PDA

View Full Version : Season 71 New/Amended Rules



bchoter
04-14-2008, 12:25 PM
Will there be new or modified rules for this coming season? Or, shall we ask, 'what does Montinola have up his sleeves?" instead? :D

Dark Knight
04-14-2008, 01:56 PM
Probably to limit each school to ONE blue chip rookie only.* :D

fujima04
04-14-2008, 02:33 PM
Probably the UAAP Board will start to consider pure chinese (locally grown) as foreigner. Thus, creating a twist for those who already have 2 foreigners (not chinese) on the roster.

stat
04-14-2008, 04:23 PM
Probably the UAAP Board will start to consider pure chinese (locally grown) as foreigner. Thus, creating a twist for those who already have 2 foreigners (not chinese) on the roster.



you mean kahit 2 imports not china born + 1 pure chinese ok lang?

The_Big_Cat
04-14-2008, 04:35 PM
Maybe implement a 20-Second Timeout for which a player could call this??

batangueño
04-14-2008, 04:51 PM
If there is one rule that I wanted to be implemented in the UAAP (or any league, for that matter), that will be a rule against the enactment and implementation of useless rules. Remember the Soc Rivera Rule? ;) ;D

fujima04
04-15-2008, 02:22 AM
Probably the UAAP Board will start to consider pure chinese (locally grown) as foreigner. Thus, creating a twist for those who already have 2 foreigners (not chinese) on the roster.



you mean kahit 2 imports not china born + 1 pure chinese ok lang?


Correct me if I'm wrong as I am not sure about this.

I read somewhere that Chris Tiu is pure chinese...he played along side Zion and Kirk last season.

If he's indeed pure chinese, then that answers your question.

joelex
04-15-2008, 02:43 AM
If there is one rule that I wanted to be implemented in the UAAP (or any league, for that matter), that will be a rule against the enactment and implementation of useless rules. Remember the Soc Rivera Rule? ;) ;D


i think the soc rivera rule is a good one.

we wouldnt want to see players who played for one school all his life then suddenly bolt for another in college.

tama lang yun, unfair to the teams na nagpakahirap mag alaga sayo sabay iwanan ka. we can talk about freedom of choice all day but the reality still persists that loyalty is given little meaning nowadays.

batangueño
04-15-2008, 03:07 AM
Kabayang joelex, wala sigurong problema sa Soc Rivera Rule if the intentions of the framers of the rule are good and that it would be for the good of the players, the teams and the league as a whole. However, if the rule will be invoked by certain individuals for their personal interest (e.g. to hold a player "hostage", to extort money from rival teams), then doon ko na masasabi na may problema nga ang rule na yan.

eightyfiver
04-15-2008, 08:24 AM
So far wala pa yatang new/amended rules. Bakit kamo? Kasi naghahanapan pa sila ng butas sa isa't-isa! :-*

JonarSabilano
04-15-2008, 09:27 AM
Probably the UAAP Board will start to consider pure chinese (locally grown) as foreigner. Thus, creating a twist for those who already have 2 foreigners (not chinese) on the roster.



you mean kahit 2 imports not china born + 1 pure chinese ok lang?


Correct me if I'm wrong as I am not sure about this.

I read somewhere that Chris Tiu is pure chinese...he played along side Zion and Kirk last season.

If he's indeed pure chinese, then that answers your question.


Ethnic Chinese ang parents but who hold Filipino citizenship by birth otherwise? Discriminatory naman yata niyan.

The_Big_Cat
04-15-2008, 11:16 AM
Probably the UAAP Board will start to consider pure chinese (locally grown) as foreigner. Thus, creating a twist for those who already have 2 foreigners (not chinese) on the roster.



you mean kahit 2 imports not china born + 1 pure chinese ok lang?


Correct me if I'm wrong as I am not sure about this.

I read somewhere that Chris Tiu is pure chinese...he played along side Zion and Kirk last season.

If he's indeed pure chinese, then that answers your question.


Dito si Chris pinanganak.
He's Filipino.

bchoter
04-15-2008, 12:28 PM
^ I'm sure fujima is aware of Tiu's nationality. He's just saying that a new rule against Filipino citizens who are full chinese by blood will be created to disallow players like Chris (if his parents are, indeed, full-blooded chinese with Filipino citizenship) and cripple their teams.

blueatheart
04-15-2008, 01:08 PM
maybe there should be an anti-montinola rule :D no anton allowed inside the boardroom

batangueño
04-15-2008, 01:22 PM
maybe there should be an anti-montinola rule :D no anton allowed inside the boardroom

Señor Anton has the "numbers" in the UAAP Board, you know. ;D

stonecold316
04-15-2008, 03:07 PM
Is it true that what Montinola wants, he usually gets dahil malakas siya sa UAAP board?

;D ;D ;D ;D

stonecold316

marmand
04-15-2008, 03:28 PM
::) ::) ::)

fujima04
04-15-2008, 07:24 PM
^ I'm sure fujima is aware of Tiu's nationality. He's just saying that a new rule against Filipino citizens who are full chinese by blood will be created to disallow players like Chris (if his parents are, indeed, full-blooded chinese with Filipino citizenship) and cripple their teams.


Right you are Manong,

Tiu and some of our Chinese Brother's case is different from a Chinese who really hails from China.

We know that Tiu is a Filipino by virtue of birth but we don't know in the future when another Pure-Blooded Chinese but Filipino by birth comes along and hit UAAP by storm. We'll never know with how the minds of the UAAP Board works.

