PDA

View Full Version : The New UAAP Eligibility Rule



Pages : [1] 2

typhoidterry
05-22-2007, 11:58 PM
I got a text message early tonight informing me of a new UAAP rule regarding the transfer of a UAAP high school
player for college to another UAAP member school.

I called my sources and this is what I got.

All UAAP high school Grads moving to college to another UAAP member school will have to sit out his/her first playing year.

Si Anton Montinola daw ang pasimuno.

Kawawa naman si Mikey Gamboa and Lopez ng UP.

Ang galing ng nag isip nito.

Did we recruit someone from FEU?

What are the effects of this decision? This will really screw up the basketabll program of most UAAP coaches.

Xedric
05-23-2007, 12:15 AM
I got a text message early tonight informing me of a new UAAP rule regarding the transfer of a UAAP high school
player for college to another UAAP member school.

I called my sources and this is what I got.

All UAAP high school Grads moving to college to another UAAP member school will have to sit out his/her first playing year.

Si Anton Montinola daw ang pasimuno.

Kawawa naman si Mikey Gamboa and Lopez ng UP.

Ang galing ng nag isip nito.

Did we recruit someone from FEU?

What are the effects of this decision? This will really screw up the basketabll program of most UAAP coaches.

Iis this confirmed? Well thats a rule to make sure that teams spend time to train homegrown talents and keep them. On the ther hand that sucks since that puts a wrench on the recruitment system of schools.

This way schools can just recruit players from other schools before they hit 4th year HS... or each School's team B now becomes more important...

gfy
05-23-2007, 01:30 AM
Effective yan next year I am sure. We can call this the Socrates Rivera rule* :D.

Dapat may waiver - except if allowed by the school.

BigBlue
05-23-2007, 02:13 AM
as the great Homer Simpson once said:

D'oh!

Mateen Cleaves
05-23-2007, 02:45 AM
What I've heard is that the rule does not apply to Gamboa and Lopez because the one-year residency rule will be applied only to high school players who have not been given approval to "transfer". Whatever that means. What is even more sinister is that, contrary to previous UAAP practice, the new rule will be effective THIS year. Clearly, the UAAP Board passed this rule with only one player in mind -- Soc Rivera.

Paging 5FootCarrot, as the topic applies to all UAAP teams (it doesn't even affect Ateneo), may I request that this thread be moved to the UAAP Forum?

rapunzel
05-23-2007, 05:03 AM
scheeeew-feeeed rule. flies in the face of student-athlete principle. plus this only promotes even more gaming of recruitment policies, especially at the high school level. ugh.

Mateen Cleaves
05-23-2007, 08:16 AM
It's not stupid. Stupid is dumb without malice. Make no doubt about it. This was driven by vindictiveness all the way. This is not about business -- FEU will clean UP's clock this season, even with Rivera. This is personal for them.

Kid Cubao
05-23-2007, 08:27 AM
I got a text message early tonight informing me of a new UAAP rule regarding the transfer of a UAAP high school player for college to another UAAP member school.

I called my sources and this is what I got.

All UAAP high school Grads moving to college to another UAAP member school will have to sit out his/her first playing year.

is this final and executory? pano 'to nakalusot sa UAAP board?

you know what, this is not funny anymore. first, what are the standing rules on eligibility being violated that prompted this proposed policy? second, what is the point of this policy if after serving a redshirt season, the player in question will still be eligible to play five seasons? third, who decides which players were refused "permission" to transfer? what are the grounds for refusal? finally, do they have the legal right to refuse their transfer?

for me, i think it is appropriate that this proposal undergoes a constitutional review, preferably by the supreme court, for it already impinges on the freedom of choice.

siguro napapanahon na ring magkarun ng patakarang may fixed term ang mga UAAP board members. ano kaya ang tawag natin dito? ;D

augustine
05-23-2007, 09:05 AM
Calm down. This actually supports the student-athlete concept. I think it's good for students to concentrate on academics for their first year. Remember that the UAAP season is in the first sem. It's tough to be asked to transition to a new school, college level academics (presuming the school does make the athletes attend classes) and the super-dictractions of the UAAP season. Any red-shirting makes the athletes better concentrate on their studies.

Maybe we should discuss who the winners and losers are with such a rule. Clear winners are those with strong HS programs. Winners: Ateneo, FEU (despite their program being new). Neutral: UST. Losers: La Salle (despite their UAAP juniors championship), Adamson , UE. Poor NU.

5FootCarrot
05-23-2007, 09:07 AM
Did we recruit someone from FEU?
I think the stars of the Baby Tams showed up at Ateneo's open tryouts, but all eventually decided to matriculate elsewhere. [/OT]

Is this still in the proposal stage or is it a UAAP decision already?

Mateen and Cubao have raised some very good questions regarding the definitions and implementation of this new rule. The UAAP had better make these clear and reasonable, or else soften the rule; otherwise, there's going to be a big brouhaha and people might discover that they've unknowingly violated the rule because it was so dang hard to understand.

EDIT: I had some thoughts about La Salle being included as one of the "losers" but decided not to post them yet. I really need to reflect on this more first.

bluegirl
05-23-2007, 09:23 AM
Calm down. This actually supports the student-athlete concept. I think it's good for students to concentrate on academics for their first year. Remember that the UAAP season is in the first sem. It's tough to be asked to transition to a new school, college level academics (presuming the school does make the athletes attend classes) and the super-dictractions of the UAAP season. Any red-shirting makes the athletes better concentrate on their studies.


i have never had any problems with the student-athlete concept and i am all for it actually. but this rule does not in any way enforce or ensure it in my opinion. why you ask? for the following reasons:
- players not suiting up in the first year doesn't necessarily equate to them not undergoing training
- hindi ba bigger distraction ang frustration na alam mong pwde ka nang maglaro pero dahil may ganyang klaseng rule eh you have to sit out a year?
- who's to say na hindi kayang pagsabayin ang UAAP and ang adjustment? sure, hindi lahat kaya, but it's been done.

david64
05-23-2007, 10:08 AM
This rule was not intended for the 'student-athlete' principle; if it was, why limit this to UAAP schools? NCAA and other metro manila and provincial schools remain fair game.

In my opinion, this is purely another knee-jerk reaction to losing Soc Rivera to UP, just as other past decisions of the UAAP Board (the fil-ams, the 'Gaco' rule, etc.).

This now implies that students entering High School must plan their young lives and look as far ahead as college. They must decide that they will play HS ball when in 3rd year, and must choose a HS where the course they want for college (they have to decide this in Grade 7!) is being offered once they get to college.

We all know that some schools take it VERY BADLY when their players are recruited by another school; some even refuse to release school documents so the player cannot enroll in another school. Some schools also ALL OF A SUDDEN, ask for remuneration for the past schooling of the transfer-seeker, who was supposed to be a scholar in the first place. The request for 'payment' is to discourage the athlete from leaving, and also sends a message to OTHER athletes who may be contemplating a similar move.

If all schools were after the welfare of the student FIRST, they should not begrudge the student from seeking, what to his mind, may be a better option for his future, as far as schooling and playing ball, is concerned.

mighty_lion
05-23-2007, 10:32 AM
Si Anton Montinola daw ang pasimuno.


This rule will be detrimental to schools with inferior juniors program. Indirectly, kasama din ang mga players high school players na crowded and seniors team like gamboa.

Hindi kaya meron din sa NCAA in few days to come to counter Elvin Pascual. ???

Kid Cubao
05-23-2007, 10:49 AM
Calm down. This actually supports the student-athlete concept. I think it's good for students to concentrate on academics for their first year.

the new policy will support your argument--if ALL incoming recruits are required to sit out their freshman year, like they used to do in US NCAA division 1 basketball and football :)

however, the proposed policy is clear that it doesn't apply to all freshmen. it applies only to former UAAP juniors players who'll be suiting up for a different UAAP member school in the seniors division. again, what's the driving reason for singling them out? [and that, my friends, is actually rhetorical]

Fried Green Tomato
05-23-2007, 10:56 AM
I heard that the effectivity of this rule is this season. If true, this is one wicked, yet brilliant, act initiated by montinola.

More than extracting revenge, anton has a different strategy.

Technically, Rivera is not yet a UP student since the schoolyear has not yet started. And with the 1 year residency now coming into play, montinola is sending a message to rivera - either he has to sit it out with UP for a year or COME BACK to FEU and play.

But beyond this mind game that montinola is now actively playing, this ruling set one bad precedent that is of utmost concern --- making the ruling's effectivity this season.

The wisdom behind making a new ruling to have its effectivity a season after its approval is TO PROTECT all schools from the impact it might create to its sports program as a result of an abrupt change. Also, it would give everybody enough time adjusting to the changes made --- it's a fair deal. And since we know that in the uaap board, it's always a number's game, the new ruling whether done with pure intention or most of the time, with malice from its proponent would not create unfair advantage to some.

But with the stupid uaap board making this new ruling effective this season, who's going to stop a lunatic uaap board member from introducing another crazy new proposal? Knowing montinola to be an astute "player", there's no doubt that he did his homework by calling other uaap board members to know whether he's got the numbers for his proposal to pass.

UP is clearly the target of this new ruling proposed by montinola. But looking at the bigger picture, the athletes are the ones once again going to suffer from another restriction.

When is this going to end? This is just the beginning.

oca
05-23-2007, 11:14 AM
How I wish mabasa ko na ang implementing rules/guidelines.

If it is true that this is to be implemented this Season70 agad, I say may pagka-tuso ang bagong rule. Moreso, it only covers UAAP Junior players.

If the noble intention is to allow the college freshman to adjust to university academic regimen and mature before playing, then it should also apply to freshmen college recruits from non-UAAP schools.

Etong susunod kong sasabihin may be OT, pero alam niyo...this rule would greatly benefit the NCAA.

Why?

Kung ako ay isang magaling na juniors player with ambitions of playing college ball, I will go to a non-UAAP school. (Eh, saan ba may mas magaling ng Juniors competition, di ba NCAA?) That way, upon graduation I can immediately play for ANY school who would express interest in me.

Now, if I am in 3rd year hs at a UAAP school and my superior level of play becomes evident, lilipat na ako sa NCAA. That way pagdating sa college pwede ako mamili ng pupuntahan ko.

Here's the catch for the UAAP. Pag inayawan na sila ng magagaling na Juniors player at nasa NCAA na ang mga iyan, ipagdasal ng UAAP na hindi mahulog ang kalooban ng bata sa NCAA school kung saan siya naka-enroll. Pag nagkagayon, hindi na yan pupunta sa UAAP. Kahit kailan!

I won't be surprised if there will be a number of tranferees of junior ballers to NCAA schools...coming from the UAAP junior ranks. (Take note, NCAA junior rules does not require residency for transferees from non-NCAA schools.)

Let's face it guys, maraming bata basketball ang laman ng isip. And they will accord themselves more doors to knock upon if they play in the NCAA. Or even more offers to entertain if they are at an NCAA school.

From my intial reading, I can easily conclude this rule will cause the overall deterioration of the level of play of the Junior ranks in the UAAP.

Now, Ateneo and DLSZ should become a "regular fixture" in the Junior title series.

Modified to highlight 3rd paragraph.

typhoidterry
05-23-2007, 12:04 PM
I heard that the effectivity of this rule is this season. If true, this is one wicked, yet brilliant, act initiated by montinola.

More than extracting revenge, anton has a different strategy.

Technically, Rivera is not yet a UP student since the schoolyear has not yet started. And with the 1 year residency now coming into play, montinola is sending a message to rivera - either he has to sit it out with UP for a year or COME BACK to FEU and play.

But beyond this mind game that montinola is now actively playing, this ruling set one bad precedent that is of utmost concern --- making the ruling's effectivity this season.

The wisdom behind making a new ruling to have its effectivity a season after its approval is TO PROTECT all schools from the impact it might create to its sports program as a result of an abrupt change. Also, it would give everybody enough time adjusting to the changes made --- it's a fair deal. And since we know that in the uaap board, it's always a number's game, the new ruling whether done with pure intention or most of the time, with malice from its proponent would not create unfair advantage to some.

But with the stupid uaap board making this new ruling effective this season, who's going to stop a lunatic uaap board member from introducing another crazy new proposal? Knowing montinola to be an astute "player", there's no doubt that he did his homework by calling other uaap board members to know whether he's got the numbers for his proposal to pass.

UP is clearly the target of this new ruling proposed by montinola. But looking at the bigger picture, the athletes are the ones once again going to suffer from another restriction.

When is this going to end? This is just the beginning.


This was a well planned move by Montinola. Hopefully, the kids UP recruited would stay and get a REAL education!!! Compared to what their former ovelord has to offer.

muddatrucker
05-23-2007, 12:13 PM
This is ridiculous. How exactly is this rule good for the league/athletes/schools? If they really wanted to help freshmen adjust to college life, this should apply to all freshmen.

Montinola must feel good about himself now, knowing he just screwed a 17-19 year old kid over. ::)

nel
05-23-2007, 12:14 PM
This sounds like the 'spurned lover' excuse for murder - 'If I can't have you, nobody (at least in the UAAP) can'. Or the 'scorched earth' mindset - burn it down so no one else benefits. If Soc Rivera (supposed to be the second coming of Arwind Santos) ultimately decides to go to UP, FEU will make sure that he pays for that decision with a year on the sidelines.

I agree with kid cubao - this issue should be examined from a legal perspective. It violates a player's freedom of choice. Remember that most players in the junior ranks are minors, who are legally incapable of entering into contracts by themselves. If the school can't bring the player to court for breach of contract, apparently the next best remedy is to make him pay in the most costly terms - one year of not playing.

As mentioned earlier, this rule is blatantly discriminatory - only players from UAAP schools are targetted. I'd like to see how the proponent and all those who approved (is it really a done deal?) will justify or defend this rule.

The undue haste in implementation - only a couple of months before the beginning of the season, speaks volumes of the motives behind the move. It was clearly intended to target specific schools and athletes, no ifs or buts.

If the rationale is that the school gave the player a scholarship and other (financial?) support, does it expect payback? What is this, a business investment? Is it morally or legally correct to require payback in case the player chooses to go somewhere else for his college education?

The board members seem to feel that the UAAP is their own personal business, and they are free to enact rules as they please, forget logic, common sense, or usual practice in the sports world. These non-sportsmen even have the temerity to reject the BAP or FIBA rulings. They also forget that there are thousands of stakeholders - the students, alumni, and members of the school communities - they seem to pursue their own vested/personal interests.

I go back to my earlier recommendation to let a professional sports management entity run the operations of the UAAP. Such an organization should be more responsive to the needs of the stakeholders and the general public. The board is supposed to decide on policy matters, but in the light of this reported ruling, it seems that there isn't even enough brainpower on the board to power a single 10 watt light bulb. And they're supposed to be educators!???

The UAAP should make public the way the various member schools vote on issues. This way, you can hold your school rep accountable for the way he votes on any issue.

oca
05-23-2007, 12:36 PM
It just won't happen, a professional sports management entity overseeing the operations of the league.

The school reps at the Board and ManCom stands to lose a lot if such is implemented. Even if there will be one school who will take the initiative leading to such action, on votation - TIYAK TALO.

"Why would I give up all these perks and privileges?"

Going back to the topic...

Kung sino man ang makakuha ng kopya ng rule and its implementing guidelines, paki post naman.

Mikhail
05-23-2007, 12:43 PM
Anong kalokohan ito? Wala na bang karapatan ang mga bata na pumili kung saan nila gusto mag-aral at mag-laro para sa kolehiyo?

Makikinabang dito, NCAA. :)

Natatandaan ko tuloy ang BAP dahil sa mga katahangang desisyon gaya nito.

oca
05-23-2007, 01:02 PM
In principle, even at initial reading, I find nothing wrong with imposing a residency requirement on a hs student-athlete who just graduated but decides to enroll at anonther UAAP member school for college.

Why?

I firmly believe that basketball programs should include the Junior team as part of player and team development. Of course, we cannot do away with recruiting college upperclassmen from other schools. But there must be a continuity from juniors to varsity. The juniors must form part of the whole basketball program. Be an integral part of it.

If such will be the case, then, whoever I recruit for my Juniors team is understood to be a clear prospect for my seniors team.

As Senior Team B players are intended for becoming Team A players, same princple should apply for junior players. If Team B players who transfer are subject to residency rules, then I see nothing wrong if the same will be applied in principle on junior players.

Still, I would want a complete reading of the implementing rules or guidelines.

animoateneo
05-23-2007, 01:14 PM
This sounds like the 'spurned lover' excuse for murder - 'If I can't have you, nobody (at least in the UAAP) can'. Or the 'scorched earth' mindset - burn it down so no one else benefits. If Soc Rivera (supposed to be the second coming of Arwind Santos) ultimately decides to go to UP, FEU will make sure that he pays for that decision with a year on the sidelines.

I agree with kid cubao - this issue should be examined from a legal perspective. It violates a player's freedom of choice. Remember that most players in the junior ranks are minors, who are legally incapable of entering into contracts by themselves. If the school can't bring the player to court for breach of contract, apparently the next best remedy is to make him pay in the most costly terms - one year of not playing.

As mentioned earlier, this rule is blatantly discriminatory - only players from UAAP schools are targetted. I'd like to see how the proponent and all those who approved (is it really a done deal?) will justify or defend this rule.

The undue haste in implementation - only a couple of months before the beginning of the season, speaks volumes of the motives behind the move. It was clearly intended to target specific schools and athletes, no ifs or buts.

If the rationale is that the school gave the player a scholarship and other (financial?) support, does it expect payback? What is this, a business investment? Is it morally or legally correct to require payback in case the player chooses to go somewhere else for his college education?

The board members seem to feel that the UAAP is their own personal business, and they are free to enact rules as they please, forget logic, common sense, or usual practice in the sports world. These non-sportsmen even have the temerity to reject the BAP or FIBA rulings. They also forget that there are thousands of stakeholders - the students, alumni, and members of the school communities - they seem to pursue their own vested/personal interests.

I go back to my earlier recommendation to let a professional sports management entity run the operations of the UAAP. Such an organization should be more responsive to the needs of the stakeholders and the general public. The board is supposed to decide on policy matters, but in the light of this reported ruling, it seems that there isn't even enough brainpower on the board to power a single 10 watt light bulb. And they're supposed to be educators!???

The UAAP should make public the way the various member schools vote on issues. This way, you can hold your school rep accountable for the way he votes on any issue.


I don't think the courts will be able to look into this. First of, this is an internal matter. And since the UAAP is an autonomous body it has the right to enact its own policies and regulations, no matter how whimsical they may be. Regarding the violation of the player's freedom to choose, I believe the courts can always say "there's always the NCAA". which makes the argument weaker than it sounds since ultimately the player still has freedom, either take a year break or else go to the NCAA. Ultimately this underscores a point previously raised, the NCAA will make a killing from the great exodus of talent from UAAP high schools. The schools are lucky if their basketball program has an excellent HS program or is integrated enough to allow a seamless transition from HS to college ball (ie. Ateneo and La Salle) but schools who rely on outside recruits will take a beating form this rule (which raises the question on how did this rule get board approval). Ultimately, the only benefit I see from this rule is that it forces UAAP schools to invest on their HS program because they cannot depend on other UAAP schools to bolster their rosters. However, this plan has a large chance of backfiring and I think it will.

Ateneo will not be so hard-hit from this rule but I believe the other schools will. And I hope this does not cause a drop in the performance level in the UAAP. Its no fun to win when your competition is not good enough. Better to lose to a good competitor than to win against an unworthy rival.

bchoter
05-23-2007, 01:23 PM
And while getting a copy of the implementing rules/guidelines can we also get a list of how the vote went? I have a feeling hindi ako magiging masaya sa ibinoto ng aming prayle >:(

blue scorpion
05-23-2007, 01:28 PM
Is this decision final? I mean, is it appealable? Wala bang parang "Supreme Court" sa UAAP?

Mateen Cleaves
05-23-2007, 01:53 PM
I firmly believe that basketball programs should include the Junior team as part of player and team development. Of course, we cannot do away with recruiting college upperclassmen from other schools. But there must be a continuity from juniors to varsity. The juniors must form part of the whole basketball program. Be an integral part of it.

If such will be the case, then, whoever I recruit for my Juniors team is understood to be a clear prospect for my seniors team.

There is a difference between saying that one player is your prospect, as opposed to saying that that player is your property. For example, lahat naman ng mga Red Cubs prospect ng Mendiola e. And San Beda has a built in recruiting advantage kasi they can keep close and continuous contact with the prospect. Pero, kung gusto talaga ng bata maglaro sa iba, pinipigilan ba sila? Pinapa-reimburse ba sa kanila ang tuition nila ng HS?

How can FEU claim ownership of somebody like Rivera when he has already completed his high school education? If it were simply a basketball operation we are talking about, I could accept your argument. But here, we are talking about a student's basic Constitutional right to an education.

Also, you cannot simply say that it is "understood". It should be made clear -- as in a contract. Then the student-athlete (of minority age) and his parents could have had the opportunity to consider all options before committing to the high school. As it is, there is no such contract. In simple terms, Rivera's obligation was to play high school basketball for FEU-FERN. When he committed to FEU, they never said that the commitment included 5 years of college basketball.



I don't think the courts will be able to look into this. First of, this is an internal matter. And since the UAAP is an autonomous body it has the right to enact its own policies and regulations, no matter how whimsical they may be. Regarding the violation of the player's freedom to choose, I believe the courts can always say "there's always the NCAA". which makes the argument weaker than it sounds since ultimately the player still has freedom, either take a year break or else go to the NCAA. Ultimately this underscores a point previously raised, the NCAA will make a killing from the great exodus of talent from UAAP high schools. The schools are lucky if their basketball program has an excellent HS program or is integrated enough to allow a seamless transition from HS to college ball (ie. Ateneo and La Salle) but schools who rely on outside recruits will take a beating form this rule (which raises the question on how did this rule get board approval). Ultimately, the only benefit I see from this rule is that it forces UAAP schools to invest on their HS program because they cannot depend on other UAAP schools to bolster their rosters. However, this plan has a large chance of backfiring and I think it will.


The UAAP Board cannot hide behind the "internal matter" shield on something that deals with a basic Constititional right. They cannot argue that they can do anything they want "no matter how whimsical" if their whimsy does harm to a student's opportunities for education as well as future income potential.

In the case of Rivera, it is not as if he was asserting a right to be admitted to an institution that did not want him. Here is a boy -- child of low income, undereducated parents -- who wants to earn a college degree from a University that is, in turn, willing to take him in. It is the boy's high school which does not want the transaction to be completed. For no other reason than spite.

BTW, don't think that recruitment at Ateneo will be insulated from this. Ateneo's recruitment strategy now includes transfers at the high school and grade school levels. For example, they recently got a big incoming sophomore to transfer in from Xavier. If I'm a parent of a college prospect, I will now think twice about transferring to any UAAP school, lest I limit my boy's chances of playing in his first year. Better to go to San Beda or some other NCAA school then.

BigBlue
05-23-2007, 01:55 PM
Is this decision final? I mean, is it appealable? Wala bang parang "Supreme Court" sa UAAP?


the only personalities whose appeal would be recognized were most probably already involved in the decision making.

