mean to come off like that but several folks here complain about you and I'm sure it is accidental but you come off as a know it all, smug, arrogant, and a jerk to some folks. Like I said it is not intentional, I'm sure, but just be careful on it okay. Those aren't my complaints but things I have heard from others. I don't read or post nearly as much as you do so maybe I have just missed many of those comments but you assuming that Nick's word is law over something someone else hears just kind of made me call you out. You also don't have to reply to every single little thing. If you disagree or want to prove otherwise then just move on and don't harp on the subject. I'm not mad at you just letting you know some folks on here don't really like you and as someone who posts on here A TON it is obvious you care about this board and those on it or you would not spend nearly as much time here as you do.

[TexasTerror]

Nobody at CSN said anything? Nick and you work for CSN and he is the one who wrote it and you posted it here.

1) Nick Deriso is not listed on http://collegesportingnews.com/ and works for the Monroe News Star, where he has a lengthy history covering Grambling.

2) Brandon Williams is the SWAC beat writer for CSN per the web site.

3) I can post whatever I want on here and what I do post is not an official news release of CSN. If I want to share something via CSN, I can do so through my blog, the CSN News Log or writing a column.


Not saying the AD is not part of the GSU team but he is not a coach or player and I talked to one of the two, not an administrator. Remember that ADs have to deal with so much so it is possible that a coach or player would know something going on with the team that the AD does not know yet.

You may as well throw out the coaches, players and the AD then. Your source is invalid.

My experience dictates that it is the compliance director that has the correspondence with the NCAA. Is that correct? Neither you or I have talked to the compliance director. Nick is getting second-hand information from the AD (via the compliance director) while you are through a player or coach, which is second or third-hand (via the compliance director and/or coach) pending on which source and the 'chain of discussion'.


I said before we needed to wait on this instead of making assumptions but I just get tired of the crude remarks, patronizing other folks, and arguing pointless stuff. I keep my mouth shut most of the time and you should know that by now. I don't just run my mouth on things unless I have legit information. You just made it seem like Nick's word is always law and he has better sources than I do without even knowing who my source was.

The fact that I have to respond shows that we are arguing pointless stuff. We have now both spent several minutes responding to each other on whether "Nick's word is right" (as you put it) when the fact remains that Nick has not said anything, the AD did!

And I'll PM the moderator to close this thread until CSN posts something factual, since we do not want to waste any more bandwidth wasting time...


If you believe a football coach or football player knows less about the football team than the AD then so be it but make sure you know who a person's source is before calling them out.

Not once have I called you out regarding your source.

All I did was state what the Athletic Director stated and unlike you, this was a documented source. Your source could very well be right, but have a hard time believing that the AD is "in the dark" about the process of eligibility for his starting quarterback. And the compliance director more than likely reports directly to them (and the University's top administrator).


I don't read or post nearly as much as you do so maybe I have just missed many of those comments but you assuming that Nick's word is law over something someone else hears just kind of made me call you out.

Nick's word? Again - it is the athletic director's word. I am not sure how you continue to fail to comprehend that.