Some forum are considering genetics and built for concluding that a foreigner has an advantage over a Filipino player. Eventhough, these Chinese are Filipino by birth. Their genetics are different from a genuine Filipino.

danny
04-16-2008, 07:54 AM
Genetically, two humans from any part of the world are more than 99% similar in their genetic make-up. The Human Genome Project has already debunked as unscientific the idea of "race" based on genetics.

There is no "genuine" Filipino genes. We are more than 99% similar to the Aryan Race at the genetic level.

Ekwe's genetic make-up is more than 99% similar to Tiu. ;)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122101914.htm

Dark Knight
04-16-2008, 03:53 PM
Hmmmm, very scientific.... :)

Sam Miguel
04-18-2008, 10:31 AM
I would love to see the UAAP actually do serious investigations as to whether or not athletes seeing action in the UAAP are actually attending their classes and you know, getting an education.

After all the UAAP is a varsity sports organization, and that means every one taking part in these competitions should first and foremost be a student.

In fairness to Anton Montinola he has come down hard on his own basketball players who have not done well academically. Look at their summer lineup and see who is not there, and the reason is mainly academic deficiencies, the injured Paul Sanga of course being the exception.

How I wish the UAAP as an institution be unforgivingly strict when it comes to verifying that athletes are really students first. All of the shit we get from PEP Test scandals, low to zero graduation rates and all that other crap would disappear if only there were some way to see if real students are playing in the UAAP.

altec
04-18-2008, 11:59 AM
and to what Sam Miguel said... make sure they have indeed passed the entrance tests of the school that they are playing for before they can even play

dude17
04-19-2008, 09:17 AM
Probably the UAAP Board will start to consider pure chinese (locally grown) as foreigner. Thus, creating a twist for those who already have 2 foreigners (not chinese) on the roster.


this will probably never happen. haha...

btw i just remembered the case of Paul Tanchi from ateneo back 10 years or so ago. as an American citizen, he was bound by the one foreigner in the playing court rule, like Kirk and Zion last year. However, he got Filipino citizenship and was allowed to play unlimited limits.

he was born and raised here though. does anyone know the specific rules? can anyone just who becomes a Filipino citizen do this? ???

The_Big_Cat
04-20-2008, 01:07 PM
The PBA before the start of the All-Filipino Cup, adopted some rule changes after the FIBA rules including allowing offensive goal interference.

Do the UAAP or NCAA allow offensive goal interference? ???
The Deliberate touching of the ball while it is still above the rim.

stonecold316
04-21-2008, 05:16 AM
and to what Sam Miguel said... make sure they have indeed passed the entrance tests of the school that they are playing for before they can even play


you hit it right man.

stonecold316

davrub2003
04-21-2008, 06:33 AM
opinion ko lang:

ewan ko kung bakit issue sa college basketball (or any sport) ang citizenship ng student.* basta enrollee ng school, he should be allowed to play no matter what.

hindi naman ito pro league na subject to immigration rules or whatever, where one should not be allowed to earn a living in this country unless he has all the required permits.* pag may mga ganitong rules na limited ang playing time ng isang foreign player, this is like acknowledging foreigners are better in sports.

if a school doesn't have the resources to recruit from abroad, then it should just turn its eyes on good local players.

Joescoundrel
04-21-2008, 09:19 AM
^ The problem here is that generally the "poorer" schools will not be able to compete with the "richer" ones in terms of recruiting foreign athletes.

Imagine for instance if a school like Ateneo made an arrangement with fellow Jesuit school Georgetown to have players like 7'3" Roy Hibbert spend a year or two in the Philippines under some sort of basketball exchange program or whatnot. How the heck are the other schools supposed to match that? Granted the UAAP Board can always say tyhat residency must always be observed first but then again that rule may also be removed.

The restrictions on foreign student-athletes came about precisely because of this disparity in the networks and capabilities of the UAAP schools to get foreign players onto their varsity lineups. Since the rest of the UAAP, like the rest of this great nation, do not take kindly to being at a disadvantage they simply put limits on foreign players.

Personally I would rather have open competition. If schools like FEU can get guys from New Guinea and Cameroon onto their rosters that's just fine, beat them on the court if you can. Incredibly enough it is the non-glamor schools that can recruit foreigners more easily since they have bigger foreign populations such as in NU, UE and FEU.

tigerman
04-22-2008, 02:46 PM
http://www.ubelt.com/uaap/mbb/story.aspx?id=1501

Sid Ventura at his best! ;D

So 2008 being an even year, can we expect the Board to lay off approving any reactionary rules? April is the month that any proposed new rules are deliberated on and either approved or rejected, so even as we speak the Board is probably huddled together somewhere, wracking their brains to decide which new rules will make the least sense and get these approved.

According to my spy, the following items are on the agenda of the next Board meeting:

1. All the teams except La Salle, UST and Ateneo are batting for an expansion of the two-foreigner limit per school and want foreign-sounding surnames to be considered foreigners as well. This will force La Salle to remove Simon Atkins, PJ Walsham, and Bader Malabes, UST to take out Dylan Ababou and Khasim Mirza, and Ateneo to strike out Rabah Al-Husseini and Jobe Nkemakolam (wait, I think Jobe already struck himself out academically). Chinese surnames will not be included because the league still needs Chris Tiu and Woody Co to bring in the teenybopper crowd.