Uncle Toots
05-23-2007, 01:57 PM
Regarding the violation of the player's freedom to choose, I believe the courts can always say "there's always the NCAA". which makes the argument weaker than it sounds since ultimately the player still has freedom, either take a year break or else go to the NCAA.

so does that mean that the courts can order a UAAP juniors player to stay where he is or go play in an NCAA member school? why would the courts limit this ruling to UAAP juniors players alone, while players from other leagues can join a UAAP member school as true freshmen? eh pano kung dumating ang panahon na pati mga recruits na di galing UAAP ay bigyan na rin ng ganitong restriction? i say TAMA LANG NA I-CHALLENGE ANG GANITONG MGA PANUKALA at nang makita nang ganap kung may saysay ba ang mga ito o wala. remember that if it were not for athletes like curt flood, spencer haywood, and even jun limpot who bucked the system, there would be no such things as free agency and hardship exemptions in the NBA and PBA, respectively, that today's athletes enjoy.

my opinion is that this is an ill-conceived, vindictive, and arbitrary ruling intended as a punitive measure by one school against another.

as to the statement "whoever I recruit for my Juniors team is understood to be a clear prospect for my seniors team," let's settle things first. one does not normally recruit to play high school basketball, because basketball talent may not surface until a player is already in his junior year. maraming bano at walang ganang maglaro na nagkakarun na lang ng sigla at galing pagdating ng 4th year. that's because many times it's only in high school when the growth spurts and desire to excel begin to kick in. then as now, juniors players are culled from the student body. of course there are exceptional talents for whom this rule may not apply, but by and large, one does not normally recruit to play high school basketball. walang oak hill academy o de matha high dito sa pinas.

of course we all want continuity in our juniors and seniors program, but that's a pipe dream. success in the juniors level does not automatically equate to success in the seniors, as can be seen in the experiences of san beda and ateneo. if it were otherwise, then ateneo never would have to scour the ends of the earth to search for talent.

oca
05-23-2007, 02:48 PM
I firmly believe that basketball programs should include the Junior team as part of player and team development. Of course, we cannot do away with recruiting college upperclassmen from other schools. But there must be a continuity from juniors to varsity. The juniors must form part of the whole basketball program. Be an integral part of it.

If such will be the case, then, whoever I recruit for my Juniors team is understood to be a clear prospect for my seniors team.

There is a difference between saying that one player is your prospect, as opposed to saying that that player is your property. How can FEU claim ownership of somebody like Rivera when he has already completed his high school education? If it were simply a basketball operation we are talking about, I could accept your argument. But here, we are talking about a student's basic Constitutional right to an education.

Also, you cannot simply say that it is "understood". It should be made clear -- as in a contract -- then the student-athlete (of minority age) and his parents should have had the opportunity to consider all options before committing to the high school. As it is, there is no such contract. In simple terms, Rivera's obligation was to play high school basketball for FEU-FERN. When he committed to FEU, they never said that the commitment included 5 years of college basketball.




Your rejoinder is premised on the case of Rivera. I am looking at it from a different angle - the Juniors as an integral part of player and team development for the Seniors.

But in an earlier and separate post, I said that if this is for immediate implementaion- agad, tuso ang pagpapatupad nito. Dahil na rin nga may masasagasaan.

On that point I suppose may pagkakahawig ang pananaw natin with respect to Rivera's case, kahit di ko siya binanggit.

Let me add this. Ang pinaka di ko gusto rito ay ang agarang pagpapatupad.

Normally, a new rule is prospective in its application. Such is the usual practice so as to allow those who will be affected the chance to decide accordingly. Pero dito, affected parties are not accorded that chance. Naiipit ang mga nakapagdesisyong lumipat.

I don't think this rule presupposes that Junior ballers are property of the school. As it is, they are not prevented from transfering to another UAAP school if education is all there is to it.

Now, will seating for a year to meet the residency requirement encroaches on their right to play? I don't think so.

Why?

Huwag nating kalimutan, the UAAP, by its very nature as a sports association can enforce its own eligibility rules.

Eligibility rule covers the privilege to play in the league. Hinid nito pinaghihimasukan ang rights may kinalaman sa education.

Pero, gusto ko pa rin mabasa ang implemeting rules/ guidelines. Sino ang may kopya?

shyboy
05-23-2007, 03:11 PM
The ruling is basically legal if you look at it closely. The player from a UAAP high school can still opt to enroll at another UAAP school for college but it will mean sitting out his first year due to residency. It's no different from a Fil-Am who would need a 2-year residency prior to being eligible to play. It's a legal ruling but it's not popular. It's not pro student-athlete and it's two steps backward for the UAAP.

bluebruiser90
05-23-2007, 03:51 PM
Calm down.* This actually supports the student-athlete concept.* I think it's good for students to concentrate on academics for their first year.*

But that's not rule's purpose. If the rule was implemented to improve the academic performances of student-athletes then the rule should be applied equally to all first year student-athletes. Every freshman athlete, regardless of which HS they came from should then sit out their first year of comps.

nel
05-23-2007, 04:18 PM
The discriminatory nature of the rule makes it questionable legally. Why pick on specific schools but not others? What rules does a student break if wishes to study in another university for college?

The undue haste in implementation clearly shows malice. Normally, a measure like this should be prospectively implemented in the next season to give all schools and graduating athletes enough time to evaluate their options. The very late announcement, when most students have already made their plans, almost smacks of blackmail/extortion - you either pay up (stay with the school) or sit out a year. Some athletes will not have any choice because of their particular financial situations - no play, no scholarship or other benefits.

Paging the lawyers - can we have your views on this?

casual_observer
05-23-2007, 05:00 PM
this new "rule" allegedly spearheaded by Anton Montinola is absolutely STUPID and clearly targets not only specific players and schools (gaguhan pala ang gusto ni Montinola eh, so he will make UP suffer because it got the services of Rivera) but the whole league itself. tama yung sinabi ng isa sa atin dito na dahil sa tinamaan ng magaling na rule na ito ay baka magkaroon ng mas exodus ng UAAP junior players papuntang NCAA or baka naman yung mga junior players natin ay sa NCAA na lang maglalaro since nawalan na sila ng karapatan na pumili ng eskuwelahan na gusto nilang pasukan at kapag sa ibang UAAP schools sila maglalaro ay mapapanis ang talento nila for a year.

curious lang ako. hindi ba pwedeng i-overrule ito ng majority ng board members? para kasing ang dating ng rule na ito ay anti-UP ang karamihan ng mga kakuntsaba ni Montinola. ano bang meron ang UP at "threatened" sila sa pagsulpot nina Soc Rivera sa Diliman?

lastly, hindi ba nabasa ng UP representatives sa board na may posibleng magkaroon ng ganitong rule na siguradong ang Maroons ang tatamaan?

pio_valenz
05-23-2007, 08:41 PM
I think everything I wanted to say has been said about this brilliant new rule, so let me just add this:

Have they defined what constitutes "approval"? What's to stop Montinola from getting really vindictive and saying, "you know what, I also didn't approve the release of Dexter Rosales and Mark Lopez"? Then if things get really crazy, Ateneo can step in and say, "Hey, we also didn't approve the release of Mike Gamboa" (although I'm sure they won't; it's just an example of how open to interpretation this rule is).

What I also don't get is how in good conscience the other board members approved this rule and its immediate implementation. I hear only one school sided with UP. Someone also told me that all new rules must be proposed no later than April. If this is true, somebody better check the exact date that Montinola hatched this idea.

casual_observer
05-23-2007, 08:48 PM
is there still any way for this new "Rivera Rule" to be repealed by the UAAP board given the fact that this is one very unpopular move and that most teams (except perhaps for the board members who sided or connived with Anton Montinola) would certainly oppose it?

tama si Sir Pio. sobrang dangerous ang proposal na ito that various interpretations or constructions of the said rule could actually jeopardize the careers of certain potential rookies and the plans of certain teams that are to be directly affected by the "Rivera Rule" (i.e., Soc Rivera and the UP Maroons).

animoateneo
05-23-2007, 08:58 PM
The UAAP Board cannot hide behind the "internal matter" shield on something that deals with a basic Constititional right. They cannot argue that they can do anything they want "no matter how whimsical" if their whimsy does harm to a student's opportunities for education as well as future income potential.

In the case of Rivera, it is not as if he was asserting a right to be admitted to an institution that did not want him. Here is a boy -- child of low income, undereducated parents -- who wants to earn a college degree from a University that is, in turn, willing to take him in. It is the boy's high school which does not want the transaction to be completed. For no other reason than spite.

BTW, don't think that recruitment at Ateneo will be insulated from this. Ateneo's recruitment strategy now includes transfers at the high school and grade school levels. For example, they recently got a big incoming sophomore to transfer in from Xavier. If I'm a parent of a college prospect, I will now think twice about transferring to any UAAP school, lest I limit my boy's chances of playing in his first year. Better to go to San Beda or some other NCAA school then.

I believe shyboy and oca have addressed this. Repeating what they said, it will stand legally because the UAAP can promulgate and enforce eligibility rules and guidelines and that the rights of the student-athlete are not violated though albeit limited significantly by this rule. But they still have a choice. Though I also do not approve of this rule which was obviously formulated to stem the exodus of talent from one UAAP school to another. Regarding the other point, the rule applies only to UAAP schools. Hence if the student comes from a non-UAAP school, there is no problem. I believe the parents do not consider only the basketball program in choosing a high school/college for their children. They also consider the academic performance of the school. I also believe that HS is a stepping stone for college, hence when a student transfers to a certain school more or less he will also advance to the college of the said school unless something radical happens to convince him otherwise.



so does that mean that the courts can order a UAAP juniors player to stay where he is or go play in an NCAA member school? why would the courts limit this ruling to UAAP juniors players alone, while players from other leagues can join a UAAP member school as true freshmen? eh pano kung dumating ang panahon na pati mga recruits na di galing UAAP ay bigyan na rin ng ganitong restriction? i say TAMA LANG NA I-CHALLENGE ANG GANITONG MGA PANUKALA at nang makita nang ganap kung may saysay ba ang mga ito o wala. remember that if it were not for athletes like curt flood, spencer haywood, and even jun limpot who bucked the system, there would be no such things as free agency and hardship exemptions in the NBA and PBA, respectively, that today's athletes enjoy.

What I meant by that is that the courts may not be able to help us on this matter. Though I believe we should definitely challenge this. The board member of each school will have a lot to explain to alumni, parents and students regarding their vote.

*edit*
but come to think of it, if it can be proven that the basis of this rule is all because of Soc Rivera's defection to UP, it can be used as a basis for its repeal because it can be said that the UAAP board has committed "grave abuse of its discretion".

casual_observer
05-23-2007, 09:02 PM
^ well, because of this rule, there might be a resurgence of the "purge" of NCAA and Tiong Lian teams for potential rookies in UAAP teams ala-San Beda Red Cubs "purge" in the past. we might even see an exodus of current UAAP juniors to NCAA schools just to by-pass the rule. ::)

still, i am more than convinced that the "Rivera Rule" is a violation of the athlete's right to choose and must, therefore, be repealed immediately.

gfy
05-23-2007, 09:21 PM
I understand only UP and Ateneo voted against this rule. So all the others voted yes including DLSU?

atenean_blooded
05-23-2007, 09:46 PM
This rule is problematic. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "stupid," because "stupid" would be the drum limit rule or the rule relegating the pep squads to the GA section.

I will not go so far as to read malice into this particular rule, orchistrated by Montinola or whoever or not.

That said, there are certain things about the rule which we might be able to consider as good. First, the rule should help curb the practice of hiring mercenaries. Not totally curb it, but just help. That's because the transferee will have to understand that he will effectively be giving up one year of possible playing experience and exposure if ever he decides to transfer. I guess it'll also make it a bit more expensive to recruit, since you'll be shelling out for six years instead of just five, assuming that the player is eligible to play for five years. Second, I agree that it should at least encourage and help a transferee adjust to a new academic setting, allowing him or her to get decent marks at least in first year. Third, this will encourage development of better integrated grass-roots programs among UAAP schools. I disagree that there will be little incentive for the grass-roots programs. The rule will probably encourage one of the following: 1) the improvement of basic education standards so that the student will be better prepared for college and will not need to move from one university to another, as well as the improvement of integrated varsity programs from basic education (GS and HS) to college, or 2)the lowering of acceptance standards to the college unit.

The problems are more serious. First, is that because of the "approval" needed prior to release, the rule effectively institutionalizes a system wherein a student is denied his choice of school for college. What constitutes approval? Second, and this has been raised, why only UAAP schools? There seems to be no rational basis for the distinction between UAAP and non-UAAP schools when it comes to this. In fact, it seems to favor non-UAAP schools a bit more, because their talent will be able to come in and not worry about the effect of this rule Third, why just the HS grads? Why not every single rookie? Fourth, this is hardly the rule to implement if you want to develop student athletes. A more effective measure being the imposition of a required graduation rate for member schools, or that players be asked to maintain a certain grade equivalent. These two possibilities are better, because any compromising of standards in order to achieve the graduation rate or the required grade is going to reflect on the individual school.

I agree that joining a varsity high school program does not bind somebody to play for the same school even at the collegiate level. The situation is ridiculous: imagine a HS player who joins a varsity team, graduates, but unfortunately did not pass the entrance requirements to his "home" university. So you stop him from playing college ball when your college didn't accept him? Or what if he gets injured during his last season as a HS player, and because of the costs of getting treated, he can only afford to matriculate to another school, which just so happens to be a member of the UAAP?

There is absolutely no need for "approval" of any sort. The rule is that the contractual relationship that forms between between a student (whether as represented by his parents or not) and a school terminates at graduation. The "Rivera Rule," by requiring some sort of approval, effectively creates some sort of contractual relationship (of sorts) where none was really agreed upon. Or it also imposes some sort of relationship between the individual athlete and the UAAP, when the UAAP has absolutely no stake in the athlete, who opted to join the school's varsity program, not the UAAP. You can see it either that way, or you can see it as treating HS grads as property.

The rule isn't clear. And that's what makes discussion difficult and frustrating.

I do think, however, that this is largely an internal matter. The UAAP member schools come to an agreement. Nobody's forcing students to go to UAAP schools anyway. And if member schools do not like the rule, they can simply leave the UAAP. I do not think the courts will bother looking into this any more than I think they would've bothered looking into recent controversial internal matters like the La Salle scandal and subsequent suspension.

bluewing
05-23-2007, 09:58 PM
on its face, nothing really "illegal" with the rule.

nagiging masama lang dahil ALAM NAMAN NATING LAHAT NA MASAMA ANG MOTIBO NG MAY PAKANA. it's not about safeguarding morals or the students' welfare at all. it's a bitter grudge, plain and simple.


i have nothing personal against the FEU team... but i am hoping that the maroons kick the tams' ass this season. on both occasions. kahit this season man lang...

poetic justice.

RockLobster
05-23-2007, 10:10 PM
Just a small input. The freedom to choose doesn't necessarily mean having a lot of choices. If the courts would have a say on this rule, I don't think it's rational to say that there are choices other than UAAP schools, and so the constitutional right of the student-athlete to choose a school he wants to study in and play for is not curbed. It's in this situation that what a student "wants" holds more water than what he merely "needs". If he wants to go to a UAAP school because he believes in what the school can do for him as an athlete and as a person, then no rule should prevent him from doing so. Hindi puwede 'yung "puwede na 'tong school na 'to, basta makapag-aral lang at makapaglaro ng basketball."

casual_observer
05-24-2007, 12:27 AM
nabasa ko lang ito sa PEx so maganda na rin siguro na i-share ko dito sa atin sa gameface.

would it be possible for the affected parties in the "Rivera Rule" (i.e. Soc Rivera and the UP Maroons) to seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the courts in order to stop the UAAP board from fully implementing the rule? siguro naman ay mas mataas ang mga batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas kaysa sa mga batas ni Anton Montinola, este, ng UAAP Board. ::)

bluewing
05-24-2007, 01:11 AM
i doubt kung mag-prosper ito sa korte. kasi kung tutuusin, wala namang ginawang illegal per se. the UAAP is an independent body whose board is given rule-making powers under its charter/AOI/by-laws or whatever. isa pa, kung anumang haka-haka, hinala at hula natin sa mga kadahilanan, motibo o implikasyon ng mga reglang (rule in tagalog) ito, merely speculative lang lahat. walang basehan, kung tutuusin, maliban na lang sa fact na nagkaka-amuyan na tayo dito sa UAAP at kabisado na natin ang tema ng bawa't isa.

ang pinakaswabe... motion for reconsideration sa board ulit... kung pansinin. dapat magaling yung mag-a-argue.

casual_observer
05-24-2007, 02:24 AM
^ with only two members opposing the rule (UP and Ateneo daw, according to gfy), hindi kaya parang malabong makalusot ang recon para 'wag ituloy ang kalokohan na "Rivera rule" na yan. siguradong ngayon pa lang ay baka ginagapang na ulit ni Anton Montinola yung mga kakuntsaba niya sa Board para i-junk yan. ::)

Fried Green Tomato
05-24-2007, 03:20 AM
The limitations imposed to uaap HS players are quite disturbing. Yes, it is discriminatory because the new rule is SELECTIVE as it imposed restrictions only to a particular group - uaap HS players. And even if you try to soften the impact with a shallow reason of "allowing the new players to adjust to a new academic setting, it is still discrimation.

Let's get real here. If the proponent of this new rule had in his heart the athletes' best intention, it should not be applicable only to uaap HS players. Is montinola saying that uaap HS players are inferiors when compared to other players coming from other schools (Metro Manila & provinces) that they need to "adjust" and prepare academically for 1 year?

Adjusting to college life whether it is academically or to a new social environment is dependent to the person (player) but it is applicable to all - not only for uaap hs players. Everybody has to gp through the transformation and adjustment from High School life to a new college experience. So this non-sensical justification for the new rule is just a poor alibi.

Also, it is a given fact that some uaap schools are way way above and superior academically to other uaap schools and generally, their students (and even players) are more prepared to tackle the rudiments of a college life. Bias it may sound but that's reality. So, if a player from one of the superior uaap schools decides to play to a known inferior uaap school, do you honestly believe that he could not handle the academic loads from that school? So what's the use of 1 year residency? .... to a adjust to the new environment?

And the attachment to the new rule that the player needs approval of his old school for his release... i think this is bordering into the curtailment of one's freedom of choice. Since when has the school the right to deprive a person to make his own choice? Given there is this new rule barring a player from another uaap school for playing outright, is this new rule legal and above a person's basic constitutional right? Is the new limitation imposed by the uaap board to uaap HS players a selective profiling of one sector of the society and restricting their basic constitutional right? Since Rivera is now with UP, i hope, the bright UP lawyers would challenge this infringement of one's freedom of choice. I think, this is a good test case.

Clearly, malice is intended with this new rule. The proponent of this new rule did not have the best intention of the players when he concocted the idea and even the justification given could not wash away his ill ulterior motive. No good shall come out from an evil intent.

Kid Cubao
05-24-2007, 05:12 AM
isa pang nakikita ko: with all these restrictions being hatched and promulgated of late, the UAAP might run the real risk of system failure when determining player eligibility. let's refresh our memories, shall we? we have the maximum age rule, the "seven years out of high school" thing, the lago brothers rule, the jerwin gaco rule, and now this rule plus many others i failed to mention. baka dumating ang araw na ang pwede na lang maglaro sa UAAP ay mga singaw.

atenean_blooded
05-24-2007, 06:48 AM
The limitations imposed to uaap HS players are quite disturbing. Yes, it is discriminatory because the new rule is SELECTIVE as it imposed restrictions only to a particular group - uaap HS players. And even if you try to soften the impact with a shallow reason of "allowing the new players to adjust to a new academic setting, it is still discrimation.

Agreed. Here's an even more interesting scenario: La Salle Greenhills transferees will not need to serve the residency requirement, but La Salle Zobel students will.



Let's get real here. If the proponent of this new rule had in his heart the athletes' best intention, it should not be applicable only to uaap HS players. Is montinola saying that uaap HS players are inferiors when compared to other players coming from other schools (Metro Manila & provinces) that they need to "adjust" and prepare academically for 1 year?

As pointed out, it makes no sense.



Adjusting to college life whether it is academically or to a new social environment is dependent to the person (player) but it is applicable to all - not only for uaap hs players. Everybody has to gp through the transformation and adjustment from High School life to a new college experience. So this non-sensical justification for the new rule is just a poor alibi.

Agreed.



Also, it is a given fact that some uaap schools are way way above and superior academically to other uaap schools and generally, their students (and even players) are more prepared to tackle the rudiments of a college life. Bias it may sound but that's reality. So, if a player from one of the superior uaap schools decides to play to a known inferior uaap school, do you honestly believe that he could not handle the academic loads from that school? So what's the use of 1 year residency? .... to a adjust to the new environment?

Well-put. In fact, all things being equal, the rule still makes no sense.



And the attachment to the new rule that the player needs approval of his old school for his release... i think this is bordering into the curtailment of one's freedom of choice. Since when has the school the right to deprive a person to make his own choice? Given there is this new rule barring a player from another uaap school for playing outright, is this new rule legal and above a person's basic constitutional right? Is the new limitation imposed by the uaap board to uaap HS players a selective profiling of one sector of the society and restricting their basic constitutional right? Since Rivera is now with UP, i hope, the bright UP lawyers would challenge this infringement of one's freedom of choice. I think, this is a good test case.

The Bill of Rights does not explicitly provide for "freedom of choice," unless you consider "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..." The thing is, the rule does not even violate the freedom of choice. Nobody's forcing anybody to transfer, nor to play varsity sports. The courts are unlikely to look into an internal affair of the UAAP, since this should be resolved internally.



Clearly, malice is intended with this new rule. The proponent of this new rule did not have the best intention of the players when he concocted the idea and even the justification given could not wash away his ill ulterior motive. No good shall come out from an evil intent.


Again, I do not wish to read evil into this issue. A reading of malice is not even necessary to expose the problems with the rule.

JonarSabilano
05-24-2007, 09:20 AM
I just wish we'd stop calling these kids "transferees". You only transfer from one college to another, or from one HS to another. When it comes to HS kids moving up to college, they "enroll".

I agree that playing for one university high school does not entail being required to play for the university per se. Once a student graduates from high school, the explicit relationship between the school and the student is dissolved, unless the student decides to enroll in the college department as well. If a HS kid has already graduated, the powers-that-be no longer have any jurisdiction over him.

When it comes to admission to colleges, high schools can only do so much: 1) furnish the grades to the college being applied for; 2) submit letters of recommendation; 3) submit certificates of moral character and diplomas, if required. Thus, the said "approval" that Rivera wasn't able to get from Montinola is a sucker punch to the gut if I ever saw one.

Fried Green Tomato
05-24-2007, 11:55 AM
And the attachment to the new rule that the player needs approval of his old school for his release... i think this is bordering into the curtailment of one's freedom of choice. Since when has the school the right to deprive a person to make his own choice? Given there is this new rule barring a player from another uaap school for playing outright, is this new rule legal and above a person's basic constitutional right? Is the new limitation imposed by the uaap board to uaap HS players a selective profiling of one sector of the society and restricting their basic constitutional right? Since Rivera is now with UP, i hope, the bright UP lawyers would challenge this infringement of one's freedom of choice. I think, this is a good test case.

The Bill of Rights does not explicitly provide for "freedom of choice," unless you consider "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..." The thing is, the rule does not even violate the freedom of choice. Nobody's forcing anybody to transfer, nor to play varsity sports. The courts are unlikely to look into an internal affair of the UAAP, since this should be resolved internally.



I know my position on this is subject to several interpretations but here it is...

Limiting the options of an athlete is an outright curtailment of his right to freely choose his selected path and the new rule is clearly in violation of such right.

After graduation, the school has no more right, legal or moral, to choose whatever you want to do with your life. If you opted to study and play for another uaap school then you have every right to do so provided that you have satisfied all the requirements of the school. That should have been the usual case… but not anymore with this new rule.

Not all athletes have the financial capacity to pursue a college education and in many cases, an athlete’s passport in achieving such goal is only through an athletic scholarship. But with this new rule, even such opportunity is put in great danger as there’s no assurance that you would still get an athletic scholarship as you still have to go through 1 year residency.