2. UP, meanwhile, is submitting its own separate amendment to the two-foreigner rule and wants all head coaches to be included in the foreigner count. This will hopefully cause a bit of confusion in the Ateneo camp and force Norman Black to drop incoming rookie Vince Burke, who was supposed to go to the Maroons until Joe Lipa got fired. With Burke out of Ateneo, Aboy Castro can try recruiting Burke again and get UP that big man it needs.

3. UP will also seek for an amendment of the Soc Rivera Rule, specifically asking that any school who goes through as much trouble as UP did last year to secure Rivera has the right to ask for its money back should the said recruit get himself kicked out after only one year.

4. FEU will issue a statement saying, “He who laughs last laughs longest.”

5. UE will make an inquiry and demand to know whose bright idea it was to do away with the rule declaring that any team who goes 14-0 automatically wins the title.

6. UST will once again make an appeal to get Jojo Duncil in its line-up, citing the fact that his career in the PBA is going nowhere so therefore they were wrong to say he was ready for the pros last year when they tried their best to cover up that birth certificate issue. Red Bull will reportedly agree so long as they can get Duncil back by 2009 since they are scheduled to trade him and half of their players to a San Miguel team by this time in exchange for whichever player has the lowest salary.



USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

pablohoney
04-22-2008, 03:19 PM
Langya, akala ko totoo! ;D ;D ;D

Ayos, comedy muna.

stonecold316
04-22-2008, 05:44 PM
Ibang klase talaga si sid Ventura.

stonecold316

bchoter
04-22-2008, 05:59 PM
^ Wag kang magalala pare... Makakrating yang post mo kay Sid!

mangtsito
04-25-2008, 12:03 PM
and to what Sam Miguel said... make sure they have indeed passed the entrance tests of the school that they are playing for before they can even play


Hindi magiging rule iyan. Iyan lang ang proposed rule na unanimous "NO" ang magiging boto ng board. Lahat dehado diyan. ;D

fujima04
04-25-2008, 01:13 PM
and to what Sam Miguel said... make sure they have indeed passed the entrance tests of the school that they are playing for before they can even play


Hindi magiging rule iyan. Iyan lang ang proposed rule na unanimous "NO" ang magiging boto ng board. Lahat dehado diyan. ;D


AMEN! :D

Malayo sa katotohanang mangyari. :D

batangueño
04-29-2008, 11:52 PM
When will the UAAP ever have a permanent secretariat? It seems like the league only exists on a tournament basis. ???

bchoter
04-30-2008, 10:25 AM
Para mabawasan ang sulutan can we implement a 'letter of intent' in the UAAP? A recruit can only sign a max of two letters of intent. If he doesn't suit up for the last team he signed with then he sits for a year or something like that.

oca
04-30-2008, 11:10 AM
Para mabawasan ang sulutan can we implement a 'letter of intent' in the UAAP? A recruit can only sign a max of two letters of intent. If he doesn't suit up for the last team he signed with then he sits for a year or something like that.


Basically, a good idea. But no "max". Let him sign as many LOI as he wants, basta one at a time and the LOI has a validity to end March the following year.

So, if you sign up a player in the middle of a school year or in summer, nakatali na yan sa inyo until the end of the next school year. If the program takes good care of the player, hindi na yan lilipat yan. Pero kung hindi, aalis yan kahit ano pa.

But can this be enforceable against schools at other leagues? Maybe the lawyers here call give an opinion.

A LOI is meant to protect the interest of a school. Pero, pakialam ng ibang school from other leagues! It's not them the UAAP schools will be competing against primarily.

Imo, this should be an initiative of the NSA for the sport. That way, malinaw na enforceble sa lahat ng school leagues.league.

If we are to take the discussion further, schools outside NCR will benefit most from this. Yung mga recruit sa backyards nila ay di basta nawawala na parang bula.( Side note: Remember the comment of UV Coach Boy Cabahug after they defeated Adamson in the CCL 2 years back? Parang poetic justice dahil recruited na daw nila sila Bono at Cabahug na biglang kinuha ng Adamson.)

tigerman
05-03-2008, 03:13 PM
UAAP where Montinola happens





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

stonecold316
05-05-2008, 04:08 AM
UAAP where Montinola happens





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


Amen to this.

I think this is one guy who only thinks of what's good for his school and team. Ang dami ko ng narinig na ginawa itong mama na ito when it comes to changing rules sa UAAP basketball para magkaroon ng advantage ang FEU and it really suck. Malakas rin kasi ang kapit eh.

stonecold316

jeffjan
05-05-2008, 09:26 AM
eligible na pala ulit ang masteral students. kaya pala. :D

GHRanger
05-05-2008, 02:14 PM
^ For as long as you take it from the same school you received your bachelors degree.
Remember 3-4 years ago - the number of players were 16, then 14, then 15... ::)

oca - the letter of intent looks okay, wala ng midnight deals. :P. It could start with the UAAP, NCAA or both. At least walang sulutan within the members. Once the model and procedure has been made, the SBP could probably take a look into it. Pero kung kaya ng SBP nationwide, bakit hindi? Also, i'm not familiar with the legal stuff but it should primarily protect the interest of both the student (i.e. di siya pwedin ipitin) and the school.

BigBlue
05-13-2008, 02:33 PM
it has been mentioned in the other threads that the UAAP is rumored to be considering expanding the rosters to 16 players. any thoughts on this from the regulars? will this rule be good for basketball and the UAAP in general?

shyboy
05-13-2008, 03:18 PM
^ What is the intention in the first place? Why are they bringing it up to 16 again? Ok siguro as it will allow the UAAP as a whole to recruit more promising players and keep them within the league. But having 16 players on the bench is just a tad too much. If the league intends on having lots of fresh talents every year, the UAAP could look at keeping the lineup count at 15 but minimize the number of eligibility years like 4 of 5 years out of HS instead of the current 5 of 7. Bakit ba naman kasi kailangan limang taon maglaro ang player out of 7 years? Biro mo some players have teammates na nasa college na nung Grade 5 pa lang sila.

stonecold316
05-13-2008, 04:43 PM
^* What is the intention in the first place?* Why are they bringing it up to 16 again?* Ok siguro as it will allow the UAAP as a whole to recruit more promising players and keep them within the league.* But having 16 players on the bench is just a tad too much.* If the league intends on having lots of fresh talents every year, the UAAP could look at keeping the lineup count at 15 but minimize the number of eligibility years like 4 of 5 years out of HS instead of the current 5 of 7.* Bakit ba naman kasi kailangan limang taon maglaro ang player out of 7 years?* Biro mo some players have teammates na nasa college na nung Grade 5 pa lang sila.



Kaya hindi nakakapagtaka na mukhang mga mama na ang mga players dahil ang tatanda ng ng iba. Imagine 24 or 25 year's old na nasa college pa. hehehe.

stonecold316

batangueño
05-13-2008, 09:25 PM
Naisip ko lang, mga kabayan. Don't you think the number of players per roster should become permanent? I mean, ang pangit naman tingnan na every season na lang ay pabago-bago ang number of players per roster. At least, kung specified na sa UAAP rules na ganitong number lang of players per roster, wala nang need para baguhin na lang each and every season. ???

GHRanger
05-13-2008, 10:15 PM
Actually it was really 16, 14 players 2 reserves for x number of years for as long as i can remember watching the UAAP.

Until someone changed it to 14 players 2 years ago and 15 last year. Sana with this incarnation 16 players can play at a game.

oca
05-14-2008, 11:27 AM
16?

I don't see the point of having so many players in the "active roster". When in fact, it is customary for coaches to have a 10 player rotation. If foul trouble would beset 1 or 2 players, then we may see 12 players being fielded. Pero hanggang duon lang.

Kahit yung 15 ay marami na rin. 14 is okay.

Imo, in the long term, having "fewer" players in the active roster will work to the advantage of "poorer" teams. As the "richer teams" can obviously easily retain many players. Lumalabas na nga na parang nag-ho-hoard na ang mga may kayang teams.

16 sa Team A, at meron pang Team B.

Kung basketball lang ang usapan, it just doesn't make sense to be having so many players in the pool.

But on the other hand, pakialam ba natin kung nakikinabang naman ang bata sa "scholarship".

The_Big_Cat
05-14-2008, 12:48 PM
16 is a bit too many.

If they would approve a 16-man lineup, mawawalan ng upuan yung isa sa mga assistant coaches. ;D
Aside from the asst. coaches & head coach, you have the team manager and the team's doctor. Alangan pa upuin mo yung doctor sa sahig. ;D

Kung bibilangin mo yung mga seats sa bench(Araneta & the Arena) talagang kukulangin. Gastos na naman. ;D

marmand
05-14-2008, 02:50 PM
^ Managers and staff can occupy the first row behind the bench. They actually prefer the first row then the bench. ( More comfortable. ) Too many players and only 40 minutes of basketball. Coaches do your math. ;D

Kid Cubao
05-14-2008, 03:10 PM
i think the proposal was introduced not so much to have a 16-man lineup, but rather as a contingency measure in cases of prolonged injury and/or illness of the regulars. alam naman natin na parami nang parami ang mga insidente ng may napipilayan, nalalagutan ng ACL, o tinatamaan ng mga viral diseases, kaya parang sagot ito sa pagkabungi ng koponan dahil may isa o dalawang di na pwede maglaro.

batangueño
05-14-2008, 03:39 PM
I think I have to agree with what Kabayang GHRanger said about the 16-man roster. The 16-man roster could actually include 14 to 15 players who are all on the regular team rotation plus one to two reserve players who can substitute the injured or sick player on the regular rotation.

How I wish the 16-man roster will be permanent and will not be subject to change each and every UAAP season.

BigBlue
05-14-2008, 03:48 PM
i think the proposal was introduced not so much to have a 16-man lineup, but rather as a contingency measure in cases of prolonged injury and/or illness of the regulars. alam naman natin na parami nang parami ang mga insidente ng may napipilayan, nalalagutan ng ACL, o tinatamaan ng mga viral diseases, kaya parang sagot ito sa pagkabungi ng koponan dahil may isa o dalawang di na pwede maglaro.


kung ganun, eh di ibalik na lang yung 16-man roster with 14 to play.

Kid Cubao
05-14-2008, 03:58 PM
sa akin, OK na yung pwede mong palaruin lahat, para makatikim naman ng importansya yung mga reserves. halimbawa, pwede silang clean up crew pag garbage time na.

The_Big_Cat
05-14-2008, 04:15 PM
May I ask from what school did this proposal came from?? ???