For basketball players especially the highly recruited athletes, we may not have any problem as the school, most of the time, is more than willing to give him scholarship even when he’s still in residency… but how about athletes of other sports of lesser importance to the school? How about those average-skilled athletes? Would they still give the same scholarship and spend considerable amount to an athlete of no immediate use? Not all uaap schools have the financial resources to freely give an athletic scholarship without getting something in return. An athletic scholarship is not just giving free education, you also have to give free board & lodging and even allowance to the athletes. While a school’s primary duty is to give good education, they are also running a business and have to make money. And in most cases, athletic scholarship is limited.

Depriving a player of having an education, especially under an athletic scholarship, is tantamount to depriving him of his life.

If a player’s ONLY option, who wishes to study and play, is an athletic scholarship given by another uaap school and this new rule is an hindrance then one could argue that you are depriving him not only of his freedom of choice but more importantly of his right to live.

brian
05-24-2007, 12:17 PM
the other problem is, some hs school players couldn't just enter their school's varsity team even if they wanted to...i bet mike gamboa, migs de asis or martin reyes woiuld have entered admu and dlsu respectively if they were allowed to..

fact of the matter is, only the highly touted rookies-to-be are the ones lucky enough to have choices...paano naman ang iba? survival na nga, diniskaril pa...iimo, some student athletes doesn't have any real choice of school to enter. they rely solely on being recruited..pati ba chances nila tinatanggal because teams would take other matters into consideration..

parang homegrown theory in reverse* >:(

bluewing
05-24-2007, 12:35 PM
i don't agree that the NCAA stands to benefit from this tule. sa biglang-tingin, parang ganun kasi nga malamang ay dumami ang maglipatan doon galing sa UAAP High Schools para lang hindi mag-residency...

but on the flipside, lalo lang pagbubutihan ng UAAP college teams ang pamimirata from NCAA high schools. and i don't buy that comment na the ncaa kids are now "more loyal" than before... this may be the case for two or three schools. but for the lower-tiered ncaa teams, the UAAP is still the mecca of local amateur hoops (despite its regular display of stupidity, year in and year out).

so ano mangyayari? a few years down the road... ang composition na ng UAAP seniors division ay mga dating NCAA juniors players, and VICE VERSA.

Ranger
05-24-2007, 01:16 PM
I understand only UP and Ateneo voted against this rule. So all the others voted yes including DLSU?


DLSU board members were not present. The new DLSU board members will only begin their tenure during the next board meeting...

eightyfiver
05-24-2007, 01:54 PM
With this rule ineligible na rin sila para sa "Rookie of the Year" Award. Tama ba?

Power play/trip lang ito. Napaka-cheap...

gfy
05-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Jonas Paguia is also missing-in-action. Pinaghahanap din ng FEU for 3 weeks na. Kung sino man nagtatago kay Jonas, ilabas na. Di rin siya makakalaro o magbabayad din :D.

Jeep
05-24-2007, 03:29 PM
i would hate to have to put it this way, but barring this rule (or maybe even as a result of it), a contract between the two parties -- the boy's parents (as he is legally a non-entity as yet, at least at the HS level) and the school -- would protect the interests of both parties. expectations are spelled out and enforceable. and, properly written, they would have clearly defined terms under which either party can opt out -- and more importantly are aware that there are moral and legal consequences if in case one party can no longer perform according to the contract's terms.

it happens all the time, and in soc rivera's case, he's simply lost the drive to play for FEU at the seniors level. what's anton to do? on the other hand, as an administrator, i can sympathize with anton montinola, who was probably hoping to put together a team that could make a serious run to regain the tamaraws' supremacy in UAAP ball. (and this is why i'd rather we avoid insinuations or even outright accusations that FEU administration -- and anton specifically -- are evil and malevolent beings. it just tends to generate heat instead of light.) if a contract were in place, then both parties simply refer to the terms under which they can disengage from their relationship, and proceed as stated.

i say "hate to have to put it this way" because, in many ways, it's sad that school varsity has gotten this complex through the years. however, the athletes and their parents will have to face up to this changing reality. definitely, it's a lot better to have something to lean on, i.e., a contract, rather than go through this type of acrimonious bickering, but one tends to wish for simpler times, when your college's or university's HS players had but one dream, and that was to play for the same school at the seniors level.

i am still hoping, however, that the UAAP board could reconsider, somehow, their decision -- obviously made in haste (and, if we believe what has been said about anton montinola here, anger, too). they will just paint themselves into a corner with this decision, as grade school athletes will be very wary of playing for a UAAP HS with this soc rivera rule in force.

BigBlue
05-24-2007, 03:53 PM
just a question for the legally-inclined here. it has been mentioned that the courts would probably not touch this case. but could the GAB intervene? Is the UAAP even under the GAB's sphere of responsibility?

nel
05-24-2007, 04:20 PM
There is a precedent regarding how the UAAP views the BAP (now the BAP-SBP). Remember the Tonyboy Espinosa controversy that derailed La Salle's 3-peat during the time of Manong Derek? The UAAP board ruled that the situation called for a replay of the game, and La Salle refused to show up, handing FEU the championship by default. If I remember correctly, La Salle took the issue to the BAP, but the UAAP board refused to budge, citing their independence.

If some of the personalities associated with the board then are still on the board today, expect them to act the same way - they are likely to thumb their noses at the BAP-SBP.

Bennie Bangag
05-24-2007, 04:23 PM
sorry, bigblue, but the games and amusements board is the regulatory body for professional sports and gaming concerns. di nila sakop ang UAAP.

lurkinggood
05-24-2007, 05:21 PM
So to which higher institution is UAAP accountable? What legal framework can provide check-and-balance in UAAP regulations and policies? Has the UAAP board not committed any civil/criminal liability by applying this hasty ruling?

There has to be a way to fix this 'Soc Rivera' issue legally. >:(

casual_observer
05-24-2007, 05:31 PM
pwede bang pumasok na sa usapang ito ang BAP-SBP? siguro naman ay "under" ng BAP-SBP ang UAAP kaya pwedeng i-elevate ang kaso ng "Rivera Rule" sa BAP-SBP. ???

read the "Soc Rivera Story" on Oblation Nation. nakakapanggigil talaga si Anton Montinola. bwisit! ::)

john_paul_manahan
05-24-2007, 05:33 PM
maybe this BAP... maybe...

GHRanger
05-24-2007, 05:48 PM
Probably the higher institution would be the BAP-SBP...* Since technically all the basketball groups will be under this umbrella and the UAAP is a major stakeholder in this organization.* But -- and a big one at that -- the question is what is the level of involvement the BAP-SBP will have over it's league members (i.e. officiating, eligibility, rules and regulations, etc.)*

casual_observer
05-24-2007, 05:52 PM
i am wondering why this issue has not yet gone out on mainstream media. perhaps someone here with connections could try contacting Chino Trinidad or Quinito Henson so that the "Rivera Rule" hullabaloo can be brought out in the open. siguro naman ay mapapahiya si Montinola kapag nangyari yun bukod sa kapag nakialam na ang BAP-SBP sa isyu. :o

pio_valenz
05-24-2007, 06:16 PM
Probably the higher institution would be the BAP-SBP...* Since technically all the basketball groups will be under this umbrella and the UAAP is a major stakeholder in this organization.* But -- and a big one at that -- the question is what is the level of involvement the BAP-SBP will have over it's league members (i.e. officiating, eligibility, rules and regulations, etc.)*

Agreed. Maybe this would be the right time to expand the powers of the governing basketball body. There has to be a higher and impartial body to police collegiate leagues or to whom appeals can be made.

casual_observer
05-24-2007, 06:22 PM
^ if that will be the case, Boss pio, which party or who are the people who should appeal the case to the BAP-SBP? what would be the most likely course of action that the BAP-SBP will take regarding the "Rivera Rule?"

BigBlue
05-24-2007, 06:35 PM
^off the bat, i guess it should be Rivera's family. or maybe UP, as a concerned member of the league.

casual_observer
05-24-2007, 08:30 PM
^ oh well. i do hope that Soc, his family and UP will find ways to resolve this issue once and for all. the "Rivera Rule" is detrimental to the whole league and yet, some members of the Board connived with Anton Montinola to get it approved and implemented without weighing all factors involved. goodness! ::)

how i wish the BAP-SBP is now monitoring the situation in our league. panahon na para i-exercise nila ang supervisory powers nila over UAAP's policy-making, kung meron man.

Semenelin
05-24-2007, 08:41 PM
ok, so let's say a student really wants to study in another school but he is an athlete... no, its still wrong. e kung gusto nya magaral sa ibang paaralan at maglaro, bawal? upo sya ng isang taon? mali pa rin e...

Wingman
05-24-2007, 09:18 PM
^ oh well. i do hope that Soc, his family and UP will find ways to resolve this issue once and for all. the "Rivera Rule" is detrimental to the whole league and yet, some members of the Board connived with Anton Montinola to get it approved and implemented without weighing all factors involved. goodness! ::)

how i wish the BAP-SBP is now monitoring the situation in our league. panahon na para i-exercise nila ang supervisory powers nila over UAAP's policy-making, kung meron man.

Even if BAP-SBP decides to over rule the UAAP board's decision, I think the UAAP board will not recognize them. Remember when La Salle was declared champions by BAP in 1991 thus overturning the decision by the UAAP board, the UAAP board didn't recognize the decision and still insisted that FEU was the champions.

animoateneo
05-24-2007, 10:49 PM
A big mystery to me is how this rule got board approval in the first place. Anton Montinola must have great mojo to be able convince other board members to derail a major part of their recruiting efforts. Funny that the schools with better HS programs which can be perceived to benefit from this rule are the ones who voted against it (ie. UP and Ateneo).

It seems not even the SBP-BAP's authority will be recognized by the arrogant UAAP officials. The only authority higher in my opinion is a judicial court. At face value, it has a great chance of standing in a legal point of view given the circumstances pointed out earlier (ie. the UAAP being an independent body). However I agree with Fried Green Tomato, that since it touches on a freedom of a certain group (ie. student athletes) it may warrant some attention from the courts. Philippine courts are quite wary on issues dealing with fundamental freedoms. Big blue is right, UP and Soc Rivera's family are qualified to challenge this legally. I'd also include, Mike G and the other Fern boys who are contemplating a move to UP to challenge this with help from their families. However I see this as a losing struggle, the burden falls on the aggrieved parties to prove the credibility of this rule. I just hope some brilliant alumni of UP attorney (calling graduates of UP law!!) is willing to take up the cudgel for this cause. Not only for the sake of UP basketball but UAAP basketball in general.

atenean_blooded
05-25-2007, 12:45 AM
I know my position on this is subject to several interpretations but here it is...

Limiting the options of an athlete is an outright curtailment of his right to freely choose his selected path and the new rule is clearly in violation of such right.

After graduation, the school has no more right, legal or moral, to choose whatever you want to do with your life. If you opted to study and play for another uaap school then you have every right to do so provided that you have satisfied all the requirements of the school. That should have been the usual case… but not anymore with this new rule.

First things first. A school never has a right to choose what you want to do for your life. Which is why you choose the school you attend.



Not all athletes have the financial capacity to pursue a college education and in many cases, an athlete’s passport in achieving such goal is only through an athletic scholarship. But with this new rule, even such opportunity is put in great danger as there’s no assurance that you would still get an athletic scholarship as you still have to go through 1 year residency.

For basketball players especially the highly recruited athletes, we may not have any problem as the school, most of the time, is more than willing to give him scholarship even when he’s still in residency… but how about athletes of other sports of lesser importance to the school? How about those average-skilled athletes? Would they still give the same scholarship and spend considerable amount to an athlete of no immediate use? Not all uaap schools have the financial resources to freely give an athletic scholarship without getting something in return. An athletic scholarship is not just giving free education, you also have to give free board & lodging and even allowance to the athletes. While a school’s primary duty is to give good education, they are also running a business and have to make money. And in most cases, athletic scholarship is limited.

Agreed.



Depriving a player of having an education, especially under an athletic scholarship, is tantamount to depriving him of his life.

If a player’s ONLY option, who wishes to study and play, is an athletic scholarship given by another uaap school and this new rule is an hindrance then one could argue that you are depriving him not only of his freedom of choice but more importantly of his right to live.

This is a logical jump.

If my interpretation is correct, (and please correct me if I have misunderstood the last paragraph), this presupposes that the player is denied the benefits of his athletic scholarship because of the rule. But this may, or may not be the case. The fact is, the player will still be studying in such a school. He will just not be allowed to play in UAAP sports. He will be able to focus on his academics (which is what he should be doing, first and foremost), or play in other leagues, UAAP restrictions on participation in other leagues aside.

That is hardly depriving him of his right to an education, and that is hardly depriving him of his right to life, at least from how I see it.

Now, assuming that this is the player's only option, then his choice should be made (unless he doesn't want to study anymore). As a student, the player must conform to the policies of the school he attends.

My opinion on the matter, however, is that this remains largely an internal affair of the UAAP, which the courts are unlikely to look into. The matter may be immoral, but not everything that is touched upon by morals is necessarily a question of law as well.

The problem, being internal, is something that should have been rejected by the UAAP member school in the first place. Academic institutions enjoy significant autonomy, which includes their determination of their educational policies, which further includes their position on varsity sports. But then again, should this be taken to court, I may be surprised and the courts may very well decide to try this issue and decide accordingly. I doubt whether the case will prosper, however.

Any party who decides to take this to court should realize that court action will always have to do with applicable law. Should an applicable law be wanting, then the courts will simply dismiss the issue because they have no jurisdiction.

I'll look into this a bit more.

casual_observer
05-25-2007, 12:57 AM
if ever the aggrieved parties (e.g. Soc Rivera and his family; UP) will take this matter to court, the first step should be to secure a temporary restraining order (TRO) in order to prevent the UAAP board from implementing the "Rivera Rule". at least with a TRO in place, Soc Rivera and other players who will be affected by the "Rivera Rule" will get the chance to play with the UAAP team of their choice (i.e., Soc Rivera can play for the UP Fighting Maroons).

however, before even a TRO can be issued by the court, the aggrieved parties should determine which laws have been violated by the UAAP board through the "Rivera Rule." the court will only issue a TRO or have a case heard if there is probable cause.

hmmmm... if the BAP-SBP will be "snobbed" by the UAAP board, can the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) have a say on the matter?

bluewing
05-25-2007, 01:28 AM
First things first. A school never has a right to choose what you want to do for your life. Which is why you choose the school you attend.




that's right dude.

not even the State itself can force a person or his parents to attend a particular institution of learning...

Fried Green Tomato
05-25-2007, 02:18 AM
I know my position on this is subject to several interpretations but here it is...

Limiting the options of an athlete is an outright curtailment of his right to freely choose his selected path and the new rule is clearly in violation of such right.

After graduation, the school has no more right, legal or moral, to choose whatever you want to do with your life. If you opted to study and play for another uaap school then you have every right to do so provided that you have satisfied all the requirements of the school. That should have been the usual case… but not anymore with this new rule.

First things first. A school never has a right to choose what you want to do for your life. Which is why you choose the school you attend.

Let me start by saying that my premise centers on a player getting an athletic scholarship and on the assumption that not all schools would offer scholarship while the player is still adjusting academically for 1 year.

If a player chooses to study and play for a certain uaap school under an athletic scholarship, instead of just accomplishing the usual requirements (passing the entrance exam, report card, etc.) for that certain school, you have to hurdle one more barricade – you have to get permission from your former school or be barred from playing (and even studying) for 1 year.

The condition imposed, making the former school from a non-factor to a major factor in your decision making, should never have been there in the first place. Thus, this new rule is usurping the player’s right to choose freely since the former school now has the option to accept or reject the school of your choice.




This is a logical jump.

If my interpretation is correct, (and please correct me if I have misunderstood the last paragraph), this presupposes that the player is denied the benefits of his athletic scholarship because of the rule. But this may, or may not be the case. The fact is, the player will still be studying in such a school. He will just not be allowed to play in UAAP sports. He will be able to focus on his academics (which is what he should be doing, first and foremost), or play in other leagues, UAAP restrictions on participation in other leagues aside.

That is hardly depriving him of his right to an education, and that is hardly depriving him of his right to life, at least from how I see it.

Now, assuming that this is the player's only option, then his choice should be made (unless he doesn't want to study anymore). As a student, the player must conform to the policies of the school he attends.

It’s good if the school offers scholarship even though the player has to focus on academics for 1 year BUT not all uaap schools are financially capable of doing so. They may offer it to highly-recruited players but would they do the same to an average-skilled player?

In many cases, there are strings attached to the scholarship given to a player and usually playing in the uaap is a major requirement. And if an average-skilled player’s only hope for having an education is through scholarship but this new rule is barring him to play for a year, I don’t think the school would give him the scholarship and instead look for someone else they could readily use.

And this new rule, in effect, is depriving his right to life as it has taken out the very basic element of having an education and a fair chance of succeeding in life.



My opinion on the matter, however, is that this remains largely an internal affair of the UAAP, which the courts are unlikely to look into. The matter may be immoral, but not everything that is touched upon by morals is necessarily a question of law as well.

The problem, being internal, is something that should have been rejected by the UAAP member school in the first place. Academic institutions enjoy significant autonomy, which includes their determination of their educational policies, which further includes their position on varsity sports. But then again, should this be taken to court, I may be surprised and the courts may very well decide to try this issue and decide accordingly. I doubt whether the case will prosper, however.

Any party who decides to take this to court should realize that court action will always have to do with applicable law. Should an applicable law be wanting, then the courts will simply dismiss the issue because they have no jurisdiction.

I'll look into this a bit more.


While I submit that this maybe an internal uaap matter, I just wish someone from UP would file a test case on this matter. This is not just about Rodrigo but the new rule is certainly infringing on the rights of a certain group (uaap HS students) and giving the former school extra-unnecessary power beyond when there should be none. I honestly feel that civil liberty/freedom has been violated by the uaap with this new rule.... that's my take.

For several years now, the uaap board has become an instrument of doom by introducing new rules that can be considered as discriminatory. While the uaap has the sole right to set its own rules, it should always conform to the norms set by the society and law. The uaap and its rule is not absolute as we must always remember that whatever rights it may have being an autonomous entity, they are still subject to the basic laws of our land.* And once it touches on civil liberty & freedom provided in our constitution, you have the right to contest it in our courts.

Of course, litigating it is a different ballgame. It’s going to take a very long time before a final decision is made if not dismissed outright.

gfy
05-25-2007, 04:49 AM
Ang issue dito in my opinion ay kung legal ba (not even talking about moral) ang non-release ng papers ng bata sa HS. Di ba nagbayad ng tuition kasi ni-revoke retroactively ang scholarship at wala naman kontrata mai-pakita na may scholarship siya? Di pinasa for no reason (in the case of Benitez and Gatchalian, I heard before na di naman talaga pumapasok at nag-aaral ang mga bata nun nandun pa sila sa JRU - of course this was tolerated by the admin). Other than those, issues like right to life or education or what have you don't come into play.

Yun i year residency is the prerogative of the UAAP and I don't think this can be contested in court. Just like the 2-year residency if one transfers from one school to another in college. Actually I can see the benefits din nun mga rules na yun.

Kid Cubao
05-25-2007, 05:10 AM
granted that it's the UAAP's prerogative to impose this new 1-year residency requirement, nevertheless it is still subject to review if the situation demands it. frankly, the suddenness and arbitrariness of this new imposition are grounds for review in itself. if i'm not mistaken, the UAAP board convenes during the second semester of the school calendar to discuss any new policy directives, including matters pertaining to eligibility, that they will implement in the following UAAP season. why this new policy surfaced only in the month of may, or about a month and a half away from the new UAAP season, is highly suspicious.

GreenArrows
05-25-2007, 05:51 AM
KC, from what I know is that this proposal was brought up in April as part of several other proposals to the rule book of the UAAP. It was only approved a few days ago which is the usual agenda for the Board meeting for May. So, proposals are submitted in April and are either approved or disapproved in May.

FYI, UP and ADMU voted against this rule. But it was NOT a 5-2 vote. It was only 4-2 since DLSU was not yet taking part in the UAAP Board meetings as we will resume participation only with next month's Board meeting. No DLSU reps were at the April or May meetings. But if DLSU were present and DLSU voted against it, it would have been a closer 4-3. Far far less than being unanimous with just a 1 vote majority.

gfy
05-25-2007, 06:41 AM
Kid - I agree with you that this should be effective for next season. I said so earlier. If DLSU was not present, did UE as host last year vote?

atenean_blooded
05-25-2007, 09:06 AM
Let me start by saying that my premise centers on a player getting an athletic scholarship and on the assumption that not all schools would offer scholarship while the player is still adjusting academically for 1 year.

If a player chooses to study and play for a certain uaap school under an athletic scholarship, instead of just accomplishing the usual requirements (passing the entrance exam, report card, etc.) for that certain school, you have to hurdle one more barricade – you have to get permission from your former school or be barred from playing (and even studying) for 1 year.

The condition imposed, making the former school from a non-factor to a major factor in your decision making, should never have been there in the first place. Thus, this new rule is usurping the player’s right to choose freely since the former school now has the option to accept or reject the school of your choice.

Now that I think about it more, I seriously have to keep asking whether or not the former school really is that much of a factor as some are making it out to be.

If a student really wants to go to another school, he can, knowing full well that there will be certain consequences if there is no approval from his former school. Are the consequences stupid? Yes. Is the rule stupid? Of course. But the extent of the consequences is something between the new school and the student. If he really is worth it, the school should make the necessary adjustments. Actually, assuming this rule stands, we should see a shift in policies among member schools, if they want to be able to get such student-athletes. Either that, or the member schools can simply reject the rule, and if the UAAP refuses to budge, they can leave the UAAP altogether. Simple as that.



It’s good if the school offers scholarship even though the player has to focus on academics for 1 year BUT not all uaap schools are financially capable of doing so. They may offer it to highly-recruited players but would they do the same to an average-skilled player?

In many cases, there are strings attached to the scholarship given to a player and usually playing in the uaap is a major requirement. And if an average-skilled player’s only hope for having an education is through scholarship but this new rule is barring him to play for a year, I don’t think the school would give him the scholarship and instead look for someone else they could readily use.

And this new rule, in effect, is depriving his right to life as it has taken out the very basic element of having an education and a fair chance of succeeding in life.

The last statement in this quote is stretching it.

Again, adjustments will have to be made if this rule stands. And since there are more average recruits than superstars, any school with a halfway decent varsity program ought to make adjustments. Those in need of financial aid also ought to seek it. Nothing is ever cheap or easy.



While I submit that this maybe an internal uaap matter, I just wish someone from UP would file a test case on this matter. This is not just about Rodrigo but the new rule is certainly infringing on the rights of a certain group (uaap HS students) and giving the former school extra-unnecessary power beyond when there should be none. I honestly feel that civil liberty/freedom has been violated by the uaap with this new rule.... that's my take.

For several years now, the uaap board has become an instrument of doom by introducing new rules that can be considered as discriminatory. While the uaap has the sole right to set its own rules, it should always conform to the norms set by the society and law. The uaap and its rule is not absolute as we must always remember that whatever rights it may have being an autonomous entity, they are still subject to the basic laws of our land. And once it touches on civil liberty & freedom provided in our constitution, you have the right to contest it in our courts.

Of course, litigating it is a different ballgame. It’s going to take a very long time before a final decision is made if not dismissed outright.

There is some injustice caused by the rule. I don't like it myself, and I think it's problematic.

If anything, I think our UAAP representatives should raise hell about this. And our school leaders should seriously consider throwing their weight around to get this matter fixed.

Litigation is going to be expensive, and I still don't think the case will prosper. Litigation will also take more than the first year of Soc Rivera in college. It might be a fight that's worth it, should the courts surprise us all and actually rule on this.

oca
05-25-2007, 09:10 AM
To date, wala ni sino sa atin ang nakakaalam kung paano nakalahad itong bagong rule na ito.

Even all these talk of legal remedy makes no sense, when in fact, we do not know how the rule was worded.

For all its unwanted implications and consequences, the issue on whether this rule will stand the test we all want it to be subjected to, should be premised on its wording.

Intent and motivation and supposed consequence are all subjective. Let's have something factual...

Sino may kopya!

Kid Cubao
05-25-2007, 09:49 AM
eh pano kung di pa naisusulat pero ipatutupad na? ganyan ang modus operandi sa UAAP.

oca
05-25-2007, 10:20 AM
eh pano kung di pa naisusulat pero ipatutupad na? ganyan ang modus operandi sa UAAP.


...and this was the kind of reply I was hoping to get.

From what I know, any new rule approved by the Board is afterwards assigned to a "working group" to come up with its final form. The working group also reviews it with respect to existing rules. (Example, how does this rule affect the Jai Reyes/ Rookie of the Year award rule, when it apparently diminishes further the candidates qualified for ROY.)

The Board itself does not write the rule. They will approve it in principle. But the writing of the fine print is delegated.

Montinola may be sinister in intiating this, but let's admit it, he is not dumb! Kaya, di ako magtataka, if the final form will stand scrutiny.

Again, pag may nakuha kayong kopya, paki post naman dito.

bluewing
05-25-2007, 11:43 AM
ang masama, malamang ay nagbabasa rin ng mga forum at aware sa feedback ang susulat ng rule.

kaya itaga mo sa manok, wala nang butas yan paglabas...

Joescoundrel
05-25-2007, 01:37 PM
Based on the present discussion this much we do know:

1. An incoming college freshman entering a UAAP member school who came from a different UAAP member school in high school must sit out or redshirt his first year.

2. This rule is effective this Season 70.

3. This was pushed by FEU's Anton Montinola.

On the face if it this seems all well and good. Freshmen normally do need some time to acclimate to college life especially the demands of college academics. Athletes should especially benefit from this since apart from the already hectic demands of academics they also have to deal with the demands of the much tougher college-level athletics.

The UAAP is a private organization. Short of actually committing a crime (and I think it is a stretch even to assume that in this case) they can pretty much do anything they want, impose any rule, ask for any requirement or prerequisite of any one before allowing them to play in the big stage of college ball. They could even insist you learn to be fully literate in conversational Hangul just because they felt like it. Now if the student (I do not want to use player) cannot or does not want to put up with that, well, there are other schools and leagues out there.

Besides, just because one has many choices does not necessarily mean one will get one's first choice. I'm sure a lot of kids would like to not just study in Ateneo but play for Ateneo as well, just as an example. But not all of them will make it past ACET, the first major hurdle to acceptance into my beloved school. How many hotshot recruits have been passed over by Ateneo over the years simply because they couldn't even hurdle the entrance requirements?

Besides which isn't the whole point of going to college TO STUDY? Would it really be oh so awful for certain freshmen to sit out their first year? Will their families belly up and die if their beloved son does not get into a UAAP lineup right from the get-go? If the whole point was just to PLAY COLLEGE BALL and just PRETEND TO GO TO SCHOOL and thus make a mockery of college studies in general then I say SERVES YOU FREAKIN' RIGHT!

This actually reminded me of the NBA's clamping down on players making the jump to the L without going through any college program. Lawyers for top high school playes were all howling that this was impinging upon their clients' right to earn the best possible living in a free market economy. Oh please! Everybody and his homey wanted to be the next KG or Kobe not knowing they would more likely be the next Dontonio Wingfield or Jonathan Bender.

Mateen Cleaves
05-25-2007, 03:04 PM
Besides which isn't the whole point of going to college TO STUDY? Would it really be oh so awful for certain freshmen to sit out their first year? Will their families belly up and die if their beloved son does not get into a UAAP lineup right from the get-go?

Would that it were. But based on reports from people at the meeting. That was not the reasoning behind the rule. If it were, they would have applied it to ALL incoming freshmen, in all sports. No. The stated reason was to stem "Piracy".

That is why freshmen from UAAP high schools can still play immediately for rival UAAP schools, as long as they get an official release from their original school. The rule isn't about better education for the UAAP's incoming freshmen. It's about greater control over UAAP high school players.

cricohermoso
05-25-2007, 05:43 PM
this is sad for all UAAP sports. I know that this is a basketball forum, but I do care about Ateneo's other teams also (hi track!).

I don't know the motive behind this, whether this encourages homegrown talents or to prevent piracy among UAAP schools, pero yung timing ng rule na to makes it even more suspicious. Yeah, why single out "talents from other schools transferring to another UAAP school"? Why didn't this include the other leagues (NCAA)?

This forces student-athletes to study for 6 years just to maximize their UAAP playing years. Bawal naman mag-masters, so either this makes the student spread their units OR take another course. If I were a "rookie transferee" basketball player this season, at most 5 years lang ilalaro ko sa school ko. Six years in a school is just too long (i'd be 24 or 25 by that time, maybe). Baka mag-Pro na ako AFTER my 3rd or 4th UAAP playing year.

The UAAP board (psst FEU, are you listening?!) is just ruining the spirit of competition and the essence of sports, just because of their selfish motives. *sigh*

typhoidterry
05-25-2007, 07:00 PM
Eto pa isa. ano naman ang masasabi nyo sa clause sa bagong rule na to. Ito raw ang napagkasunduan.

A UAAP high school graduate athlete will only be allowed play in his or her freshman year in college if the UAAP school he came from signs his paper of release.

Now....What does this tell you.

One, it is not about adjusting to the new school environment or the academics. It is all about getting their investment back. Pera pera lang talaga ang habol ni Tinola. Nag-ngangangawa dahil sa ginastos nya sa mga batang lumipat sa UP.

Two, DLSU wasn't there, Ateneo and UP fought the rule. Ganun na ba katanga yung mga bomoto sa rule na yan. I mean, they are suppose to be the heads of their respective educational institutions, these people should have vision and foresight.

Oh well, kaya yung tatlong skwelang komontra eh parating nasa top ng pecking order sa buhay.

casual_observer
05-25-2007, 07:19 PM
i happened to lurking in PEx when i read a post there by El Mestizo regarding the possible scenario of how the UAAP members voted for the "Rivera Rule." copy paste ko na lang dito ang post niya:


according to some posts in gameface and the one posted here by bluewing (?), the only UAAP members that opposed the "Soc Rivera rule" were UP and Ateneo. kung ganun nga, ganito siguro ang naging voting:

Those that voted YES:

1. FEU
2. UST
3. NU
4. Adamson

Those that voted NO:

1. UP
2. Ateneo

UE did not vote because it is the current host (UAAP Season 69 isn't over yet), thus it will only vote in case of a tie.

La Salle did not participate in the voting because its representatives (Bro. Bernie Oca and Chuck Buenaventura) were not slated to join in the UAAP board meetings until June.

also, wala pa bang may contact dito sa mga sports media people such as Chino Trinidad, Dyan Castillejo, Quinito Henson, Recah Trinidad, Jasmine Payo, etc.? aba, kailan pa ilalabas sa national media ang baho na ito nina Montinola? >:(

gfy
05-25-2007, 08:00 PM
Eto pa isa. ano naman ang masasabi nyo sa clause sa bagong rule na to. Ito raw ang napagkasunduan.

A UAAP high school graduate athlete will only be allowed play in his or her freshman year in college if the UAAP school he came from signs his paper of release.

The unique case of Soc Rivera aside, maraming hanky-panky ang pwede mangyari in obtaining the release papers of the athletes kahit na yun di nabigyan ng scholarship. Masyadong messy at tama ka pwedeng pagkwartahan. At pwede rin pahirapan kung may galit sa athletes. Yan ang magiging problema sa rule na ito. Dapat pag-isipan na maiigi ang implementation nito. Basketball lang ba ang rule or lahat na athletes?

casual_observer
05-25-2007, 08:07 PM
^ talagang hindi na ako makapaniwala na may mga ganitong klase ng "rules" na nakakalusot sa UAAP board given the fact that they are usually members of the academic community. patawarin... ::)

so, ganun na lang ba ang magiging kalakaran ngayon as in pagkakaperahan muna yung bata bago i-release sa school na pinili nung bata? grabe! >:(

Paul of Bataan
05-25-2007, 08:21 PM
supposing that account is accurate and verifiable, chances are that DLSU would have vetoed that motion if the incoming la salle board rep was present for the votation. so that would have made it 4-3 for YES. for me, though, that it even mustered enough votes for the motion to be carried is the biggest tragedy in this story. *

folks, let it be known that the board reps of NU, UST, and adamson all supported FEU's move for university owners to become omnipotent feudal lords who hold sway and dominion over their vassals, exercising final authority in deciding who among them shall be granted freedom and who will be denied. nakalulungkot ito. pati na sa UAAP juniors division ginagawa nang por kilo ang mga manlalaro.

casual_observer
05-25-2007, 08:30 PM
^ ginusto nina Montinola yan. sana ay bweltahan sila ng karma nang dahil sa kalokohan nilang ito. nakakagalit! >:(

the Rivera Rule is obviously rigged in favor of only one party- Anton Montinola, the mafia boss in the UAAP board- kaya talagang nakakaawa si Soc dahil siya ang biktima ng pagiging diktador at walang hiya ni Montinola at ng mga kakuntsaba niya. ::)

shyboy
05-26-2007, 07:17 AM
Kung hindi ni-release ang isang student/athlete, does it mean he's not yet considered a high school graduate? Take for instance Soc Rivera's case. It was said that he was not released due cancellation of his scholarship and, thus, he will have to pay accumulated fees amounting to Php 116k. Pwede kasing ganito lagi ang gawin for all of those who won't be released. So since hindi pa siya bayad sa tuition fee niya, does it mean invalid yung mga exams niya until such time that the payment has been made? If this is the case, it makes him a non-graduate kung hindi na babayaran yung fees. The residency of one year would then be useless.

gfy
05-26-2007, 07:56 AM
The non-payment of tuition and fees means that Rivera won't have HS documents to present to the college of his choice. So he can't enroll. And residency will not start if one isn't enrolled. But he's still considered a 2007 HS graduate I think if he passed all the academic requirements of the school in 2007. He can of course take the PEP test.

The release in the UAAP rule means (I am assuming) the first UAAP school has to give approval to all its HS graduates who played UAAP sports at least in their senior year who wish to transfer to another UAAP school for college and play in the UAAP.* Does this cover too freshmen, sophomores and juniors who wish to transfer from one HS to another in the UAAP? I guess the 2-year residency rule will take care of that.

Paul of Bataan
05-26-2007, 10:16 AM
now why would you have to take the PEP test kung tapos ka na sa mga requirements for high school graduation?!? eh kitang-kita naman na puro panggigipit lang ito, di ba? ikalawa, pag-graduate ka na ng high school at mag-aaral ka sa ibang pamantasan, HINDI TRANSFER YUN. halimbawa, kung graduate na si soc rivera sa FEU-FERN high school at mag-u-UP sya for college, hindi sya magta-transfer kundi mag-e-enrol sa UP. sa terminology pa lang palpak na itong bagong panukala.

lekiboy
05-26-2007, 02:42 PM
FEU denies it revoked scholarship
of player who wants to transfer schools

By Rick Olivares
Columnist

A high-school basketball player from Far Eastern U (FEU) claimed he is being asked to pay scholarship fees amounting to P116,000 because he wouldn’t play for the FEU’s seniors team.

But according to FEU athletic officials, they were not in the way of Soc Rivera’s decision to leave FEU for another college and that the fees Rivera is being asked to pay are various school fees not covered by the scholarship and accrued during his stay in high-school.

“Walang problema if the students want to transfer schools,” said Mark Molina, FEU’s athletic director. “The school is not in the way of stopping the kids from playing for other schools.”

Molina said that when he and Rivera last spoke, Rivera said that he would suit up for FEU.

“In all good faith, I hope this matter will be solved.” Molina added that he thinks that “Rivera will eventually play for UP.”

Last January, Rivera allegedly asked Mark Lopez, a teammate, to accompany him to the UP coaching staff to signify his intent to play for the Maroons. The UP coaches informed Rivera of the agreement with FEU that if he really wanted to move to the Diliman school, he had to secure his release from FEU on his own. UP team manager Bobit Silva then got in touch with Molina to inform him of Rivera’s intent. Rivera promised in turn to inform FEU team management of his intention to transfer.

From that point on, Rivera also allegedly did not practice nor keep in touch with UP, although his teammates said that Rivera was still bent on transferring to the Maroons.

Last April 11, Maroons assistant coaches Ramil Cruz and Jojo Villa went to Rivera’s hometown of Pampanga to once and for all ascertain his intent to play.

Rivera apologized for his failure to keep the communication lines open owing to a lost mobile phone and only promised to settle matters within a week.

But on April 20, Rivera called UP from FEU to inform them that Molina agreed to release him to UP provided that he settle some financial obligations to the school. But when Rivera and his father went to the school registrar, he was surprised to find out that his scholarship was revoked and that he had to pay back the P116,000.00 FEU paid for his scholarship. According to Rivera, he was never informed by Molina about his revoked scholarship.

Molina said that the last time he had spoken to Rivera was during the high-school graduation, and Molina hasn’t heard from him since.

Molina added that Lopez, Rivera’s teammate, also accumulated fees that were not part of the scholarship. Lopez owed P40,000 and has already settled his debt.

animoateneo
05-26-2007, 03:59 PM
funny that those supposed "fees" that allegedly were accrued through the years floated just recently when Soc Rivera is going to college. and P116000 for his high school stay? wow i'd like to see what those "fees" were for. I wonder what kind of expenses other than your tuition fee will accrue to that amount? what, they are charging him for using the FEU basketball courts?

casual_observer
05-26-2007, 05:38 PM
if Anton Montinola was not opposed to Soc Rivera's decision to play for UP in college, how come he and his cohorts in FEU are taking Soc "hostage" and connived with board members from UST, NU and Adamson to force the approval of an absolutely stupid and moronic Rivera Rule that was obviously aimed at Soc Rivera and the UP Fighting Maroons? ::)

also, may say ba sa kasong ito ang PSC kung hindi naman pala irerespeto ng UAAP board ang BAP-SBP? ???

typhoidterry
05-26-2007, 08:01 PM
What scholarchip is there to revoke? It can't be a college scholarship, because he hasn't enrolled at FEU yet. If FEU is talking about his high school scholarship, well...ang KAPAL naman nila. Rivera played the last couple of years with the Baby Tams, I say that settles it. Just because Rivera chose to go to UP and not FEU does not give Montinola the right to revoke what Rivera worked for the last two years. That obligation was already paid in full the moment he stepped on the court to practice or to play everyday for two years.

As for the other fees, what the hell is FEU yapping about??? Php 116,000.00!!!! For what? Grabe, kahit La Salle Greenhills o Ateneo high school di aabot ang ganyang kalaking fees outside of the tuition. Even if you divide it in 4 years, malaki pa rin yan.

gfy
05-26-2007, 08:58 PM
Well, I suggested PEP test if nobody is going to budge, doesn't want to litigate and if there's still time before classes start. It might also be cheaper. ;)

animoateneo
05-26-2007, 11:38 PM
Well, I suggested PEP test if nobody is going to budge, doesn't want to litigate and if there's still time before classes start. It might also be cheaper. ;)


it's feasible, but still very unfair to Soc Rivera and company because they earned their HS diploma after four years of balancing basketball and acads and now they have to take another test to prove they're ready for college just because their old school refuses to let them go? *sigh* :(

GHRanger
05-26-2007, 11:43 PM
FEU denies it revoked scholarship*
of player who wants to transfer schools

By Rick Olivares
Columnist


OT: His article sounds like the initial post to this thread.

I believe this is a mere twisting of words and probably a "your word against mine" thingy. *They are correct to say that Soc will play for UP but they did not state when. *

Slowly lumalabas na sa press yung ginagawa ni Anton. *Sana tuloy tuloy ito -- not to put the league in a bind or Anton behind bars; but rather to put the board under the microscope and for them to realize that they only need common sense to run this league. *Hopefully again, BAP-SBP takes notice.

The BAP-SBP (and the basketball community) will benefit if they themselves create encompassing guidelines on league rules etc. *But this will probably be in another 3-5 years and is probably another story.

casual_observer
05-27-2007, 12:58 AM
^ the Business World article on the controversial Rivera Rule and Soc Rivera's dilemma is already a step in the right direction. hopefully, other members of the press, especially the "more popular ones" like Chino Trinidad and Quinito Henson, will take up the story very soon and get Soc Rivera's side of the story.

sa totoo lang, naaawa na ako kay Soc. the kid does not deserve this kind of treatment from Anton Montinola and his cohorts in the UAAP Board. >:(

BLUE HORSE
05-27-2007, 03:11 AM
Well, I suggested PEP test if nobody is going to budge, doesn't want to litigate and if there's still time before classes start. It might also be cheaper. ;)


DLSU used the pep test to get around the road blocks erected by JRU to prevent the transfer of the 2 Marks from JRU to DLSU. We now know what happened next.

flsfnoeraekadad
05-27-2007, 03:17 AM
Besides, just because one has many choices does not necessarily mean one will get one's first choice. I'm sure a lot of kids would like to not just study in Ateneo but play for Ateneo as well, just as an example. But not all of them will make it past ACET, the first major hurdle to acceptance into my beloved school. How many hotshot recruits have been passed over by Ateneo over the years simply because they couldn't even hurdle the entrance requirements?The Ateneo Blue Eagles. Need I say more?


Besides which isn't the whole point of going to college TO STUDY? Would it really be oh so awful for certain freshmen to sit out their first year? Will their families belly up and die if their beloved son does not get into a UAAP lineup right from the get-go? If the whole point was just to PLAY COLLEGE BALL and just PRETEND TO GO TO SCHOOL and thus make a mockery of college studies in general then I say SERVES YOU FREAKIN' RIGHT!If you may excuse me, Soc Rivera's planning to go to UP. Your proposition will be right if there was a general consensus between the UAAP members, if the circumstances were right, and A.M.'s motives were 100% clean and for pro-education of students. Have you been checking the situations/circumstances and Montinola's possible moitives behind the move? The proposition you presented seems more like a hasty generalization to me.

Of course, if you're Soc Rivera, you would choose to play for UP. That shows that he also wants education aside from basketball. And do you really think UP will allow basketball mercenaries in their turf?


This actually reminded me of the NBA's clamping down on players making the jump to the L without going through any college program.Parang ang layo. These men are talking about going into college. It's not about skipping college and going straight to the pros. Alam ko eh bawal naman ata talaga iyon sa atin.

flsfnoeraekadad
05-27-2007, 03:27 AM
Well, I suggested PEP test if nobody is going to budge, doesn't want to litigate and if there's still time before classes start. It might also be cheaper. ;)


DLSU used the pep test to get around the road blocks erected by JRU to prevent the transfer of the 2 Marks from JRU to DLSU. We now know what happened next.
If the other schools will resort to the PEP, they have to secure the incoming prospects well to avoid another fraud case like Benitez and Gatchalian circa 2005. Transparency of the test is needed and also of the results.

Due to this inevitable circumstance, the UAAP needs to tighten up more on the PEP Test then. Hindi make a new rule ah. Ha ha ha. ;D

gfy
05-27-2007, 07:06 AM
NCAA I think passed a rule requiring 1-year residency for PEP test graduates. The UAAP doesn't have a rule yet. I heard a player passed the PEP test and is going to play in the UAAP this season. I already explained about Benitez and Gatchalian. I am sure Rivera will pass the PEP test.

david64
05-27-2007, 08:21 AM
Passing the pep test does not mean Rivera can play in the UAAP, because of this rule. He still came from a UAAP HS, so the league can still impose that rule IF HE IS NOT GIVEN A CLEARANCE TO PLAY FOR ANOTHER UAAP SCHOOL.

That is the beauty (or ugliness) of this rule-no door is left open for any student/athlete who does not wish to be held hostage by their school. Technically, even paying for REVOKED scholarships will not guarantee a CLEARANCE, and the peptest is also out, as a possible way out of a noose around one's neck.

gfy
05-27-2007, 09:24 AM
Of course. The purpose is to not delay his residency. Rivera will still need the "blessing" of FEU to play this season (in the UP thread, I asked if UP pays up, is it guaranteed that release will be given so Rivera will be able to play this season). And as I said before, getting clearance or release will be subject to a lot of abuse/misuse by athletic directors and administrators that I would prefer they didn't include this release thing and just required 1-year residency. I am not saying though that I am 100% for this new rule.

casual_observer
05-27-2007, 12:09 PM
finally, the issue is slowly getting the attention of the "more popular" sports writers and journalists...


from The Philippine Star (http://www.philstar.com/index.php?p=49&type=2&sec=30&aid=4776)


Comish’s technical foul
SPORTING CHANCE By Joaquin M. Henson
Sunday, May 27, 2007


* * *

A source said 6-5 star-of-the-future and high school graduate Soc Rivera is being assessed over P100,000 in fees before FEU issues his release to play for the UP seniors in the UAAP. Apparently, there’s a new rule requiring a release from a graduated player’s high school if he intends to play for another UAAP school. Without the release, Rivera will be forced to redshirt a year – even after graduation.

FEU has just lost four junior basketball players to UP. Aside from Rivera, the others are Willie Miller play-alike Mark Lopez, Dexter Rosales and Jomar Paulino. Lopez coughed up about P15,000 for his release. Lopez and Rivera were named to the UAAP juniors mythical first team last season.

The source claimed that Rivera’s FEU scholarship was revoked “after the fact” and the 18-year-old cager was shocked out of his sneakers when he was told of his financial accountability despite playing two all-star years for the Baby Tams.

“Would Rivera have been assessed P115,000 if he chose to play for the FEU seniors?” asked the source. “UP never recruited Rivera. He showed up one day because, I guess, he wanted to play for coach Joe (Lipa). Rivera doesn’t come from a well-to-do family. Why is he being persecuted just because he wants to enroll in a school other than FEU?”

Obviously, this is just one side of the story. Would anyone care to disclose the other side?

* * *

casual_observer
05-27-2007, 07:14 PM
seems like the "karma" of the dirty deeds of Anton Montinola, most especially the Soc Rivera Rule, is slowly hounding the FEU basketball team. :o

rumor has it that one potential member of the FEU Tamaraws has apparently "withdrawn" from the team and ultimately decided to sit the entire semester out instead of playing for Anton Montinola's squad. the same rumor also suggested that this potential member of the FEU Tamaraws is now strongly looking at the possibility of moving to an NCAA school, although he is also checking out another UAAP school. the rumor though still needs confirmation by one of my sources.

the reason that this potential member of the FEU Tamaraws has for doing such move: "sympathy for Soc Rivera."

i guess hindi na siguro mahirap pang hulaan kung sino itong potential FEU Tamaraws member na ito dahil masyado na siyang kilala nating mga UAAP fanatics. kung P116,000 ang ginagamit na pang-ipit ni Montinola kay Soc, siya naman ay baka P232,000 ang "ransom" bago i-release sa kung saang team man balak lumipat nung bata. ;D

joelex
05-28-2007, 08:50 AM
if i were montinola id ask for even more money. just 116,000? FEU recruited the guy, had him in scholarship and after everything theyve done to accomodate the guy, just leave them empty handed for their seniors team? come on, where's the etiquette here. if i were UP, id convince soc not to leave FEU since it was that school that gave him the break, recruited him to serve their school of course in the long term and not just for their juniors team.

now maybe SSC-C can give more light in this supposed deal wherein it was involved simlarly before with UP with axel doruelo as the subject in a deal compromised by an amount much more than what FEU was asking for soc.