A lot of collegiate coaches uses around a 9 to 10 man rotation. Bihira lang ka makakita ng coach na gumagamit ng 12 and above rotation.

pablohoney
05-14-2008, 06:19 PM
The 16-Players-Rule would justify some team's penchant for taking too many players into their line-up, then making sure that the kid(s) are included in the Team A instead of languishing (?) in their Team B squad.

Di ba some players came to this school and that with the promise of being included in Team A straightaway?

Rules changes every season, depending on the whims of the UAAP Board members.
Or kung sino man ang malakas. ::)

Maybe it's high time we have some sort of a permanent UAAP Board?
Or kahit 3-5 years ang tenure ng isang UAAP Board? ???

RockLobster
05-15-2008, 11:27 AM
^I agree. The most significant change in the UAAP rules that can happen is to change the friggin' people that keep changing the friggin' rules! ;D

GHRanger
05-15-2008, 11:51 AM
^I agree. The most significant change in the UAAP rules that can happen is to change the friggin' people that keep changing the friggin' rules! ;D


Correct.
Remember the no Masteral Students rule? on the first year it was implemented, hindi na pwede yung Masteral students. The next year sabi nila pwede if you graduated from the same University where you are taking your Masteral studies.

erichubert
05-15-2008, 01:53 PM
The problem is the UAAP or other collegiate leagues don't adhere to an universal collegiate rulebook, in fact they don't have to answer to anyone but themselves. That is why every board member tries to cook up rules changes for their own school's benefit. There should be just one policy board for college basketball similar to the NCAA in the US. That group or association would set the rules to be followed for all college leagues in the country. Only such a group can compel teams to play in a postseason national collegiate tournament and also regulate the recruitment of players in the country.

mighty_lion
05-15-2008, 11:06 PM
16 players in 40 minutes? Parang kulang. Propose na rin kaya nilang 48 minutes (12 per quarter) para mas masaya. Additional kita sa advertisers yan. ;D

The_Big_Cat
05-16-2008, 12:31 PM
^Yes I agree. Too many players on a 40 minute game. Some players even need more time to get warmed up for a game.

erichubert
05-17-2008, 11:00 AM
More or less, 12 players will get minutes for each team in the UAAP. From the 12, around 10 would get regular minutes, the 2 others will get in depending on the opponent. As for the 4 others, they would be there to cheer their teammates on.

This rule allows richer teams to hoard talented players, and stack them until the time they are ready to play. The better rule would be 15 players, but only 10-12 scholarship players allowed, this way the other talented guys can find spots on other teams. This also allows for walk-ins to make the team.

GHRanger
05-27-2008, 01:59 PM
Has there been any feedback from the old boy's club regarding the 16 player rule?

pio_valenz
05-27-2008, 02:07 PM
It's okay to have 15 or 16 players on a team if you're playing in a season as long as the NBA's, for instance. 82 games, lots of travelling, high incidence of injuries. But for a tournament with only 14 games, and teams playing only 1-2 games a week, I think having more than 14 players on your active roster is a bit too much. When 16 players was the limit in the UAAP a few years back, there were players on some teams who did not even play a single minute the entire season. Sayang lang ang eligibility.

ArcherAdictant
05-27-2008, 02:13 PM
yup. I agree with you ;)

Fried Green Tomato
05-28-2008, 05:44 PM
As per report, the 16 player rule is now approved.

winters
05-29-2008, 09:06 AM
back to this one, it's a nice rule/idea...

pero paano naman kung yung school ay hindi naman pinaglaro o isinama sa lineup yung student/player, an LOI from the student/player should have an equivalent coming from the school.

para may balance.





Para mabawasan ang sulutan can we implement a 'letter of intent' in the UAAP? A recruit can only sign a max of two letters of intent. If he doesn't suit up for the last team he signed with then he sits for a year or something like that.


Basically, a good idea. But no "max". Let him sign as many LOI as he wants, basta one at a time and the LOI has a validity to end March the following year.

So, if you sign up a player in the middle of a school year or in summer, nakatali na yan sa inyo until the end of the next school year. If the program takes good care of the player, hindi na yan lilipat yan. Pero kung hindi, aalis yan kahit ano pa.

But can this be enforceable against schools at other leagues? Maybe the lawyers here call give an opinion.

A LOI is meant to protect the interest of a school. Pero, pakialam ng ibang school from other leagues! It's not them the UAAP schools will be competing against primarily.

Imo, this should be an initiative of the NSA for the sport. That way, malinaw na enforceble sa lahat ng school leagues.league.

If we are to take the discussion further, schools outside NCR will benefit most from this. Yung mga recruit sa backyards nila ay di basta nawawala na parang bula.( Side note: Remember the comment of UV Coach Boy Cabahug after they defeated Adamson in the CCL 2 years back? Parang poetic justice dahil recruited na daw nila sila Bono at Cabahug na biglang kinuha ng Adamson.)

bchoter
05-29-2008, 04:43 PM
As per report, the 16 player rule is now approved.
As of last eavesdrop, UST is not inclined to field in the max number of players. I just don't know if this will change now that the rule is, according to reports, official.

Fried Green Tomato
05-29-2008, 05:07 PM
^ as of now, we only have 15 players. Thus, same goes with DLSU.

RockLobster
05-29-2008, 07:51 PM
Sorry, just to clarify, is a school obliged to submit a full, 16-man lineup, or is 16 merely a maximum, and that a school can choose to form a team with less than 16 players?

Guardian Angel
05-29-2008, 08:00 PM
That's the maximum. NU traditionally fields only a 12-man team regardless of maximum allowable. Don't know if there's a minimum, though.