Kid Cubao
05-28-2007, 09:07 AM
joelex, ganito lang kalinaw yun: ang obligasyon ni soc rivera ay sa FEU baby tamaraws, hindi sa FEU tamaraws. ngayon kung pareho ang mentalidad ninyo ni anton montinola na pera-pera lang lahat ito, eh di bahala na kayo sa buhay nyo.

you completely missed the point, man. i'm very sorry for you.

Mateen Cleaves
05-28-2007, 09:53 AM
I'm posting Rick Olivares' latest column here because he's talking about more than just Soc Rivera:

Bleacher's Brew
by Rick Olivares

Teach the children


WHAT are we teaching our children today? Collegiate sports are supposed to be a test of character and determination—a venue for spirited and friendly competition—and the last bastion of purity in athletics where the game is played for the sheer love of it and the glory of the school. Next to representing one’s country, playing for the school is a badge of honor that not even a multimillion-peso contract in the pros will duplicate.

But the state of the college game is in rapid decline. In many ways, it is more cutthroat than the pro game. Schools have engaged in a virtual arms race stockpiling blue chippers and potential wunderkinds. For what—a trophy, bragging rights, a league record, to cash in on the mega contracts their players will sign when they’re pro-bound? It’s gotten to the point where morals and playing by the book will leave your school at the bottom of the cellar where one upsmanship behind the sidelines is crucial in the hunt for a championship...


You can read the rest of the article at Rick Olivares' Bleacher's Brew column @ Business Mirror online (http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/05282007/sports05.html)

Ranger
05-28-2007, 10:09 AM
if i were montinola id ask for even more money. just 116,000? FEU recruited the guy, had him in scholarship and after everything theyve done to accomodate the guy, just leave them empty handed for their seniors team? come on, where's the etiquette here. if i were UP, id convince soc not to leave FEU since it was that school that gave him the break, recruited him to serve their school of course in the long term and not just for their juniors team.

now maybe SSC-C can give more light in this supposed deal wherein it was involved simlarly before with UP with axel doruelo as the subject in a deal compromised by an amount much more than what FEU was asking for soc.


That's really the risk every school has to take when they have a prized cager in their fold. it shouldn't be a guarantee that the cager will be moving to their college team just because of all the perks given to him. Anton should just learn to accept the situation, let go and move on...

casual_observer
05-28-2007, 01:04 PM
^ Anton Montinola does not seem to learn the fact that there is risk when you invest in something. FEU-FERN welcomed Soc Rivera into their fold and provided for him during his tenure there. the kid repaid his dues to Montinola's school by playing very well with the Baby Tams even up to a point when he and his teammates were able to bring FEU-FERN closer to that elusive juniors' championship title last year. doon pa lang, kitang kita na natin na nagawa na nung bata yung obligasyon niya- something na dapat tanggapin ni Anton Montinola.

Anton Montinola simply pressed for the Soc Rivera Rule and connived with his cohorts from UST, NU and Adamson for the rule's approval because he is no more than a cry baby who was angry at the fact that his FEU-FERN wards decided for themselves that they wanted quality education and the chance to play good basiketball under a great coach (Coach Joe Lipa), thus the decision to play for UP was reached by Soc Rivera, Mark Lopez, Jomar Paulino and Dexter Rosales. napapaghalata ang pagiging immature at sakim ni Anton Montinola.

i feel so sorry for the FEU people because they are being dragged into controversy by someone who is even from their school.

flsfnoeraekadad
05-28-2007, 02:41 PM
...and maybe for the fact that if Soc Rivera and his mates transfer to UP, we might just see the first UP-La Salle-Ateneo-UST Final Four this September 2007. ;D

casual_observer
05-28-2007, 03:00 PM
...and maybe for the fact that if Soc Rivera and his mates transfer to UP, we might just see the first UP-La Salle-Ateneo-UST Final Four this September 2007. ;D


oo nga 'no. ;D

greencm
05-28-2007, 03:11 PM
What's the big deal? Something like this is highly expected from Montinola. I guess UP should have seen this coming (regardless if they recrutied the 4 babytams or not). Besides, this serves UP right. Who cared when La Salle was stripped of the '91 championship? UP, headed by Dean Cynthia Abad-Santos, was in cahoots with Montinola in ensuring that the championshipt was awarded to the Tams on a silver-platter. Neither the BAP nor the FIBA could revoke the independent-league's decision. This time, the wheels have turned. Ika nga ng Ginebra 'Bilog ang Mundo'.

oca
05-28-2007, 03:27 PM
What's the big deal?* Something like this is highly expected from Montinola.* I guess UP should have seen this coming (regardless if they recrutied the 4 babytams or not).* Besides, this serves UP right.* Who cared when La Salle was stripped of the '91 championship?* UP, headed by Dean Cynthia Abad-Santos, was in cahoots with Montinola in ensuring that the championshipt was awarded to the Tams on a silver-platter.* Neither the BAP nor the FIBA could revoke the independent-league's* decision.* This time, the wheels have turned. Ika nga ng Ginebra 'Bilog ang Mundo'.*


For many here in gameface, this issue it is not about UP, or any school for that matter. As to whether they are aggrieved by the new rule or not. Or does karma come into play and punishes the deeds of the past of some schools.

Here at gameface, it's more about the interests and rights of the student-athlete, in this case Rivera's. But from hereon, it does involve every 4th year hs student playing for his school at any sport in the UAAP.

Magkaiba yun. Napakalaking pagkakaiba.

oca
05-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Though there is no final resolution yet on this Rivera Case, base on what we have read here, it's about time to have a "clear definition of what is an athletic scholarship".

What are its inclusions and exclusions?

Every school in the same league should have a uniform definition of what is an athletic scholarship. Otherwise, there will always be occasions when one school will invoke "its own provisions" just to protect its interest against the greater good of the league.

L1ntek, kailan pa tayo huling nakarinig ng "retroactive cancellation ng scholarship"?

Of course, kahit anong panig ka pa sa usaping ito. Kahit naging devil's advocate ka pa. You will agree---

A student-athlete should never be held hostage by unpaid fees arising from the retroactive cancellation of his scholarship. More so, if such cancellation was absolutely discretionary and arbitrary.

Wingman
05-28-2007, 06:23 PM
What's the basis of the retroactive cancellation of the cager's scholarship? It can't be non-performance of obligation coz the cager has already performed his obligation by playing for the HS team of FEU. That is the basis of giving him the scholarship in the first place, right?

casual_observer
05-28-2007, 06:29 PM
the Rivera Rule controversy has now reached Kim Lesaca and the people in inboundpass.com...


Player Piracy Rule in UAAP?
by Kim Lesaca
Monday, 28 May 2007


On May 22, 2007, the UAAP Board voted 4-2 a new eligibility rule for this year’s incoming college freshmen that would require high school players from UAAP schools to sit out one year of residency if they decided to play for a rival UAAP school without securing a release from the first school. And starting Season 71 (in 2008), freshmen student-atletes will automatically red shirt their first year if they take this route. Apparently, this ruling came about to stop the alleged “piracy” of high school players by the rival schools in the league.


more of the article here (http://www.inboundpass.com/2007/05/28/player-piracy-rule-in-uaap/).

MonL
05-28-2007, 07:14 PM
the Rivera Rule controversy has now reached Kim Lesaca and the people in inboundpass.com...


Player Piracy Rule in UAAP?
by Kim Lesaca
Monday, 28 May 2007


On May 22, 2007, the UAAP Board voted 4-2 a new eligibility rule for this year’s incoming college freshmen that would require high school players from UAAP schools to sit out one year of residency if they decided to play for a rival UAAP school without securing a release from the first school. And starting Season 71 (in 2008), freshmen student-atletes will automatically red shirt their first year if they take this route. Apparently, this ruling came about to stop the alleged “piracy” of high school players by the rival schools in the league.


more of the article here (http://www.inboundpass.com/2007/05/28/player-piracy-rule-in-uaap/).


Yes, but how many have access or much less knowledge of the site? For this issue to be picked apart it has to be discussed at the national dailies level, in broadsheets such as the Inquirer or PhilStar, where both sides will have their day, and a wider base of readers will be the judge.

casual_observer
05-28-2007, 07:47 PM
^ hopefully, we'll be there soon. :)

when Quinito Henson included the Rivera Rule controversy in his column, that was already a good sign. hopefully, the mainstream media will pick this story up and have it known by a much larger majority.

as for the websites, let's give them due credit for covering this story. besides, these same websites are also the same websites that most mainstream sports media people go to when they need the "juicier details". ;D

however, i am still hoping that Chino Trinidad would touch on this one in his "Sports Saksi" segment in Mike Enriquez's radio program on DZBB tomorrow. no one can give a good punch on this one than him.

atenean_blooded
05-29-2007, 12:11 AM
I got to speak for a bit with Fr. Bernas about this issue, and asked about the viability of court action with regard to this.

His offhand opinion, like mine (at least until I see the actual rule and implementing guidelines), is that this is an internal affair. And that nobody's forcing any student-athlete to go to any UAAP school anyway.

casual_observer
05-29-2007, 12:52 AM
Quinito Henson finally dedicates an entire article on the issue of the Rivera Rule...


The other side
SPORTING CHANCE By Joaquin M. Henson
Tuesday, May 29, 2007


The new UAAP rule requiring a one-year residence for a graduated junior player to suit up for another school in the senior varsity was meant to diffuse friction and irritation caused by “piracy.”

That’s how UAAP board member Anton Montinola of FEU explained it yesterday.

more on Quinito Henson's article here (http://www.philstar.com/index.php?p=49&type=2&sec=30&aid=5195).

atenean_blooded
05-29-2007, 01:37 AM
While I've had little reason not to doubt Queenito's articles (he is, after all, on the same level of Beth Celis), this piece was actually very interesting.

I am appalled by the mentality that Montinola has.

The quotes from Montinola (assuming they are accurate), are quite telling.

- "Let’s face it, there’s a lot of piracy going on and it’s more rampant in other UAAP sports than in basketball... Players get confused in the tug-of-war. Remember the case of B. J. Manalo when he went from Ateneo to La Salle. It led to a lot of useless foul talk in the bleachers and on the court. The transfer should have been discussed civilly and settled without fanfare.” - I have no idea if BJ Manalo was actually confused when he want to La Salle. BJ has been quoted as saying that at the time he decided to attend La Salle, he simply wanted to go to La Salle because he saw himself playing basketball more than behind a desk, and La Salle had a better basketball program. If Montinola wants to address "piracy," he should address "Salikadu." Now THAT's piracy. It's also highly unrealistic that there will be no fanfare if one school's junior basketball star decides to go to another school for college. And has Montinola forgotten that it's the option of the student?

- Montinola talks about schools being "victimized." This is stupid. While it's a sad fact that some players will want to play for other schools more, that's hardly being "victimized" as long as paperwork and accounts are settled properly. It's sad, but it's hardly being "victimized."

- “Before graduation, I invited some of our high school players to join our senior Team B,” said Montinola. “I asked if they really want to play for FEU. One of them was Soc. I told him if he wants to leave, it was okay. But he wanted to stay. I took his word for it. To me, his word was as good as gold.” Montinola said UP’s recruiters were then advised to stay away from Rivera to avoid confusing the 18-year-old prospect. - Soc Rivera's word was good as gold. But Soc changed his mind, which he can freely do. Shouldn't Montinola's word be good as gold too? (I think the La Sallites should be disqualified from answering that last question. Kidding. :p) Confusing the prospect? The kid's free. He can go to whatever school he wants.

- “I hope coach Joe understands our situation,” said Montinola. “We just don’t train players to lose them to another school. But we’re dealing with reality here so I left it up to coach Joe’s conscience how much of Rivera’s obligation to pay. It’s really not the money but the principle. We won’t get rich or poor by P115,000. I promised coach Joe that whatever amount Rivera comes up with, FEU will release him so he won’t have to sit out a year before playing for UP.” - So if Soc Rivera cooks up ONE PESO, or one week's allowance that should be fine? I understand that Rivera has an obligation to pay. THAT makes perfect sense. But Rivera DOES NOT HAVE TO PLAY FOR FEU, nor does he HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED BY FEU. FEU can simply stop him from graduating, if possible. But it cannot tell him not to play any more than it demand that he play for them. THAT's the principle.

- Montinola talks about "transparency" for player transfers, or for the recruiting process. That's bullshit. Whether a player transfers or not is up to the player, assuming he has all of his paperwork in order and all his necessary obligations are settled. With regard to the recruiting, where a recruit eventually ends up is simply up to the player, who is free to choose which school he wants (we can all remember what happend to Menor, and that other guy from San Beda who decided to go to La Salle).

When BJ Manalo moved to La Salle, did the Ateneo raise hell about it? No(t really). Ateneo FANS gave BJ hell about it whenever he stepped on court (and that sort of stopped when he and Enrico Villanueva were locked in The Embrace of 2002). What the Ateneo did was work at improving its athletic program (which eventually led to the 2002 championship, among others). FEU's athletic program, especially in basketball, is pretty good. I don't see why Montinola is suddenly worried or scared. He's probably just angry because Rivera changed his mind.

Simplest solutions? 1)Rivera can opt to go to another school (non-UAAP), or go to UP and not play (with UP making the necessary adjustments). 2) The other UAAP member schools should raise hell about this and work to overturn the rule. 3) FEU can replace Montinola. :p

casual_observer
05-29-2007, 01:54 AM
^ sadly, the numbers still favor Anton Montinola as far as the UAAP Board is concerned. FEU, represented by Montinola, has UST, NU and Adamson as allies while UP and Ateneo are the only ones on the dissenting side. UE, as Season 69 host, did not participate in the voting except in case of a tie while La Salle's representatives (Bro. Bernie Oca and Chuck Buenaventura) are only to start participating in UAAP board meetings again by June but would have voted against the Rivera Rule alongside UP and Ateneo.

for the Rivera Rule: FEU, UST, NU and Adamson
against the Rivera Rule: UP, Ateneo and La Salle

ewan ko lang kung nasaan ang UE.

talagang well calculated ang move na ito ng sira ulo at cry baby na si Montinola. i guess only a public outcry and a strongly worded joint statement coming from UP, Ateneo and La Salle can, if ever, change things and have the Rivera Rule junked.

danny
05-29-2007, 02:49 AM
Kung ganyan din lang ang pag-iisip ng UAAP board, dapat kasama sa "piracy" rule ang mga manggagaling sa NCAA HS players. Kasama nga ba? :D

At this point, UP should start dismantling the UAAP by creating a new league just like what they did when they broke away from the NCAA. The official ine before was that the NCAA was becoming too commercialized. Now, there's more to the rampant commercialization. ;)

It's time for UP to take the lead.

Lekiboy, ok ba ito sa mga brods mo sa UP?;D

danny
05-29-2007, 02:54 AM
Kung ganyan din lang ang pag-iisip ng* UAAP board, dapat kasama sa "piracy" rule ang mga manggagaling sa NCAA HS players. Kasama nga ba?* :D

At this point, UP should start dismantling the UAAP by creating a new league just like what they did when they broke away from the NCAA. The official nine before was that the "NCAA was becoming too commercialized." Now,* there's much more than rampant commercialization. ;)

It's time for UP to take the lead.

Lekiboy, ok ba ito sa mga brods mo sa UP?;D

lekiboy
05-29-2007, 08:02 AM
Kung ganyan din lang ang pag-iisip ng* UAAP board, dapat kasama sa "piracy" rule ang mga manggagaling sa NCAA HS players. Kasama nga ba?* :D

At this point, UP should start dismantling the UAAP by creating a new league just like what they did when they broke away from the NCAA. The official nine before was that the "NCAA was becoming too commercialized." Now,* there's much more than* rampant commercialization. ;)

It's time for UP to take the lead.

Lekiboy, ok ba ito sa mga brods mo sa UP?;D



pwedeng pwede!!! ;D

casual_observer
05-29-2007, 09:46 AM
lekiboy, ang swerte niyo naman dyan sa Recto cor. Legarda. yung isa pala sa twin towers "nila" ay nagpaparamdam sa inyo. aba! nagsisimula nang maramdaman ni kwan ang "karma" ng kabulastugan na ginawa niya sa liga at sa ginigipit niyang player ngayon. ;D

oca
05-29-2007, 09:54 AM
Though there is no final resolution yet on this Rivera Case, base on what we have read here, it's about time to have a "clear definition of what is an athletic scholarship".

What are its inclusions and exclusions?

Every school in the same league should have a uniform definition of what is an athletic scholarship. Otherwise, there will always be occasions when one school will invoke "its own provisions" just to protect its interest against the greater good of the league.

L1ntek, kailan pa tayo huling nakarinig ng "retroactive cancellation ng scholarship"?

Of course, kahit anong panig ka pa sa usaping ito. Kahit naging devil's advocate ka pa. You will agree---

A student-athlete should never be held hostage by unpaid fees arising from the retroactive cancellation of his scholarship. More so, if such cancellation was absolutely discretionary and arbitrary.



I posted the above yesterday. Now, take this quote from Montinola as it appeared on Henson's column--

Montinola said FEU’s high school players are not given scholarships per se. “They study and play for us,” he went on. “There are tuition fees and expenses like board and lodging that are carried in the books as receivables. In the end, we decide whether or not to absorb the expense.”

Aren't the players at the mercy of the school in this case?

Of course it is the sole prerogative of the school to grant an athletic scholarship or not. Kung wala, eh di wala! Kung malinaw yan sa bata at kanyang pamilya, I doubt if they will even stay one day in your campus.

But for it to be booked as a receivable and to be determined later if it will be absord as an expense or not is grossly unfair to the student-athlete and his family!

You play for the school and you are piling up your debts? Then, upon graduation, if you displease the powers that be, bigla kang sisingilin!

Ano, yan.."papaalipin" ka para ma-absorb ang nasabing expense? Hahalikan mo muna sila sa paa in case lilipat ka ng paaralan para wala ka nang bayaran?

Yes, it is the prerogative of the school to grant athletic-scholarships. Kung wala, tama ba yung ganyang sistema? Sa bawat playday, nagpa-pile up ang utang ng bata?

If a school cannot grant scholarships to its athletes... If a school cannot find means to absorb outright all these expenses, they have no business participating in these leagues to begin with. Okay lang kung "volunteer athlete" yan. What if they are not?

T.ang !na (apologies, mods), huwag naman nila tratuhin ng ganyan ang mga bata at ang kanilang pamilya.

casual_observer
05-29-2007, 10:03 AM
^ may magagawa pa ba tayo sa mga taong sadyang makapal ang mukha na katulad ni Anton Montinola? from the first time i heard that he placed a P116,000 "bond" on Soc Rivera's head and connived with his cohorts in the UAAP board to pass the Rivera Rule, talagang uminit na ang dugo ko sa kumag na yan. ::)

hmmmm... just a thought. wouldn't it be much better if there will be a piece of legislation passed by Congress which will define the bounds of what a scholarship grant is? kung may batas kasi, maiiwasan yung mga abusado na katulad ni Montinola na gawin yung ginagawa niya ngayon kay Soc Rivera. ???

jiggerman04
05-29-2007, 10:16 AM
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/05282007/sports03.html

from businessmirror.. nagbigay ng comment RIVERA at ROSALES.. refer to the link nalang..

nightowl
05-29-2007, 11:11 AM
Montinola says that tuition fees, etc. are carried on their books as recievables, and they decide in the end, whether the student-athlete was entitled to the scholarship/other expenses incurred-in the first place.

What is this? The scholarship/other expenses (board and lodging, food allowances, etc) of athletes in FEU are not firm committments of the school to their student/athletes?

If I were a student/athlete of FEU, whether high school or college, I would think twice about this statement and whether I should continue to play and study for FEU. It seems their committment to the student/athletes has a STRING attached, one that can be pulled back at anytime. Montinola showed this last year when he disbanded (sacked is just as good a word to describe how the basketball team members were treated) the men's basketball team. Do those players still enjoy scholarships, dorm privileges and the like?

This is a "DO NOT TOUCH" policy on student/athletes that should not sit well with anyone who has the welfare of these young boys and girls in mind. FEU has become a DANGEROUS high school to go to, and all aspiring athletes should be forewarned. YOU MAY WIND UP HAVING TO PAY FOR TUITION AND FEES THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE FREE, if at the end, you decide to leave FEU.

mighty_lion
05-29-2007, 12:02 PM
buti na lang hindi si anton montinola ang presidente ng pilipinas, mas pipiliin ko pa ata si eddie gil. ;D

learning from this experience i think it makes sense to put everything else in black and white so no one suffers later on.

Fried Green Tomato
05-29-2007, 01:54 PM
Baka naman hindi scholarship ang binibigay ni montinola... baka "study now, pay later" plan?

First time to hear of such scheme that management/school authorities have the option to assess later whether they should charge a player of the expenses they spent. Were the players inform of such scheme when they decided to study & PLAY for feu?

A lot of these players (& their families) come from low-income group and mostly from the province and i'm very sure that they don't the capacity to pay and they knew nothing of the strings attached. They allowed their sons to study/play for FEU, i'm very very sure in good faith, that the school would fulfill a lifelong dream of giving their sons education (something that most of them could not provide) and hopefully, a better chance of having a good future. But with montinola's statement, one could easily conclude the kind of person he's truly made of.

Maybe, montinola is still living in his own feudal world and acting like a true feudal landlord.... papautangin ang mga kawawang sakada na habang buhay at walang katapusan nilang pagbabayaran.

To take advantage of the poor & powerless is a despicable shameless act.

As for KARMA coming his way... MAID lang ang katapat nya. ::)

hersay
05-29-2007, 03:56 PM
Here are the votes - NO - UP, ADMU, YES - UE, NU, UST, ADU, DLSU, FEU, and because of what happened every UAAP rule that was ammended this year will all be implemented retroactive this year instead of next year through all the sports in UAAP. It's the first time the UAAP board did this, I think FEU and the UAAP Board are ill-advised, kawawa naman yung abogadong kasama nila dyan!

casual_observer
05-29-2007, 04:00 PM
FGT: sagad sa baho ang ugali ni Montinola. he just treat basketball players as pawns that he can easily manipulate in his favor- clearly an attitude of a true jackass. ::)

ang matindi pa nito, mabuti sana kung si Montinola ay nag-iisa sa isyu na ito pero meron pa pala siyang mga sagad din sa baho ang pag-uugali na mga kasama from UST, NU and Adamson na nakipagsabwatan sa kanya para ma-approve at ma-implement kaagad ang sagad sa baho na Rivera Rule at tulungan indirectly si Anton Montinola na patuloy na gipitin si Soc Rivera.

magaling, di ba? napakagaling! >:(


hersay: you got the voting process all wrong. UE did not vote because as host of Season 69, it can only vote in case of a tie while DLSU did not vote because it has no representatives in the board since it got suspended last season, thus Br. Bernie Oca and Chuck Buenaventura, DLSU's newly-appointed board reps to the UAAP, will only join the meeting in June.

votes for the approval of the Rivera Rule: FEU (proponent of the Rivera Rule), UST, NU and Adamson
votes against the approval of the Rivera Rule: UP and Ateneo
did not participate in the voting: UE (host) and La Salle (absent)

Kid Cubao
05-29-2007, 04:21 PM
let's go easy on the rhetoric, shall we?

the whole point is that no matter how low and despicable anton's hardball tactics may have been, when all has been said and done, there are really no rules or guidelines that govern or check such abuses among UAAP member schools. in light of recent developments and revelations, there's no telling the kind of control montinola has over the FEU basketball program. right now it's a stalemate, with neither party backing down from their current position.

casual_observer
05-29-2007, 04:25 PM
^ well, you cannot blame most of us if we express our utter disgust in what Anton Montinola and his fellow goons in the UAAP board had done distastefully with the passing of the Rivera Rule and the point blank harassment of Soc Rivera by Anton Montinola. ;)

hmmmmm... oh well, is there any chance, no matter how remote it would be, for the Rivera Rule to be overturned by most members of the UAAP board and, perhaps, order Montinola to release Rivera as a matter of "courtesy" and "good faith" to the kid?

hersay
05-29-2007, 04:42 PM
You're right casual_observer, I agree with you. I want to depict all the members of the BOYS CLUB(UAAP BOARD). Kawawa lagi ang UP and ADMU, trust me there's always a sinister act pag naglobby ang isa sa members ng Boys Club sigurado approve because they always have the numbers. Give and take lang sila.

Jump_Shooter
05-29-2007, 04:46 PM
Okay, I know this is a very sensitive topic, but let's try to maintain a certain level of civility here. Much as most of you do not agree with what Anton Montinola is doing, please refrain from calling him names. There are other (and better) ways to make your point.

casual_observer
05-29-2007, 05:05 PM
^ roger that, Boss Jump_Shooter. pipilitin talaga namin na 'wag mag-name call kahit na nanggigigil kami sa galit sa pinaggagagawa niyang si Anton Montinola sa liga natin. >:(


hersay: sa kasong ito ng Rivera Case, ang UAAP "Ivy League" (UP, Ateneo and La Salle) ang lumalabas na magkakakampi against the Rivera Rule, which was proposed by FEU and approved by it, along with UST, NU and Adamson. yung UE naman, siyempre hindi natin alam kung saan sila papanig sa isyu na ito since sila ang host at boboto lang sila in case of a tie.

hopefully, a strongly worded joint statement by UP, Ateneo and La Salle shall be issued in condemnation of this latest atrocity perpetrated by Anton Montinola and his cohorts in the UAAP board.

tigerman
05-29-2007, 06:19 PM
I'm surprised to see UST voting in favor of this so-called Rivera rule...
And I wonder what's in the mind of whoever (either Fr. De Sagon or Mam Francisco) was representing UST in the board.






USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

bchoter
05-29-2007, 06:22 PM
After resorting to name-calling you start clssifying schools. I thought such posting styles are only found in PEX.

bchoter
05-29-2007, 06:29 PM
tigerman, why am I not surprised?

oca
05-29-2007, 06:46 PM
Humaba na ang usapan. Nagsang-sanga na. Hanggang ngayon wala pa tayong nababasang “official copy” ng nasabing rule. Henson’s column is the best source we have so far, as it quotes the proponent of this new rule. Allow me to quote part of Henson’s column.

The rule is –

“…requiring a one-year residence for a graduated junior player to suit up for another school in the senior varsity…”

What was the intent? Again, from the same column by Henson –

“…was meant to diffuse friction and irritation caused by “piracy.””

Read it.

What’s wrong?

From where I sit – wala.

Totoong may nagaganap na piracy. Di rin natin maitatanggi ang karapatan ng liga to impose residency rules on any college student wishing to play varsity sports.

Why then all this controversy?

IMO, it’s all about the “COLATILLA” introduced, by who else, Montinola. He was quoted-

“I suggested a ‘colatilla’ so as not to make the one-year restriction a hard and fast rule,” said Montinola. “The residency could be waived if a player is able to obtain a written release from his previous school.”

IMO, dyan nagmula ang problema, aside of course from the fact that they did away with the practice of making restrictive new rules prospective in its application.

The “colatilla” is arbitrary, unilateral and discriminatory. When and what would be the basis for a school to grant or not grant a “waiver”?

If they had simply made this prospective and did away with the “colatilla”. I don’t think it would generate as much controversy as it does now.

A prospective application would have allowed affected parties/student-athletes to decide accordingly. Doing away with the "colatilla" ensures parity in its application.

eightyfiver
05-29-2007, 07:32 PM
I think to drag the good name of other schools because of their reps' vote is uncalled for. That makes yourself no different from Mr. Montinola. :-[

Actually UST was one of the worst victims of this player piracy. Years ago, 3 of their players namely Marlou Aquino, EJ Feihl and Giovanni Pineda transferred to a rival school(Adamson). But UST just took it all in stride and eventually started a dynasty :D. I don't know if this is one of the reasons why UST is sympathetic to FEU.

Maybe in the light of this huge clearance fee, an appeal to this ruling is in order. :'(

tigerman
05-29-2007, 08:07 PM
Actually UST was one of the worst victims of this player piracy. Years ago, 3 of their players namely Marlou Aquino, EJ Feihl and Giovanni Pineda transferred to a rival school(Adamson).


Thanks but no thanks to Charlie Dy. Right?






USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

shyboy
05-29-2007, 09:49 PM
Humaba na ang usapan. Nagsang-sanga na. Hanggang ngayon wala pa tayong nababasang “official copy” ng nasabing rule. Henson’s column is the best source we have so far, as it quotes the proponent of this new rule. Allow me to quote part of Henson’s column.

The rule is –

“…requiring a one-year residence for a graduated junior player to suit up for another school in the senior varsity…”

What was the intent? Again, from the same column by Henson –

“…was meant to diffuse friction and irritation caused by “piracy.””

Read it.

What’s wrong?

From where I sit – wala.

Totoong may nagaganap na piracy. Di rin natin maitatanggi ang karapatan ng liga to impose residency rules on any college student wishing to play varsity sports.


I don't think piracy is the proper term for recruits from the high school ranks. Every kid has a right to choose the college/university that he/she thinks is best for him/her academically and athletically. Pirating is more applicable when recruiting from another college or university.

There has been a number of player movements from HS to college within UAAP schools but these are few compared to the number of recruits from NCAA high schools. From these movements, there has been minimal or no complaints whatsoever from the affected school. It's obvious this rule is a knee-jerk reaction from the exodus of players from FEU-FERN. Di matanggap ni Montinola na the reason they left is because of his own doing (team mismanagement e.g. the sudden disbandment of the FEU Seniors squad).



Why then all this controversy?

IMO, it’s all about the “COLATILLA” introduced, by who else, Montinola. He was quoted-

“I suggested a ‘colatilla’ so as not to make the one-year restriction a hard and fast rule,” said Montinola. “The residency could be waived if a player is able to obtain a written release from his previous school.”

IMO, dyan nagmula ang problema, aside of course from the fact that they did away with the practice of making restrictive new rules prospective in its application.

The “colatilla” is arbitrary, unilateral and discriminatory. When and what would be the basis for a school to grant or not grant a “waiver”?

If they had simply made this prospective and did away with the “colatilla”. I don’t think it would generate as much controversy as it does now.

A prospective application would have allowed affected parties/student-athletes to decide accordingly. Doing away with the "colatilla" ensures parity in its application.



The so-called "colatilla" made it worse. Even without the "colatilla", the ruling for a one-year residency still seems illogical and unnecessary.

danny
05-30-2007, 12:46 AM
Question.

Is it proper to dichotomize between the UAAP Board member and the schools they represent?

Are the UAAP Board members simply voting for their own personal self-interest or are they truly voting for their school's official line?

Where is the root cause of all these UAAP trouble? The Board acting on its own or with the schools themselves?

Something has got to give.


P.S.

Where's the official copy of the said rule?

casual_observer
05-30-2007, 02:38 AM
here's Kim Lesaca's reaction to Quinito Henson's Philippine Star article dedicated to the Rivera Rule hullabaloo:


Player Piracy Rule in UAAP series II
by Kim Lesaca
inboundpass.com (http://www.inboundpass.com/2007/05/29/player-piracy-in-uaap-series-ii/)
Tuesday, 29 May 2007


By now, a number of you have read my previous article and other forum regarding The Soc Rivera Rule. And last May 27, the mainstream media started to take notice of the situation, starting with the “Dean” himself, Quinito Henson writing a couple of paragraphs about this issue on his “Sporting Chance” column in the Philippine Star, and Rick Olivares’ interview with the players involved in his column in the Business Mirror. Well, Mr. Henson scored another “coup” by featuring Anton Montinola’s reply in his column in today’s Philippine Star issue. I’d like to qoute Mr. Montinola via the “Dean’s” column and say my piece on this.


more on Kim Lesaca's reaction here (http://www.inboundpass.com/2007/05/29/player-piracy-in-uaap-series-ii/).

Mateen Cleaves
05-30-2007, 09:51 AM
^Why do you think that schools like NU, Adamson, FEU, UST (and maybe UE) voted the way they did? And elite schools like Ateneo and UP (and maybe DLSU) voted against? Kasi alam nila dejado sila. Who wouldn't want to transfer to Ateneo, for example, na besides the education, excellent facilities and so forth eh pwede ka pa makapunta sa Amerika? The other schools try their best to develop their HS athletic programs with the hope that most of the athletes go on to enroll in their colleges. Don't you think they need some kind of protection to level the playing field at least within the UAAP? This is not something new. They do this in US baseball for example. Big markets vs. small markets.


I'm not psychic. I'm not even going to pretend to know what their motives were. Your baseball analogy makes no sense at all.

As for the other schools needing protection to level the playing field... No, they don't. The only way that you would have a truly level playing field would be for everybody to have the same exact academic and athletic budgets. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. But even so, that doesn't mean that a school with inferior facilities or a smaller athletic budget can no longer compete.

For most serious basketball players (and presumably, blue chip prospects are serious about their basketball), the most important considerations for choosing one school over the other include:

1) The coach
2) Opportunity for immediate playing time
3) Opportunity to develop into a PBL/PBA prospect
4) Relationships with players and staff

It's not easy. But the point is that if they really wanted to, UAAP schools could make solid arguments to convince their top prospects not to leave. Without having to threaten the kids with "receivables" or the threat of a one-year residency.

Wingman
05-30-2007, 10:58 AM
gfy, why would they vote for that rule to "level the playing field"? That is just crab mentality. Rather than pulling the top schools down to their level, why don't they just try to improve on their school's academic and athletic programs? That way more student-athletes will be attracted to play for them.

Kasalanan ba ng La Salle, Ateneo and UP if their academic and athletic programs are above the other schools? No. Its because they worked hard to get to that level and I think it is only fair for the other school to also work hard to catch up with them, rather than instituting various rules just to "level the playing field".

venom
05-30-2007, 11:03 AM
Question.

Is it proper to dichotomize between the UAAP Board member and the schools they represent?

Are the UAAP Board members simply voting for their own personal self-interest or are they truly voting for their school's official line?

Where is the root cause of all these UAAP trouble? The Board acting on its own or with the schools themselves?

Something has got to give.


P.S.

Where's the official copy of the said rule?




THe Board is Montinola's stomping ground being a legit school owner so to speak. Thats why he able to blur the line between personal self interest and FEU's. Compared to other board reps whose stay on the UAAP board is"tenured" by school administrators, his isnt. THe only other board rep whose stay isnt "tenured" is that of NU.

biruruku
05-30-2007, 12:58 PM
piracy presupposes ownsership, i.e. someone owns something then someone else appropriates it for himself without or against the consent of the owner. it is similar to theft.

1. does a school own its students?

2. does providing training and facilities to a student make him a property of the school?

gfy
05-30-2007, 01:37 PM
I am now inclined to support the 1-year residency rule for HS graduates without the colatilla if only to prevent animosities among the schools (if the restricted list is not workable - the aim is to reduce the number of athletes needing release). The same way the 2-year residency rule for transferees from one UAAP school to another seems to be working. But it should be prospective. As others have mentioned, gamitin muna yun residency para mag-adjust sa pag-aaral.

It's true that schools became champions without this rule but there might have been very few instances in the past (correct me if I am wrong) where top HS prospects changed schools.

I heard of schools who cannot afford to recruit top HS prospects or transferees or foreigners so the NY Yankees came to mind (but they are not even winning despite the huge budget).

It is not gonna happen anytime soon that the other universities can catch up academics-wise with the elite schools.

LION
05-30-2007, 01:56 PM
^ That is the legal interpretation of piracy.

"Piracy" as used by others in this forum is a different context altogether. I think those who use the word "piracy" here are aware of the legal meaning.

However, In the field of human or people resources, "piracy" has acquired a different albeit informal meaning.

BigBlue
05-30-2007, 02:14 PM
^ pare, 'wag mong isa-cite yung buong article dito sa gameface. just post the title, author, date of publication, medium where published and first paragraph and then provide a link for the rest of the article. ;)

isa pa, naipost ko na ito sa Rivera Rule and The Soc Rivera Story threads. :)


i dont think it's wrong to post the entire article here. what is wrong is posting another thread when there already exists another thread on the same issue.

mods, maybe we can merge this?

blue_very
05-30-2007, 02:52 PM
this soc rivera issue will not be a problem if mr montinola only follows the student-athlete principle. Student first, athlete second. priority is to be a good student then be a good athlete. not the other way around. how will mr. montinola react when soc says he only wants to study in U.P.?

shyboy
05-30-2007, 03:29 PM
The 2-year residency rule for inter-UAAP school transfers will work because that is legit piracy. You're preventing the school's investment on a player to work against them. Yung college ang may investment kaya iniiwasan ang isang Ken Bono na lumipat sa ibang UAAP school para kalabanin ang Adamson college na siyang nagbigay sa kanya ng pagkakataon at malaking investment.

It's a different story altogether when the student moves up from HS to college. Yung high school ang may investment sa bata, HINDI YUNG COLLEGE. Thus, nagampanan na ng bata ang investment sa kanya ng high school niya and he has every right to choose whichever college will suit his needs athletically and academically.

There's no point for a one-year residency kasi ibang entity ang high school sa college.

Nanggaling na rin kina Rivera ang rason kung bakit ayaw nila sa FEU. Natakot sila sa pamamalakad ni Anton Montinola. If Montinola only had the brains to manage his teams properly, the FEU-FERN boys would've stayed with him for their Seniors team and this brouhaha wouldn't ever have happened. Wala na yang rason about animosity or what have you.

casual_observer
05-30-2007, 04:40 PM
two articles on the controversial Rivera Rule from ubelt.com (http://www.ubelt.com):


The Athletic Mind: Oops, They Did It Again
by Sid Ventura


What are we to make of this latest rule that the UAAP Board has come up with? I don’t know, but for me it’s just wrong on so many levels. Forget (if you can) about the suspicious circumstances surrounding its implementation; that’s worth another article altogether. Let’s just analyze the rule itself without worrying about Soc Rivera’s outstanding debt. I know that will be as difficult as, say, figuring out why the acronym for Nicanor Reyes Educational Foundation is FERN and not NREF, but try to indulge me here.


more of the article here (http://www.ubelt.com/ub/uaap/mbb/story.aspx?id=1278).


----------


“Soc’s” To Be You: Rivera in the middle of it all
by JP Abcede


Less than two months before the start of the 2007 University Athletic Association of the Philippines season, buzz has already started, generated by a thorny disagreement between two member schools for an upcoming rookie which supposedly spawned a new rule because of this misunderstanding.


more of the article here (http://www.ubelt.com/ub/uaap/mbb/story.aspx?id=1277).

Wang-Bu
05-30-2007, 05:09 PM
Nung varsisty pa ko sa UE isa lang ang naalala kong naging teammate ko na galing UE High School, si Chris Corbin. Sa totoo lang hindi naman ganun ka-high profile sa recruit si Corbin. Bagamat matangkad siya payat naman, at malas lang niyang naksabayan ang mga gaya nina Arnie Gamboa, Braulio at Dennis Lim, Gerald Ortega at Mar Morelos, kaya sa practise lang siya pinagpawisan kakasalo ng siko ng mga beteranong big man. Alam ko hindi nakatapos si Chris ng college, at ngayon pakalat-kalat na lang yata basta kung may dumampot na team sa kanya. Parang naging magkakampi yata sila ng isa pang dating Warriors na si Leo Vilar sa Forward Taguig mga dalawang taon ng nakakaraan.

Isa itong halimbawa kung kailan masasabi nating mas maganda sana kung inobliga munang mag-aral ang isang college freshman bago maglaro sa UAAP. Sa totoo lang marami sa mga nabanggit ko mga hindi naman nagsipagpasok at madalas puro excused na lang sa klase gawa ng pagiging varsity nila. Wala naman akong ilusyon na makakatungtong ako sa PBA o kahit sa PBL kaya no choice ako kungdi mag-aral, ang kasama kong ulirang estudyante nung mga panahon na iyon si Aldwin Manubag (bukod pa sa gugulpihin ako ng erpat ko).

Sa kaso naman nitong si Anton halata namang pagiging tuso lang ang puntirya niya dito. Inayawan siya ni Soc Rivera at nagawa niyang imaneobra ang Board upang makapaghiganti sa bata. Meron ba namang scholarship na biglang binabawi KUNG KELAN TAPOS NG MAG-ARAL ANG ESTUDYANTE? Halatang-halata naman na kaya lang nagpakana ng ganun si Anton kasi ayaw niyang makinabang ang ibang koponan kay Rivera. Ito namang ibang mga ewan na paaralan nakisama pa.

animoateneo
05-30-2007, 11:15 PM
Kim Lesaca mentioned Anton Montinola is from Ateneo? Is this correct? I'm so ashamed...

bluewing
05-31-2007, 12:23 AM
Kim Lesaca mentioned Anton Montinola is from Ateneo? Is this correct? I'm so ashamed...


yes. but don't be ashamed. sa lahat ng gubat may ahas....

atenean_blooded
05-31-2007, 12:28 AM
Anton Montinola's from Ateneo. But so is Mike Arroyo. ;D We've all got our bad eggs.

I honestly don't see the point in trying to level the playing field using this rule. First, the playing field isn't going to be level through a stupid rule that makes stupid distinctions and imposes stupid requirements. Actually improving one's athletic program will.

What is the root of the UAAP's problems?

In my opinion, it's putting too much of a premium on the "Athletic" instead of "University." This is a school league. We have to recruit student-athletes, not mercenaries. And we shouldn't treat HS graduates like commodities. When we fail to realize that varsity sports is something meant to build camaraderie and community, the whole point of "varsity glory" is lost.

An obsession with varsity glory, with winning at all cost, misses the whole point.

I don't like piracy. I also don't like the idea of "hired guns" playing for a school.

If a high school student does not want to go to your college, go cry a river. He doesn't have to be held hostage.

danny
05-31-2007, 03:20 AM
Any statistics , for the past ten years, on the following:

1. NCAA HS students who played for the UAAP.
2. UAAP HS students who played for the NCAA.
3. UAAP HS students who played for another UAAP school.
4. Non-UAAP and Non-NCAA players who played for the UAAP.

gfy
05-31-2007, 08:08 AM
Atenean_Blooded

Maganda lahat yan mga gusto mo - walang piracy, mercenaries, etc. Unfortunately, kelangan ang rules kung hindi labo-labo ang mangyayari. Leveling the playing field was the wrong word I used. Kasi meron din mga recruits na mahusay sa basketbol pero di pwede sa Ateneo or DLSU or UP kundi babagsak lang. Kaya napupunta sa ibang schools. Pero first choices pa rin nila ang mga schools na yan. Para walang gulo, yun one-year residency rule na yan mailagay na. That way, yun mga HS students maka-decide na which high schools to go to. At saka sayang naman ang pagod ng school. Sa UAAP, lahat na universities ay meron sariling HS. Whatever they say about homegrown, laudable pa rin ang concept na yan.

oca
05-31-2007, 08:24 AM
Quote from: mighty_lion on Today at 07:42:12 AM
Little OT - Im surprised reading the statement below by Sid Ventura:

"In fact, if you look at the big picture, over the past six seasons, the number of players in the UAAP who came from UAAP high schools isn’t even a tenth of the total population of players."

If this is indeed true, bakit pa nga naman kailangan ang rule ni Montinola?


Kung ako nga si Montinola, that statistic gives me even more reason to have this rule.

Dahil nga iilan lang talaga ng magagaling na junior players na umuusbong mula sa liga. Kung pinalad kang nasa bakuran mo na siya, hahayaan mo bang basta na lang yan mapakinabangan ng iba? Kung di mo mapigilan ang paglipat, huwag naman agarang pakinabangan at gamitin para talunin ka pa. Kaya, paupuin muna ng isang taon. (Masyadong makasarili? Let's not be naive, those Board reps- collectively that is-* decides NOT for the interest of the league. But for the interest of their respective schools.)

The rule doesn't prevent any kid from enrolling at another university to pursue education.

But it does set a temporary restriction when one pursues a varsity career.

Going by the term "student-athlete", then, the rule is okay.

What really caused all this controversy is the premise by which Montinola invoked the colatilla he himself proposed. Take that away and go by the letter of the rule and it isn't as repulsive as it is. Of course, I would have prefered this became effective after season70 and without the colatilla.

shyboy
05-31-2007, 09:07 AM
Kung ako nga si Montinola, that statistic gives me even more reason to have this rule.

Dahil nga iilan lang talaga ng magagaling na junior players na umuusbong mula sa liga. Kung pinalad kang nasa bakuran mo na siya, hahayaan mo bang basta na lang yan mapakinabangan ng iba? Kung di mo mapigilan ang paglipat, huwag naman agarang pakinabangan at gamitin para talunin ka pa. Kaya, paupuin muna ng isang taon. (Masyadong makasarili? Let's not be naive, those Board reps- collectively that is-* decides NOT for the interest of the league. But for the interest of their respective schools.)

The rule doesn't prevent any kid from enrolling at another university to pursue education.

But it does set a temporary restriction when one pursues a varsity career.

Going by the term "student-athlete", then, the rule is okay.

What really caused all this controversy is the premise by which Montinola invoked the colatilla he himself proposed. Take that away and go by the letter of the rule and it isn't as repulsive as it is. Of course, I would have prefered this became effective after season70 and without the colatilla.



Oca,* here's another quote from Sid Ventura's article:

I did a little research. In five of the last six seasons, the best UAAP junior player –the one player most likely to be “pirated” - has actually opted to stay home and either play for the seniors team or simply enroll as a regular student: Michael Guidaben (Ateneo, 2000), June Cortez (UST, 2001), Marcy Arellano (UE, 2002), Ken Barracoso (Ateneo, 2003), and Miggy Maniego (UPIS, 2005). The only exception was in 2004 when Julius Porlaje, the MVP from the UE Pages, didn’t move on to the Warriors.*

In fact, from 2001 to 2006, you can easily count the number of ex-UAAP junior players who decided to play for a rival UAAP school in college: Jemal Vizcarra (Adamson to UST), Obet Carlos (DLSZ to UP), Migs De Asis (DLSZ to UP), Martin Reyes (DLSZ to UP), and Dan Salvador (DLSZ to UP).

A grand total of five players. Of that five, how many were actually “pirated”? To my knowledge, none. Carlos went to UP for purely academic reasons, while De Asis, Reyes and Salvador simply went to the program where they had the best chance of making varsity. (Honestly, though, I’m not 100% sure about Vizcarra, although it’s safe to assume he wouldn’t have wanted to suit up for Adamson in 2001, given that the Falcons were coming off a 0-14 season.)

And over the same time period, there were actually a whole lot more juniors players who stayed put. Aside from the six MVPs, there’s Japs Cuan, Luoreck Tong and Oscar Crisostomo from UST; Vicmel Epres, Marvin Cruz, Jacob Manlapaz and Andrew Marfori from UPIS; Simon Atkins from DLSZ; Leo Canuday from Adamson; and Macky Escalona, Martin Quimson, Johann Uichico, and Jai Reyes from Ateneo. That’s 13 players. And I’m sure I’m missing a few others, which in any case only further strengthens my point.

Cuan, Manlapaz, Marfori, Atkins, Canuday, Uichico, and Reyes were all Mythical Five members, by the way.

So you see there's really not much inter-UAAP school movement from HS star players the last few years.* The decision of the mentioned "transferees" to play for another UAAP school in college was borne out of necessity more than anything else.* Statistically, HS star players would tend to stay in the same school to play for the Seniors squad.* Like i said in a previous post, tanggapin na lang ni Montinola na kaya umalis yung mga FEU-FERN players eh dahil sa maling pamamalakad niya sa FEU.* Di na kailangan yang ruling na yan.