Howard the Duck
06-17-2008, 09:53 PM
and to think scholarships aren't cheap (for the school), now they're batting for a 16-man roster? what?

GHRanger
06-18-2008, 12:48 PM
and to think scholarships aren't cheap (for the school), now they're batting for a 16-man roster? what?


Suffice to say that proponents have found a "use" for 16 players.

eightyfiver
06-19-2008, 09:02 AM
The rule has already been approved for more than 2 weeks already. Anyway, it's just the maximum players. Participating schools have the option not to submit 16.

I think this year's UAAP have the least amount of amended controversial rule. Ika nga ni Atoy, "Thanks God".

Fried Green Tomato
06-19-2008, 11:45 AM
^

Maybe not as controversial as before but there were other amendments worth mentioning such as increasing the age limit from 24 to 25 and making the finals virtually a best of 4 series in case a team sweeps the elimination rounds.

bluewing
06-19-2008, 12:18 PM
making the finals virtually a best of 4 series in case a team sweeps the elimination rounds.


FGT, can you please expound on this? i'm not familiar with this particular rule change.

GHRanger
06-19-2008, 01:07 PM
^ From my understanding - if Team A sweeps, the usual ladder match will be done. However in the finals instead of a best of 3 series, Team A will need to beat the challenfer 2x and the challenger will need to defeat Team A 3x.

RockLobster
06-19-2008, 01:14 PM
^So parang best-of-five where the unbeaten team is up 1-0 in the series.

bluewing
06-19-2008, 02:33 PM
:|

to avoid another choke by the sweeping team? e di parang nireward pa nila yung pagiging title pretender nung nag-sweep.


langya. buti na lang at wala nang magswee-sweep ngayon.

salamat sa explanation, GHR.

pablohoney
06-19-2008, 05:33 PM
Naalala ko lang... :)

UE was the school that was very vocal about the need to change the rule in case of a sweep.
This was early '90s.
We all know what happened -- no automatic championship for a team that swept the season (14-0).

If they didn't change the rule (re: sweep), UE would have been champs last season.
KARMA really works in mysterious ways.

oca
06-19-2008, 07:02 PM
Ano ngayon ang incentive pag na-sweep mo ang elims if you need to win twice in the c'ship?

Do they think that requiring 3 wins for the other team is an incentive for the team who scored a sweep?

If this new rule is to "remedy" what happened last season, I think they got it all wrong.

What did UE in was the "inactivity" from their last elims game to the start of the c'ship. That was a perid of about 21 days. During that time, the stepladder semis took place. That semis, if I recall only had 4 playdates.

4 playdays over 21 days? Why does it have to take that long?

Kalawang na UE nang dumating ang game 1. With all the "baggage" UE was carrying as perennial contenders but never making the finals until then, you expect them to beat a Franz Pumaren team in a winner-take-all game.

Kutob ko yang rule na yan ay isang pakulo para kumita ang liga.

Yes, a sweep doesn't happen every year, but when it does, naka set up na ang mga cash register sa gates!

Galing, noh!

Howard the Duck
06-20-2008, 02:28 AM
gawing twice to beat ang finals. sa NCAA ganyan yata.

or expedite the stepladder semis. one week tapos na. better remove the twice to beat advantage of the #2





or just give it to the sweeper. kung 14-0 there's no sense of conducting playoffs considering all teams have the same strength of schedule.

as for the 16-person rule, so sa bench 16 people o 12 pa rin?

joelex
06-20-2008, 03:15 AM
:|

to avoid another choke by the sweeping team? e di parang nireward pa nila yung pagiging title pretender nung nag-sweep.


langya. buti na lang at wala nang magswee-sweep ngayon.

salamat sa explanation, GHR.


a reward is definitely deserved by the team that went unbeaten. its is totally unfair for the unbeaten team to begin the finals on even terms with the challenger.

The_Big_Cat
06-20-2008, 10:04 AM
:|
to avoid another choke by the sweeping team? e di parang nireward pa nila yung pagiging title pretender nung nag-sweep.
langya. buti na lang at wala nang magswee-sweep ngayon.

salamat sa explanation, GHR.

a reward is definitely deserved by the team that went unbeaten. its is totally unfair for the unbeaten team to begin the finals on even terms with the challenger.

Sayang yung "pinag-paguran" at "pinag-hirapan" ng unbeaten team.

eightyfiver
06-20-2008, 03:14 PM
Reward na nga iyong hindi sila dadaan ng Final Four. I really don't believe in the "kalawang" theory. O sige na nga, sa Game 1 pwede. ::)

shyboy
06-20-2008, 05:47 PM
Given this new rule, tingin niyo ba given last year's scenario mananalo pa ang UE after losing 2 straight?

I agree, it's already a reward for the sweeping team to get a free pass to the Finals. Dapat pa rin nila pagpaguran na manalo sa Finals para mag-champion. Kung ayaw nila ng ganito, eh di wag na lang silang mag-sweep.

THE ONLOOKER
06-20-2008, 11:26 PM
UE should have lost a game last season if the officiating was "accurate" that game.

I can still remember the UE vs. NU first round game...

Howard the Duck
06-20-2008, 11:31 PM
Given this new rule, tingin niyo ba given last year's scenario mananalo pa ang UE after losing 2 straight?