Wang-Bu
05-31-2007, 09:35 AM
Sa ganang akin naman mas pipiliin ko pa rin na mag-aral na lang muna LAHAT ng mga incoming na freshmen. Gaya ng nabanggit ng iba nating katoto kaya naman kasi nauuso 'yang mga hugot kasi nga hindi binibigyang halaga ang dapat na tunay na pakay sa pagtungtong sa pamantasan: ang makatapos ng pag-aaral sa kolehiyo. Ako mismo saksi ako kung ano nangyayari sa mga hugot na hindi man lang nakatapos ng pag-aaral. Kung saan-saan na lang sila dinadampot kapag nawala na sila sa pagiging varsity at hindi sila gaano kagaling upang makatungtong ng PBL o PBA.

Kapag inobliga ang lahat ng freshman na unahin muna ang pag-aaral tancha ko lang mas gaganahan silang magpursigi sa pag-aaral at paglalaro. Hindi naman kami mga henyo nina Aldwin Manubag at ng Team B na si Danex Napuli pero awa naman ni bathala nakatapos naman kami at nakapaglaro naman kami para sa aming paaralan ng tuloy-tuloy. Marami kasi sa aming mga kakampi nuon talagang hinugot lang para maglaro. Mas malaki na ngang allowance nila hindi pa sila pumapasok at milagrong nakakapasa sila para lang masabing may record na maihaharap kapag nangilatis ang UAAP. Naalala ko pa nga si Bobby Diloy, kunwari pang nage-MBA daw sa Grad School namin, eh ni hindi kilala kung sino Dean nila nun at kung sino-sino mga prof niya. Talagang hinugot lang para maglaro. Siempre hindi naman ako palalamang at madalas ko siyang sinasahod nung practice namin.

Ang punto dito hindi mo naman masasabi talaga kung saan papalarin maka-enroll ang isang bata. Kadalasan gawa ng kakulangan sa utak o sa pera o parejas hindi naman napupunta sa mga masasabi nating mas nakalalamang na pamantasan ang karamihan ng mga bata. Ako gusto ko sanang mag-Ateneo o mag-UP nung magca-college na ako kaya lang kapos sa budget at hindi naman magandang score ko sa mga entrance nila bagamat pasado naman ako. Hindi din naman ako ganun kagaling na player para pagbigyan ng scholarship. Nag-UE na lang ako. Nung nakatapos na ako at hindi ko na tinuloy ang pagba-basketball at naghanap na lang ako ng mapapsukan dun ko natanto ang halaga ng may tinapos.

Si Aldwin alam ko nagtatrabaho na din sa New Jersey ngayon sa isang opisina bialng manager. Si Danex naman engineer sa SBMA. Ako kahit sa call center lang ako at least masasabi ko namang may buhay pa pala talaga sa labas ng larong-busluan. Ewan ko lang kung ano masasabi ng mga naging koponan ko dati.

biruruku
05-31-2007, 10:37 AM
However, In the field of human or people resources, "piracy" has acquired a different albeit informal meaning.


even in human resources, "piracy" presupposes that the present employer has valid and existing rights over the employee who is being pirated. the present employer has reasonable expectations of loyalty from the employee for as long as their contract subsists. kaya tinatawag na piracy, kasi may karapatan pa yung boss over the employee tapos kinukuha na ng iba.

a school acquires similar rights over a student if it provides him with training and facilities, but only for as long as their agreement subsists. pag tapos na ang pinag-usapan (e.g. pag grumadweyt na) e wala nang piracy kasi wala nang karapatan yung school na mag-impose ng obligations other than those agreed upon. the only way that the school can continue imposing obligations beyond graduation is if the student, in the beginning (e.g. during negotiations), agrees and binds himself to such obligations even after graduating.

but come to think of it, the rule is imposed upon the member schools, not the students. ibig sabihin, pwede nilang i-justify na hindi naman yung player ang binabawalan nilang lumipat kundi yung rival school ang binabawalan nila na mag-recruit (kahit ano pang itawag dyan, "piracy" man o hindi). ayan patay tayo dyan. kasi we can harp all we want that the rule is not binding over the student. but then, it is binding over the school (as a tournament-enforced rule). so walang magagawa yung "namimirata" na school para tulungan yung player.

ang pwede na lang sigurong gawin e magprotesta ang up at admu officers. kumbinsihin yung mga taga-ibang school para bumoto sa side nila. ipaliwanag ang kabuktutan ng rule na ito. ipakita ang liwanag.

Jeep
05-31-2007, 11:03 AM
coming as it does from experience, sir wang-bu's commentary dovetails with sir oca's and sir gfy's in that, looking at the new ruling in a vacuum, it actually serves to bolster the ideal of the "student-athlete." student first, athlete second.

of course, a vacuum is an anomaly in physics, i.e., nature abhors a vacuum, and obviously, the ruling did not materialize out of thin air. may konteksto ito, ika nga. at ang konteksto nito ay ang di-maayos na paghihiwalay ni soc rivera at ng FEU. that's the rub there: motives have been implied, or have been admitted to implicitly (in sir anton's recent pronouncements through sir quinito).

going forward, what could be done by the board is: 1) stick to its guns and implement the rule (but make it effective in season 71, not now); and 2) agree to the principle that academic freedom also includes adherence to the maxim that a student is free to study wherever he or she chooses for as long as he or she meets the school of choice's requirements for admission. all of this can be done without implying or imputing the guilt or innocence of one party or the other.

ngayon, kailangan pa bang ayusin ang kung ano mang gusot ang nananatili sa pagitan ng FEU, UP, at ng mga dating baby tams na ngayon ay fighting maroons? puedeng oo, puedeng hindi. officially, what's done is done. maybe just issue an addendum to defer implementation of the rule to next year. but if it were up to me, i'd rather that this be smoothened out between the parties concerned, preferably before the season starts. officially, the UAAP need not be involved in such a discussion. but it should involve the board members in their own personal capacities with the blessings of their respective school administrators and with the explicit understanding about such a meeting's aim. mahirap kasing nagsasama-sama ang lahat sa ganitong palaro na may samaan ng loob. the spirit of sportsmanship would be the ultimate victim here.

rapunzel
05-31-2007, 12:30 PM
coming as it does from experience, sir wang-bu's commentary dovetails with sir oca's and sir gfy's in that, looking at the new ruling in a vacuum, it actually serves to bolster the ideal of the "student-athlete." student first, athlete second.


jeep, nasagot na to. the calculus only works if redshirting applies to ALL freshman players.

oca
05-31-2007, 01:44 PM
Oca,* here's another quote from Sid Ventura's article:

I did a little research. In five of the last six seasons, the best UAAP junior player –the one player most likely to be “pirated” - has actually opted to stay home and either play for the seniors team or simply enroll as a regular student: Michael Guidaben (Ateneo, 2000), June Cortez (UST, 2001), Marcy Arellano (UE, 2002), Ken Barracoso (Ateneo, 2003), and Miggy Maniego (UPIS, 2005). The only exception was in 2004 when Julius Porlaje, the MVP from the UE Pages, didn’t move on to the Warriors.*

In fact, from 2001 to 2006, you can easily count the number of ex-UAAP junior players who decided to play for a rival UAAP school in college: Jemal Vizcarra (Adamson to UST), Obet Carlos (DLSZ to UP), Migs De Asis (DLSZ to UP), Martin Reyes (DLSZ to UP), and Dan Salvador (DLSZ to UP).

A grand total of five players. Of that five, how many were actually “pirated”? To my knowledge, none. Carlos went to UP for purely academic reasons, while De Asis, Reyes and Salvador simply went to the program where they had the best chance of making varsity. (Honestly, though, I’m not 100% sure about Vizcarra, although it’s safe to assume he wouldn’t have wanted to suit up for Adamson in 2001, given that the Falcons were coming off a 0-14 season.)

And over the same time period, there were actually a whole lot more juniors players who stayed put. Aside from the six MVPs, there’s Japs Cuan, Luoreck Tong and Oscar Crisostomo from UST; Vicmel Epres, Marvin Cruz, Jacob Manlapaz and Andrew Marfori from UPIS; Simon Atkins from DLSZ; Leo Canuday from Adamson; and Macky Escalona, Martin Quimson, Johann Uichico, and Jai Reyes from Ateneo. That’s 13 players. And I’m sure I’m missing a few others, which in any case only further strengthens my point.

Cuan, Manlapaz, Marfori, Atkins, Canuday, Uichico, and Reyes were all Mythical Five members, by the way.

So you see there's really not much inter-UAAP school movement from HS star players the last few years.* The decision of the mentioned "transferees" to play for another UAAP school in college was borne out of necessity more than anything else.* Statistically, HS star players would tend to stay in the same school to play for the Seniors squad.* Like i said in a previous post, tanggapin na lang ni Montinola na kaya umalis yung mga FEU-FERN players eh dahil sa maling pamamalakad niya sa FEU.* Di na kailangan yang ruling na yan.



Mr. Ventura’s article is all about basketball. Huwag nating kalimutan, this rule applies to ALL sports in the UAAP calendar.

Now, is there anyone here who is well versed with the recruitment of players for the other sports?

For all the flak that Montinola is receiving he certainly is in a position to know and say –

"Let’s face it, there’s a lot of piracy going on and it’s more rampant in other UAAP sports than in basketball.”

That quote is from the Henson article.

For all we know, it is due to the recruitment practices in other sports that this rule got a 4-2 approval.

Again, kung sino ang may malawak na kaalam ng recruitment sa ibang sports, share what you know.

Jump_Shooter
05-31-2007, 01:48 PM
Actually UST was one of the worst victims of this player piracy. Years ago, 3 of their players namely Marlou Aquino, EJ Feihl and Giovanni Pineda transferred to a rival school(Adamson). But UST just took it all in stride and eventually started a dynasty :D. I don't know if this is one of the reasons why UST is sympathetic to FEU.


It's the reason why the UAAP imposed a two-year residency on player transfers within the league.

Oca, read the complete article. There's mention there of the other sports.

Jump_Shooter
05-31-2007, 01:52 PM
^ pare, 'wag mong isa-cite yung buong article dito sa gameface. just post the title, author, date of publication, medium where published and first paragraph and then provide a link for the rest of the article. ;)

isa pa, naipost ko na ito sa Rivera Rule and The Soc Rivera Story threads. :)


i dont think it's wrong to post the entire article here. what is wrong is posting another thread when there already exists another thread on the same issue.

mods, maybe we can merge this?


Actually, it is wrong to post an entire article from one website to another because you will be depriving the original website of hits.

But you are correct in suggesting we merge this with the existing thread, which is what I'm about to do.

Out_Of_The_Blue
05-31-2007, 02:19 PM
^^^ just to extend a little the OT subject: Is there an internet law on this? I think it may be wrong for prominent website pages but not for message and community forums (section) like ours where information is free flowing. Besides, as long as you cite the source of the info, you may be giving due recognition and "marketing promotion" to the soure itself. In some cases, firewalls prohibit some PCs from entering the original webpage of the source that's why it is better to paste the whole article for the convenience of the readers.

Just thinking aloud. Now back to your regular programming. This has been the hottest topic for the past 2 weeks. So, what now? Since a new rule has now been passed, what courses of actions are available to the aggrieved parties?

pio_valenz
05-31-2007, 02:30 PM
^ No specific laws, but it falls under proper Netiquette. :)

Anyway, it simply amazes me why some of us here continue to equate this new rule with concern for the student athlete, when it's clear as day that the reason for implementation is piracy. Even Anton himself acknowledged that. Besides, if the concern is truly the welfare of freshmen players, how come Kirk Long and Mike Gamboa get to play? Where's the concern for them?

Out_Of_The_Blue
05-31-2007, 02:36 PM
^ No specific laws, but it falls under proper Netiquette.* :)

Anyway, it simply amazes me why some of us here continue to equate this new rule with concern for the student athlete, when it's clear as day that the reason for implementation is piracy. Even Anton himself acknowledged that. Besides, if the concern is truly the welfare of freshmen players, how come Kirk Long and Mike Gamboa get to play? Where's the concern for them?



Thanks pio. You have an inside update on what Mike and Soc are thinking right now? No choice but to red shirt for 1 yr, right?

By the way, saan ba makakabili ng netiquette na yan? :D

LION
05-31-2007, 02:40 PM
However, In the field of human or people resources, "piracy" has acquired a different albeit informal meaning.


even in human resources, "piracy" presupposes that the present employer has valid and existing rights over the employee who is being pirated. the present employer has reasonable expectations of loyalty from the employee for as long as their contract subsists. kaya tinatawag na piracy, kasi may karapatan pa yung boss over the employee tapos kinukuha na ng iba.


Constitutional proscription against involuntary servitude. *

But even in cases where the company executive has no obligation to the present employer but is enticed by another company to jump ship, it is still loosely called "pirating". *

But then, back to regular programming. * :)

mighty_lion
05-31-2007, 02:50 PM
Quote from: mighty_lion on Today at 07:42:12 AM
Little OT - Im surprised reading the statement below by Sid Ventura:

"In fact, if you look at the big picture, over the past six seasons, the number of players in the UAAP who came from UAAP high schools isn’t even a tenth of the total population of players."

If this is indeed true, bakit pa nga naman kailangan ang rule ni Montinola?


Kung ako nga si Montinola, that statistic gives me even more reason to have this rule.

Dahil nga iilan lang talaga ng magagaling na junior players na umuusbong mula sa liga. Kung pinalad kang nasa bakuran mo na siya, hahayaan mo bang basta na lang yan mapakinabangan ng iba? Kung di mo mapigilan ang paglipat, huwag naman agarang pakinabangan at gamitin para talunin ka pa. Kaya, paupuin muna ng isang taon. (Masyadong makasarili? Let's not be naive, those Board reps- collectively that is-* decides NOT for the interest of the league. But for the interest of their respective schools.)

The rule doesn't prevent any kid from enrolling at another university to pursue education.

But it does set a temporary restriction when one pursues a varsity career.

Going by the term "student-athlete", then, the rule is okay.

What really caused all this controversy is the premise by which Montinola invoked the colatilla he himself proposed. Take that away and go by the letter of the rule and it isn't as repulsive as it is. Of course, I would have prefered this became effective after season70 and without the colatilla.



The new rule is irrelevant in terms of preventing migration of UAAP Juniors to other leauges like NCAA. Sad to say but it may encourage migration of players in NCAA kung ayaw ng bata sa pamamalakad ng school nya.

pio_valenz
05-31-2007, 03:22 PM
^ No specific laws, but it falls under proper Netiquette.* :)

Anyway, it simply amazes me why some of us here continue to equate this new rule with concern for the student athlete, when it's clear as day that the reason for implementation is piracy. Even Anton himself acknowledged that. Besides, if the concern is truly the welfare of freshmen players, how come Kirk Long and Mike Gamboa get to play? Where's the concern for them?



Thanks pio. You have an inside update on what Mike and Soc are thinking right now? No choice but to red shirt for 1 yr, right?

By the way, saan ba makakabili ng netiquette na yan?* :D

Mike will play this season because UP never pirated him from Ateneo. As for Soc, he's prepared to sit out a year if necessary, but of course UP is trying its best to make sure that doesn't happen.

I think you can order Netiquette online. ;D

biruruku
05-31-2007, 04:33 PM
Constitutional proscription against involuntary servitude. *



uh, hindi chong, medyo malayo na yun. because no one is forcing him to stay or go with either one. it's a matter of enticement, not coercion.

anyways, tama na, medyo lumalayo na. ang gusto ko lang naman sabihin ay basura ang rule na ito. kadiri. sana makahatak pa ito ng mas malakihang attention at sana makakuha ng coverage sa mainstream media. kasi kung ganito lang na nagkukwentuhan lang tayo at nagdi-diskusyon sa internet ay hindi mari-realize ng mga kasangkot kung gaano kadumi ang ginawa nila at gaano ito ka-badrep para sa kanila. sana mangamoy pa ito ng todo, yung mahirap linisin, para dumikit sa balat nila.

LION
05-31-2007, 05:17 PM
^ Agree with you. I am hoping that the UAAP will still reconsider this latest ruling in view of the controversy it has generated.

casual_observer
05-31-2007, 08:42 PM
^ Agree with you. I am hoping that the UAAP will still reconsider this latest ruling in view of the controversy it has generated.

hopefully, such things would happen, although i am thinking that Anton Montinola would again use the numbers game in order to defeat any move to have the Rivera Rule reconsidered the same way the Rivera Rule was abruptly approved and implemented. ::)

gfy
05-31-2007, 09:51 PM
Rivera reportedly gave his word that he'll play for FEU. If Rivera returned after graduation to formally inform FEU that he'd want to play for UP, would Montinola have given his "blessing"? Probably.

Would Montinola push for this rule effective next season? Most likely. There are pros and cons to this rule. The 2-year residency rule was triggered by the transfer of several players from UST to Adamson.

Mateen Cleaves
05-31-2007, 10:00 PM
Sa ganang akin naman mas pipiliin ko pa rin na mag-aral na lang muna LAHAT ng mga incoming na freshmen.

Kung ganun, dapat bawal din sila mag-ensayo ng pormal. Dapat hanggang conditioning lang sila. O kaya may nakatakda na schedule (halimbawa, second sem lang, simula ng Enero) kung kailan lang sila puede hawakan ng coaching staff.

Kung papansinin natin, buong taon din naman naglalaro ang mga Team B (kung saan din naman mapupunta itong mga freshmen). E di, hindi rin matatamo ang ninanais na pag-aralin nga ang mga bata.

shyboy
05-31-2007, 10:03 PM
Mag-power play ang UP, DLSU and ADMU plus entice another school, maybe NU, to vote for scrapping of this crap rule.

gfy
05-31-2007, 10:12 PM
Not NU. NU always votes with FEU. NU might merge with Lyceum daw. Baka UE pwede pa.

Out_Of_The_Blue
05-31-2007, 10:41 PM
^ No specific laws, but it falls under proper Netiquette.* :)

Anyway, it simply amazes me why some of us here continue to equate this new rule with concern for the student athlete, when it's clear as day that the reason for implementation is piracy. Even Anton himself acknowledged that. Besides, if the concern is truly the welfare of freshmen players, how come Kirk Long and Mike Gamboa get to play? Where's the concern for them?



Thanks pio. You have an inside update on what Mike and Soc are thinking right now? No choice but to red shirt for 1 yr, right?

By the way, saan ba makakabili ng netiquette na yan?* :D

Mike will play this season because UP never pirated him from Ateneo. As for Soc, he's prepared to sit out a year if necessary, but of course UP is trying its best to make sure that doesn't happen.

I think you can order Netiquette online.* ;D



Pls provide the link eheste, paki copy and paste na nga lang para mas madali. ;D

freak
05-31-2007, 10:57 PM
still no official copy of the rule?

hindi ba nilabas ito for public consumption?
or takot silang mabasa ng madla ang kalokohang ginawa nila?

animoateneo
05-31-2007, 11:38 PM
some guy mentioned this case, Cui vs. Arellano University, in Philstar.com as something to settle the scholarship question. It's quite ancient and reading the court's resolution, it's quite obvious that the Court is not too keen on probing the intricacies of such argument because of the possible complications it entails. They do talk at length about the nature of a scholarship what I want to know is if the concept also applies to athletic scholarships since the raison d'etre for both are quite similar. It's quite short for as far as court opinions go and it may help answer or clarify certain questions.

Anyway the entire resolution is found here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/may1961/gr_l-15127_1961.html

jarthel
06-01-2007, 07:36 AM
Mike will play this season because UP never pirated him from Ateneo.


and no school can pirate any student either. You can't pirate something what the other party doesn't own.

The student is forbidden to leave if he is violating the terms and conditions of his scholarship. BUT as with any contract, you can violate such terms and conditions if the person is willing to pay the penalty.

Is anyone knowledgeable enough to say that the scholarship's T&C includes clause(s) that requires the high school student to play for the college team of the same school?

biruruku
06-01-2007, 10:11 AM
^^ maski ipasok ang ganitong usapan sa discussion, wala pa rin.

kasi yung issue tungkol sa scholarship only pertains to the relation between the school and the student. let us assume na ma-uphold nga yung ganitong argument. it still does not resolve the issue pertaining to the schools as against each other.

kasi ang binabawalan/nire-restrict ay ang rival schools. so assuming na yung student, a far as he is concerned, has no impediments. still, the school will be impeded from recruiting him because of a rule imposed upon it by other schools.

or tama ba ang intindi ko? sino ba yung binabawalan, yung student na gustong lumipat o yung school na nagri-recruit?

oca
06-01-2007, 11:30 AM
Actually UST was one of the worst victims of this player piracy. Years ago, 3 of their players namely Marlou Aquino, EJ Feihl and Giovanni Pineda transferred to a rival school(Adamson). But UST just took it all in stride and eventually started a dynasty :D. I don't know if this is one of the reasons why UST is sympathetic to FEU.


It's the reason why the UAAP imposed a two-year residency on player transfers within the league.

Oca, read the complete article. There's mention there of the other sports.


Surprisingly he could supply us with so many names from basketball but none from the other events, though he admitted there are outstanding prospects at the junior ranks of other sports. To me that is indicative that, like many of us, he is not familiar with the recruitment at other events.

But let us pursue the discussion, looking at it across all sports. The article (posted at Ubelt) said-

“In fact, if you look at the big picture, over the past six seasons, the number of players in the UAAP who came from UAAP high schools isn’t even a tenth of the total population of players.”

I don’t think population size has relevance here.

If history, earlier than the past 6 seasons he had researched, had incidents of outstanding junior prospects being invited and enticed by other member schools, to me that is enough reason to pass this rule.

At kung gagamitin ko ang “isn’t even a tenth” argument, eto ang masasabi ko-

Napakadalang ang umuusbong mula sa juniors. Kung nasa bakuran ko yan, hahayaan ko na lang bang agad-agad yang mapakinabangan ng katunggali kong paaralan?

Anyone reading this and my earlier post will conclude I am in favor of this rule.

Without the “colatilla”, yes I wholly I agree with this rule.

Ako ang nagtamin, nag-ani, nagbayo…nang isasalang ko na…aba, nasaan na?

Let’s not be naïve, each member school has an interest to protect. That interest will never be subordinate to the interest of the junior prospects. The rule does not prevent anyone from pursuing higher education at another member school. Pero kung gagamitin ka para talunin kami… sa malapit o malayo mang panahaon, ibang usapan na yan.

Umupo muna.

If you believe another member school's junior standout will be of great help to your program, he should be worth every peso of the scholarship you will invest in him in his first year at college.

What if the kid decided on his own to enroll at another college, was not invited or enticed? Well kung pag-aaral lang naman ang dahilan, pwede ka naman mag-aral.

In this case, would the “colatilla” become acceptable. Well, I would prefer that rules be simple and straightforward in its application. Putting a clause that is subject to a party’s discretion will only create complications.

bluegirl
06-01-2007, 11:49 AM
Ako ang nagtamin, nag-ani, nagbayo…nang isasalang ko na…aba, nasaan na?


kung ganitong mindset ang gagamitin, para patas hindi kaya dapat i-guarantee din ng university ang mga players ng juniors team nya na may slot sila sa seniors team? tutal naghirap sila sa practice, nag-aral at binigay ang dugo't pawis nila sa team so to speak.

bakit ang university lang ang may right na magsabi na kesyo sila ang nag-invest etc etc, dapat sila rin ang makikinabang? in the first place, hindi naman investment dapat ang mga batang ito. they're dealing with kids here. mga batang may chance to make it big someday. who are they to decide na dapat sila ang may KARAPATAN na GAMITIN ung player? kung totoo nga ung sinabi ni anton montinola na soc rivera gave him his word that he will play for the seniors team, when did this happen? was this before or after the disbanding of the FEU seniors for failing to make it to the final four last UAAP season? kung ako si Soc Rivera, matatakot din ako. eh kung sa kanya mangyari un?

oca
06-01-2007, 12:13 PM
Let's not be naive.

Are we to believe that every school official who signs and approves all those papers granting discounts or scholarships to junior athletes do so out of pure benevolence?

That none of them ever wished that if one among many will turn out to be a gem, that kid would play for their seniors team?

Guarantee?

If you are that good you will get that scholarship.

I would not delve into the "words given by the parties". That has no relevance to the letter of the rule. Going by Henson's article, the letter of the rule was simple and straighforward.

What created this controversy is its immediate effectivity and the "colatilla".

Had this been prospective, eto na naman tayo, those who garduated last March would not be affected. I just hope that incoming hs seniors together with their parents still had the time to assess their situation and decide accordingly- Mas mabuti ba lumipat or manatili?

bluegirl
06-01-2007, 12:48 PM
Let's not be naive.

Are we to believe that every school official who signs and approves all those papers granting discounts or scholarships to junior athletes do so out of pure benevolence?

That none of them ever wished that if one among many will turn out to be a gem, that kid would play for their seniors team?

Guarantee?

If you are that good you will get that scholarship.

I would not delve into the "words given by the parties". That has no relevance to the letter of the rule. Going by Henson's article, the letter of the rule was simple and straighforward.

What created this controversy is its immediate effectivity and the "colatilla".

Had this been prospective, eto na naman tayo, those who garduated last March would not be affected. I just hope that incoming hs seniors together with their parents still had the time to assess their situation and decide accordingly- Mas mabuti ba lumipat or manatili?




i am not being naive. very familiar sa akin ang ganyang set up. pero ikaw na rin mismo nagsabi, "That none of them ever wished that if one among many will turn out to be a gem, that kid would play for their seniors team?", wished being the operative word. ngayon kung wish nga lang yun, walang masama. kelan ba naging masama ang mangarap or humiling? what's wrong in this picture is that when the wish didn't materialize, naiba na ang usapan. anung mindset yan? if i can't have you, no one can? (At least in your first year?)

oca
06-01-2007, 01:28 PM
bluegirl,
Its an opinion or position that we are entitled to and I will leave it at that. I take due diligence to read my messages before clicking the post button. Tulad nang marami, di lang isang beses ako nag-post sa topic na ito. Kung sasagot pa ako, uulitin ko lang ang mga una kong sinabi.

shyboy
06-01-2007, 03:37 PM
Paano naman yung mga di naman gaano umusbong sa high school, merong scholarship at pinagkagastusan pero di ganun kagaling kaya di kukunin ng school for their Seniors team. Tapos meron isang UAAP school na biglang naging interesado sa bata at gustong palaruin. Di siya na-pirate kasi di naman interesado yung mother school niya. Eh di damay din siya sa one-year residency.

Ang daming complications diba. Ang daming nadamay, eh ang gusto lang naman protektahan yung SELFISH interest dun sa mga HS star players due to "piracy."

Ranger
06-01-2007, 04:10 PM
Whatever happened to the players of FEU seniors team that was disbanded? These guys got cut from the team but are they still enjoying any scholarship benefits? It's easy for Anton to let go of players he doesn't need anymore. On the other hand, when players decide to leave him there are repercussions...

bluewing
06-01-2007, 05:05 PM
some guy mentioned this case, Cui vs. Arellano University, in Philstar.com as something to settle the scholarship question. It's quite ancient and reading the court's resolution, it's quite obvious that the Court is not too keen on probing the intricacies of such argument because of the possible complications it entails. They do talk at length about the nature of a scholarship what I want to know is if the concept also applies to athletic scholarships since the raison d'etre for both are quite similar. It's quite short for as far as court opinions go and it may help answer or clarify certain questions.

Anyway the entire resolution is found here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/may1961/gr_l-15127_1961.html


ano yung ratio? kakatamad magbasa eh.

Wang-Bu
06-01-2007, 06:30 PM
some guy mentioned this case, Cui vs. Arellano University, in Philstar.com as something to settle the scholarship question. It's quite ancient and reading the court's resolution, it's quite obvious that the Court is not too keen on probing the intricacies of such argument because of the possible complications it entails. They do talk at length about the nature of a scholarship what I want to know is if the concept also applies to athletic scholarships since the raison d'etre for both are quite similar. It's quite short for as far as court opinions go and it may help answer or clarify certain questions.

Anyway the entire resolution is found here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/may1961/gr_l-15127_1961.html


ano yung ratio? kakatamad magbasa eh.


"2. When students are given full or partial scholarships, it is understood that such scholarships are merited and earned. The amount in tuition and other fees corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another institution. Scholarships should not be offered merely to attract and keep students in a school.

3. Several complaints have actually been received from students who have enjoyed scholarships, full or partial, to the effect that they could not transfer to other schools since their credentials would not be released unless they would pay the fees corresponding to the period of the scholarships. Where the Bureau believes that the right of the student to transfer is being denied on this ground, it reserves the right to authorize such transfer.

In these institutions scholarships are granted not to attract and to keep brilliant students in school for their propaganda mine but to reward merit or help gifted students in whom society has an established interest or a first lien. (Emphasis supplied.)"

Sir BlueWing ito po ang pinakamahalagang bahagi nung decision ng Korte Suprema sa Cui vs Arellano.

Sa madali't sabi ang pinalalabas lang nila ay ang mga scholarship ay binibigay ng isang paaralan DAHIL SA ANGKING GALING ng isang estudyante. Sa ganang akin 'yon ay maaring sa academics o kahit sa laro. Kapag may angking galing ang estudyante hindi lang ang paaralan ang makikinabang sa kanyang galing. Mismong ang lipunan ay makikinabang sa galing ng estudyanteng ito. Mayroong halagang PANLIPUNAN at hindi lamang personal o pang-paaralan ang magagaling na estudyante.

Entonses ang dapat na mas mangibabaw ay ang interes panlipunan higit pa sa mas limitadong interes ng paaralan sa mga ganitong uri ng kaso.

casual_observer
06-01-2007, 07:29 PM
tsismis nga pala sa PEx na bumigay na daw si Anton Montinola at hinayaan nang maglaro para sa UP si Soc Rivera when the guy and some UP reps agreed that UP will pay the same amount charged to Mark Lopez (P15,000) in order to secure the release of Rivera to the Maroons.

grabe! kung totoo nga ito, mukhang pera talaga ang kumag. ::)

animoateneo
06-02-2007, 12:07 AM
Well i believe there is a consensus in this forum about Anton Montinola as a person. I'll leave it at that. ;D

But at least if what you say is true, Soc Rivera just hit the jackpot. He gets to play for a basketball program on the verge of a breakthrough as well as study at the best college in the Philippines(academically speaking).

casual_observer
06-02-2007, 02:22 PM
^ sa bagay. wala na naman sigurong dapat pang pag-usapan pa about Anton Montinola as a person. alam naman ng lahat dito kung anong klase siyang tao. >:(

still, talagang... haaaaayyyy... ano pa bang pinagkaiba ni Anton Montinola sa mga Abu Sayyaf at sa CPP-NPA-NDF? mahilig din pala siyang mang-hostage at humingi ng ransom. ::)

atenean_blooded
06-02-2007, 02:49 PM
some guy mentioned this case, Cui vs. Arellano University, in Philstar.com as something to settle the scholarship question. It's quite ancient and reading the court's resolution, it's quite obvious that the Court is not too keen on probing the intricacies of such argument because of the possible complications it entails. They do talk at length about the nature of a scholarship what I want to know is if the concept also applies to athletic scholarships since the raison d'etre for both are quite similar. It's quite short for as far as court opinions go and it may help answer or clarify certain questions.

Anyway the entire resolution is found here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/may1961/gr_l-15127_1961.html


That's right. Cui might help resolve the impasse between Montinola/FEU and Rivera, but it won't have much weight if someone assails the UAAP rule itself. What this case makes clear, however, is that "scholarships" cannot be arbitrarily revoked and the student suddenly subjected to paying fees. I anticipate, however, that anyone who might want to circumvent the ruling in Cui will simply have to find a different procedural requirement which will justify non-clearance/release from a particular high school. In such a situation, I think that the proper course of action would be to sue that particular school, in order that the necessary clearance may be secured for the student to play under the UAAP rule.

casual_observer
06-02-2007, 03:03 PM
^ but would Rivera's party have the balls to sue a giant like Anton Montinola and FEU? alam naman nating lahat na hindi mayaman ang pamilya nung bata, di ba?

isa pa, would it still be feasible to push for the legal remedy if ever rumors of a "pay-off" between Montinola and Rivera-UP are indeed true?

bluewing
06-02-2007, 10:37 PM
some guy mentioned this case, Cui vs. Arellano University, in Philstar.com as something to settle the scholarship question. It's quite ancient and reading the court's resolution, it's quite obvious that the Court is not too keen on probing the intricacies of such argument because of the possible complications it entails. They do talk at length about the nature of a scholarship what I want to know is if the concept also applies to athletic scholarships since the raison d'etre for both are quite similar. It's quite short for as far as court opinions go and it may help answer or clarify certain questions.

Anyway the entire resolution is found here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/may1961/gr_l-15127_1961.html


ano yung ratio? kakatamad magbasa eh.


"2. When students are given full or partial scholarships, it is understood that such scholarships are merited and earned. The amount in tuition and other fees corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another institution. Scholarships should not be offered merely to attract and keep students in a school.

3. Several complaints have actually been received from students who have enjoyed scholarships, full or partial, to the effect that they could not transfer to other schools since their credentials would not be released unless they would pay the fees corresponding to the period of the scholarships. Where the Bureau believes that the right of the student to transfer is being denied on this ground, it reserves the right to authorize such transfer.

In these institutions scholarships are granted not to attract and to keep brilliant students in school for their propaganda mine but to reward merit or help gifted students in whom society has an established interest or a first lien. (Emphasis supplied.)"

Sir BlueWing ito po ang pinakamahalagang bahagi nung decision ng Korte Suprema sa Cui vs Arellano.

Sa madali't sabi ang pinalalabas lang nila ay ang mga scholarship ay binibigay ng isang paaralan DAHIL SA ANGKING GALING ng isang estudyante. Sa ganang akin 'yon ay maaring sa academics o kahit sa laro. Kapag may angking galing ang estudyante hindi lang ang paaralan ang makikinabang sa kanyang galing. Mismong ang lipunan ay makikinabang sa galing ng estudyanteng ito. Mayroong halagang PANLIPUNAN at hindi lamang personal o pang-paaralan ang magagaling na estudyante.

Entonses ang dapat na mas mangibabaw ay ang interes panlipunan higit pa sa mas limitadong interes ng paaralan sa mga ganitong uri ng kaso.




salamat, manong wang-bu!

casual_observer
06-03-2007, 08:48 PM
so, wala pa bang balita? also, how come this issue has not even reached the broadcast media? takot ba sila kay Anton Montinola? ::)

atenean_blooded
06-03-2007, 09:09 PM
^ but would Rivera's party have the balls to sue a giant like Anton Montinola and FEU? alam naman nating lahat na hindi mayaman ang pamilya nung bata, di ba?

isa pa, would it still be feasible to push for the legal remedy if ever rumors of a "pay-off" between Montinola and Rivera-UP are indeed true?


Those are interesting questions.

I have no idea if Rivera or his family are inclined to sue Montinola/FEU. As you may have pointed out, litigation IS expensive, and does take a lot of time. Litigation is expensive because a lot of fees are involved. However, should the Riveras really be suing beyond their means for a proper cause, it is the court's option whether or not to accept the case. But they'll have to prove their inability to pay, if I'm not mistaken.

Litigation will also take time. Should push come to shove, theoretically, Rivera might end up sitting out his first year before the case even gets resolved properly. Heck, he might even be done with college.

The courts usually say that it's best that parties try to settle differences without having to go through litigation, which is expensive, and if only to ease the burden on the courts (which are already plagued with God knows how many suits). This might explain the "pay-off" between Montinola/FEU and the Riveras/UP.

In any case, any resolution of the impasse between the Riveras and Montinola/FEU will only solve the issue with regard to Rivera's scholarship. They will not address the source of that particular problem, which is the stupid new UAAP rule.

casual_observer
06-03-2007, 09:27 PM
^ pero may chance pa ba na ma-overrule yung Rivera Rule? i mean... perhaps a meeting among university presidents can end the threat being posed by the stupid, Anton Montinola-initiated rule. ::)

GHRanger
06-03-2007, 11:29 PM
Technically, we need a boardroom victory with this as well. Fighting fire with fire so to speak. If the presidents of at least 4 schools would agree to go against repealing this rule, then all they have to do is order their board reps to put the proposal on the table and vote for it. Since the host will not vote, that will make it a 4-3.

They could also put in a rule that all rule amendments/additions will have to undergo a 1 year proposal/review/due dilligence before voting on it. However, in certain cases where rule amendments are necessary, they need a 7-0 or 8-0 ruling.

Howard the Duck
06-04-2007, 12:12 AM
in the long run, this will perhaps benefit all schools




except UP and NU

casual_observer
06-04-2007, 01:13 AM
another rumor on the Soc Rivera Rule controversy, taken from PEx's walter_berry:


Bumped into a friend recently, claims that when Montinola and Molina got wind of Rivera going to UP they actually did not want to keep him in the team anymore and instead recommended him to try his luck with NCAA teams. In fact, I was told that he was even endorsed to tryout for one NCAA team.

Given this, I guess its safe to say that Montinola's target with his proposed rule was not Soc afterall but UP.

lots of anti-UP sentiment in the UAAP lately? :o

atenean_blooded
06-04-2007, 01:54 AM
^ pero may chance pa ba na ma-overrule yung Rivera Rule? i mean... perhaps a meeting among university presidents can end the threat being posed by the stupid, Anton Montinola-initiated rule. ::)


GHRanger is correct. The only way the Rivera Rule will get overturned is a boardroom victory.

I don't think a meeting by university presidents will be sufficient, since it does seem that our busy university presidents seem to give UAAP board reps a large amount of discretion.

What our university presidents can do is discuss matters directly with the respective board representatives in order to come to a proper understanding of the situation, and perhaps determine their respective universities' stand with regard to this issue. I'm just not sure how much FEU's president can change Montinola's position (his family owns most of FEU's shares of stock, right?).

In the unlikely event that the Board does overturn its stupid rule (hopefully together with other stupid rules like the drum limit rule and the send-the-pep-squads-to-the-bleachers rule), I don't think the discussion should stop there. The university presidents might want to meet, or be represented by their university boards, to discuss particular standards with regard to student-athleticism, along the lines of graduation rates, minimum grades for athletes, eligibility requirements (to work around any other kinks that the PEP Test rule may have), etc.

Fried Green Tomato
06-04-2007, 04:35 AM
The latest buzz (partial & unofficial result as of June 2, 2007)...

Due to the very negative effects to the reputation of feu (with the print media getting into the picture), internal pressures coming from the other stakeholders of the university (the henry sy group?) informed Montinola & his cohorts to settle the issue asap.

Finally, an amicable settlement has been reached with FEU agreeing to a measly P 5,000 payment.

gfy
06-04-2007, 09:05 AM
This rule would not have created I think as much controversy had Montinola not brought up the matter of reimbursement. I agree that this rule may be beneficial in the long run.

casual_observer
06-04-2007, 10:30 AM
^ the rule would not look so skewed in favor of one particular party if it included NCAA and non-UAAP and non-NCAA graduates in the list of those required to undergo that one year residency in the UAAP.

casual_observer
06-04-2007, 01:30 PM
ano nang balita? napag-usapan na ba ito sa UAAP board meeting today? ???

Howard the Duck
06-05-2007, 01:26 AM
o saan naman nanggaling sa rule yung "ransom" na yan???

casual_observer
06-05-2007, 08:44 AM
hmmmmm... ano na kaya ang nangyari? pinag-usapan na ba ito sa board meeting kahapon? ???

Bennie Bangag
06-06-2007, 07:27 PM
hmmmmm... ano na kaya ang nangyari? pinag-usapan na ba ito sa board meeting kahapon? ???

two letters, one word: NO. the UAAP board met to discuss other pressing matters, and the soc rivera issue was not in the agenda.

casual_observer
06-06-2007, 09:07 PM
wo letters, one word: NO. the UAAP board met to discuss other pressing matters, and the soc rivera issue was not in the agenda.

i see. thanks for the info, Bennie. :)

animoateneo
06-06-2007, 11:31 PM
So the Soc Rivera issue is not a pressing matter for the UAAP board? Wow, I wonder what pressing matters are for them.

casual_observer
06-06-2007, 11:53 PM
^ like what i said earlier, Anton Montinola has the numbers in the UAAP board. he and his cohorts can just mark pressing matters with the word "noted" and isolate representatives from UP, ADMU and DLSU. ::)

Bennie Bangag
06-07-2007, 06:26 AM
So the Soc Rivera issue is not a pressing matter for the UAAP board? Wow, I wonder what pressing matters are for them.

it is no longer a pressing issue because it's already been passed by the board, except for minor details and the implementing regulations. this comes straight from a UAAP board member.

GreenArrows
06-07-2007, 07:18 AM
So the Soc Rivera issue is not a pressing matter for the UAAP board? Wow, I wonder what pressing matters are for them.

it is no longer a pressing issue because it's already been passed by the board, except for minor details and the implementing regulations. this comes straight from a UAAP board member.

That's right. The UAAP Board is in high preparation not only for the start of the basketball tournament but also of ALL the first semester sports. Besides, this is now a private matter between FEU and UP. Let them sort it out. As for the rule itself, everyone will have to wait until APRIL 2008 which is the earliest time the member schools can propose new or revise eligibility rules.

Again, this is now just between FEU and UP.

Ranger
06-07-2007, 12:41 PM
The NCAA mancom is now discussing adopting the new UAAP eligibility rule, wherein their highschool players will not be able to transfer to the UAAP for college without a release. The strongest argument is that "if Anton can impose such a rule in the UAAP, why can't it be justified to adopt one in the NCAA".

christian
06-07-2007, 02:56 PM
Sir Ranger, paki clarify naman, NCAA Juniors transferring to UAAP Seniors kailangan ng release? Thanks.

LION
06-07-2007, 03:44 PM
The NCAA mancom is now discussing adopting the new UAAP eligibility rule, wherein their highschool players will not be able to transfer to the UAAP for college without a release. The strongest argument is that "if Anton can impose such a rule in the UAAP, why can't it be justified to adopt one in the NCAA".* *


I tend to agree. In fact, mas justified sa NCAA yung Montinola rule. I am just glad that it's the NCAA Mancom, acting as collegiate body, which is initiating this and not San Beda.

gfy
06-07-2007, 04:00 PM
^^^ Transferring to the UAAP from a NCAA HS? Maybe to another NCAA college. If it is to release to play, how can the NCAA enforce it if the UAAP doesn't require it? If it's to release the school records, well you have the DepEd and the courts to contend with.

animoateneo
06-07-2007, 10:54 PM
So the Soc Rivera issue is not a pressing matter for the UAAP board? Wow, I wonder what pressing matters are for them.

it is no longer a pressing issue because it's already been passed by the board, except for minor details and the implementing regulations. this comes straight from a UAAP board member.

That's right. The UAAP Board is in high preparation not only for the start of the basketball tournament but also of ALL the first semester sports. Besides, this is now a private matter between FEU and UP. Let them sort it out. As for the rule itself, everyone will have to wait until APRIL 2008 which is the earliest time the member schools can propose new or revise eligibility rules.

Again, this is now just between FEU and UP.


i guess so. well i just hope FEU and UP can iron matters out. I see FEU losing in the end either way, i just hoped they practiced better damage control.

atenean_blooded
06-07-2007, 11:48 PM
So the Soc Rivera issue is not a pressing matter for the UAAP board? Wow, I wonder what pressing matters are for them.


The number of drums, and choosing venues like NAS. ::)

lyndon_24
06-07-2007, 11:51 PM
^ i have nothing against Soc but I think FEU should let go of him IF he really wants yo play for UP. FEU has a lot of rookies and i guess it's enough to build a formidable line-up and besides their doing a great job in NSL. Being a finalist with a rookie-laden team is really an achievement. :)

shyboy
06-08-2007, 12:09 AM
Knuttel is the only certified rookie of FEU, being the only one out of high shool. It's been a while since FEU last had a 16/17 year old freshman in their team.

redlion123
06-08-2007, 11:36 AM
OT
on the propose NCAA ruling..di mo sila masisis..tangapin natin maraming agrabyado ncaa na schools pagdating sa recruitment..mas maraming establish uaap schools eh..Tiga SAn Beda ako at ramdam ko ang sakit bawat taon na mawalan ka ng blue chip na player galing high school..Pero naremedyohan na namin yun..pero paano yung mga eskuwela sa NCAA na walang MVP,YUChengco,dominicanos,recoletos,at lasalle system..di ba unfair para sa sa kanila?

shyboy
06-08-2007, 02:10 PM
We won't find any balanced league anywhere in the world.* Sa US NCAA, not all colleges are like Duke and UCLA.* In the NBA, for every Laker squad there's always a counterpart Clippers team lagging behind.* Sa PBA naman, Sta. Lucia and Welcoat will never be a Ginebra or a San Miguel or a Talk N' Text.

It's the same thing in the UAAP (and the NCAA).* Trying too hard to pass rules thinking it would create balance is an exercise in futility and might even destroy the purity of the game.

BigBlue
06-08-2007, 05:06 PM
^cant fight the temptation to relate this to Forumla One, where yearly rule changes could not diminish the greatness of Schumi and Ferrari. Well, not until Renault came up with a better engine, better tyres and a driver who could actually stand toe to toe against Schumi. Rule changes can only go so far.

Fried Green Tomato
06-14-2007, 05:26 PM
Re: Soc Rivera

Although FEU has not given their imprimatur for rivera's release (but accepting the P 5000 dole out for rivera's expenses), UP is vent on submitting their line-up within this week (or next week) with rivera in the line-up. UP is leaving it to the uaap to decide on rivera's case.

Also this season, there are new rules on the number of drums (7 drums yata allowed for Araneta & 3 drums sa NAS) and the placement of different pep squads. Pep squads are confined na yata sa Gen Admission section ng Araneta & upper box ng NAS. No members of the cheering squads are allowed in the lower portions... kaya it's up to the different schools on how to fire up their supporters during the game.

There's a new ruling din yata sa mga posters/banners, etc and unruly supporter during a game.

ps: corrected. senator pala dati si soc rodrigo. ;D

BigBlue
06-14-2007, 05:33 PM
UAAP Player si Soc Rodrigo?

aguila
06-14-2007, 06:07 PM
This Montinola is a disgrace to the ateneo community. I can still picture his devil's grin during the closing seconds of The Ateneo-FEU finals.

wolverine78ph
06-22-2007, 10:40 PM
Karma will be upon Montinola soon! ;)

casual_observer
06-23-2007, 01:11 AM
Soc Rivera is now cleared to play for the UP Fighting Maroons this year. in fact, pasok na siya sa official line-up for Season 70. :)

wolverine78ph
06-25-2007, 10:04 PM
Soc Rivera is now cleared to play for the UP Fighting Maroons this year. in fact, pasok na siya sa official line-up for Season 70. :)


Kudos to Soc Rivera and the UP Fighting Maroons ;)

atenean_blooded
06-25-2007, 10:15 PM
Also this season, there are new rules on the number of drums (7 drums yata allowed for Araneta & 3 drums sa NAS) and the placement of different pep squads. Pep squads are confined na yata sa Gen Admission section ng Araneta & upper box ng NAS. No members of the cheering squads are allowed in the lower portions... kaya it's up to the different schools on how to fire up their supporters during the game.



Aren't these rules old?