I agree, it's already a reward for the sweeping team to get a free pass to the Finals. Dapat pa rin nila pagpaguran na manalo sa Finals para mag-champion. Kung ayaw nila ng ganito, eh di wag na lang silang mag-sweep.


IMO, the long layoff did them in. Kung best of 5 series pwede pang bumawi kung may "kalawang," sa best of 3 hindi.

Kaya dapat bilisan na lang ang stepladder. in one week (sunday-sunday: tiebreaker games sunday, 4th vs. 3rd tuesday, 4/3 vs. 2nd thursday and sunday). UAAP naman eh, Studio 23 can refit their sked

dose
06-21-2008, 01:04 AM
Given this new rule, tingin niyo ba given last year's scenario mananalo pa ang UE after losing 2 straight?

I agree, it's already a reward for the sweeping team to get a free pass to the Finals.* Dapat pa rin nila pagpaguran na manalo sa Finals para mag-champion.* Kung ayaw nila ng ganito, eh di wag na lang silang mag-sweep.


IMO, the long layoff did them in. Kung best of 5 series pwede pang bumawi kung may "kalawang," sa best of 3 hindi.

Kaya dapat bilisan na lang ang stepladder. in one week (sunday-sunday: tiebreaker games sunday, 4th vs. 3rd tuesday, 4/3 vs. 2nd thursday and sunday). UAAP naman eh, Studio 23 can refit their sked


Kung may kalawang factor yung nakasweep, may fatigue factor naman yung challenger.

eightyfiver
06-21-2008, 08:15 AM
^^Hindi din naman siguro flexible ang sked ng Araneta kaya nagkaganon. 1st time din nangyari kaya hindi pa ngayon ka plantsado.

shyboy
06-21-2008, 08:45 AM
Kung may kalawang factor yung nakasweep, may fatigue factor naman yung challenger.

Correct! DLSU had to play 3 successive gruelling games against Ateneo en route to the Finals. UE came in fresh while DLSU came in a bit tired.

Howard the Duck
06-21-2008, 09:42 AM
Kung may kalawang factor yung nakasweep, may fatigue factor naman yung challenger.

Correct! DLSU had to play 3 successive gruelling games against Ateneo en route to the Finals. UE came in fresh while DLSU came in a bit tired.

DLSU had a 4-day layoff. 4 days is pretty long for playoff basketball. the argument that "DLSU is tired" is invalid, IMHO.

Now the argument that UE was rusty after half a month's rest, that's valid.

The_Big_Cat
06-21-2008, 10:35 AM
^UE coach Dindo Pumaren and his family even watched the NCAA Finals Game 1 between San Beda and Letran. That's how long UE had to wait.

To be inactive for a long period of time would not do good for the team and even a hard practice would not also help them. You can relate that to the current NBA playoffs where the Boston Celtics was stretched to two game 7s in the first & second rounds. Many analysts thought they would not last long against Detroit.

Mas gugustuhin ko na habang mainit pa, isabak na kaysa pag lumamig matagal mong makuha uli ang init.
A twice to beat advantage in the Finals would be nice for the team that swept the eliminations.

bluewing
06-21-2008, 11:22 AM
in my opinion, in the event of a sweep, the step-ladder should be a do-or-die affair. 3 vs. 4, winner vs. 2 in a knockout game agad. wala nang twice to beat. tutal, pwede namang sabihin na may advantage pa rin kahit paano yung number 2 kasi nakapahinga sila nang mas matagal. in that way, achieving a sweep becomes even more significant. plus the sweeping team's shortened waiting period (1 week max) eliminates the possibility of ring rust. tapos yung finals, best of 3 pa rin.

pero asa pa ako. syempre hindi man lang iko-consider ng board yan. liliit ang projected income eh.

but it makes more sense from a purely basketball standpoint.

nel
06-21-2008, 11:27 AM
If there's less income, there may not be enough to pay for the six figure allowances that the board members reportedly get. And with the current trend of rising prices, it's not inconceivable that they will enact a resolution to raise their allowances again. Hmmm, are matters concerning the allowances of the board members considered rule changes?

Where are the allowances supposed to go? Is this something like the pork barrel of politicians? Oops, we haven't been able to kick out our in-office-for-life politicians, how much more for the till-death-do-us-part board members?

How about a rule change to make the board members accountable for performance? And one limiting the absolute number of years a board member can stay? And relatives not allowed as replacements? Oh, yeah, how about a rule that requires that they take and pass the typical college-level entrance exam? Just in case galing Recto yung diploma nila. You never know ...

Howard the Duck
06-21-2008, 06:35 PM
atsaka dapat tanggalin na ang mga playoffs for #3 and #1 ;D

GHRanger
06-22-2008, 11:46 PM
^ Actually nalilito pa din ako sa quotient/playoff setting nila...
AFAIK, quotient sa not lucrative matchups, playoff for lucrative matchups. nyeh...
IMHO, Playoffs should only be for the right to get the last slot in the F4. the rest quotient na para F4 games na agad.

Howard the Duck
06-23-2008, 01:53 AM
^ Actually nalilito pa din ako sa quotient/playoff setting nila...
AFAIK, quotient sa not lucrative matchups, playoff for lucrative matchups. nyeh...
IMHO, Playoffs should only be for the right to get the last slot in the F4. the rest quotient na para F4 games na agad.


ang first tie-breaker nila yung game results between the tied teams. kung 3 teams ang tied, kung anong team ang nasa positive ang quotient, automatic higher seed na. the lower two will playoff for the lesser seed. ito yung nangyari sa 2005 (DLSU, ADMU, UE tied for 10-4)

pero recently mas wacky ang tiebreaking system nila. sa 2007-2008 volleyball kung 3 tied teams, the lower 2 teams will have a playoff, then the winner faces the other team. ang gulo.

dapat ayusin nila ito. pero i'm sorta not in favor for scrapping the #2 game. kung natalo ng isang team yung other team twice pa (read: Ateneo 2007). pero kung split ang 2 meetings nila, let them play ;D

oca
06-23-2008, 11:02 AM
It is apparent, the tie-break system results to more games being played. Also, the new rule when a school sweeps the elims would also result to more games being played.

Kayo na bahala mag-isip kung ano ang intention nyan.* ::)

oca
06-23-2008, 11:28 AM
Pahabol:

Sige, okay lang mgakaroon ng dagdag na games resulting from the the 3-way ties. Pero pwede bang laruin ito sa magkakasunod na regular playdays of Thu Sat and/ or Sun.

That way, malinaw na may incentive yung mga nasa taas ng standings. There is reasonable amount of time spent resting while waiting who advances. Pero hindi katagalan para kalawangin ang nasa itaas.

When you spread 4 playdays over 21 days, walang pakinabang ang nasa itaas ng team standings.

Para que nagpapanalo ka sa elims kung ibuburo ka naman nila sa kahihintay.

Howard the Duck
06-24-2008, 12:43 PM
^ three things:
1. Araneta or bust. Lalo na yung Ateneo-La Salle matchup, tinapatan yata ni Ne-Yo o F.O.B. sa aranata last year. So yung host UST nilagay sa PhilSports pero SANKATUTAK ang umangal. So, naghintay na araw para mabakante ang araneta.
2. Dapat may 2-day rest daw ang players since student-athletes sila. Sige pahabain mo ang season para masagasaan ang finals week.
3. Kung playoffs daw, dapat 1 game per day. Ayaw nila ng 2 games a day. Mahirap daw kasing kumuha ng tickets.

oca
06-24-2008, 01:19 PM
Mahirap daw kumuha ng tickets kung dalawang laro sa isang playday? Baka ang ibig nilang sabihin, mas malaki ang kikitain nila pag pinaghiwalay ang laro. ::)

I still don't think may justification yung 21 days.

Howard the Duck
06-24-2008, 01:27 PM
kaya nga sabi ko 1 week dapat tapos na :P

dapat ganito ang nangyari:
Tuesday: DLSU vs. ADMU followed by UST vs. FEU Araneta
Thursday: DLSU vs. ADMU PhilSports
Saturday: DLSU vs. ADMU Araneta
next week: DLSU vs. UE Araneta

edit: lemme clarify that the fans themselves wants to have 1 game/day "policy". esp. in ateneo-la salle games.
but i'm sure the league bigwigs also want that to be the case ;D

bluewing
06-24-2008, 09:27 PM
kung pahirapan ng ticket sa playoff ang problema, e di paghiwalayin nila ng venue ang 2 games sa isang araw. kumuha sila ng isang murang venue (NAS) para sa isang laro. common sense na lang kung aling game ang ilalagay sa Araneta at alin sa NAS.

siguro naman mako-cover nila ang isa pang venue since yun naman ang inaasahan nila, di ba? yung dumugin ng tao? whicj necessitates the splitting in the first place.

Howard the Duck
06-24-2008, 10:21 PM
kung pahirapan ng ticket sa playoff ang problema, e di paghiwalayin nila ng venue ang 2 games sa isang araw. kumuha sila ng isang murang venue (NAS) para sa isang laro. common sense na lang kung aling game ang ilalagay sa Araneta at alin sa NAS.

siguro naman mako-cover nila ang isa pang venue since yun naman ang inaasahan nila, di ba? yung dumugin ng tao? whicj necessitates the splitting in the first place.

good idea... but can ABS handle this? assuming they can, is this feasible?

chorizo
06-24-2008, 10:44 PM
kung pahirapan ng ticket sa playoff ang problema, e di paghiwalayin nila ng venue ang 2 games sa isang araw. kumuha sila ng isang murang venue (NAS) para sa isang laro. common sense na lang kung aling game ang ilalagay sa Araneta at alin sa NAS.

siguro naman mako-cover nila ang isa pang venue since yun naman ang inaasahan nila, di ba? yung dumugin ng tao? whicj necessitates the splitting in the first place.

good idea... but can ABS handle this? assuming they can, is this feasible?


Kaya ng ABS yan. During the MBA days, two games in two different cities ang norm. It is also feasible because double revenue in a way. Example, instead of one person paying for seat 1 Row A Lower box in Araneta and watching two games, you will have another person paying for seat 1 Row A Lower box in Philsports as well for the other game.

dose
06-24-2008, 11:31 PM
Kung may kalawang factor yung nakasweep, may fatigue factor naman yung challenger.

Correct!* DLSU had to play 3 successive gruelling games against Ateneo en route to the Finals.* UE came in fresh while DLSU came in a bit tired.

DLSU had a 4-day layoff. 4 days is pretty long for playoff basketball. the argument that "DLSU is tired" is invalid, IMHO.

Now the argument that UE was rusty after half a month's rest, that's valid.


UE's performance in the finals disproves that they were rusty. It's pretty obvious that they choked.

Howard the Duck
06-25-2008, 12:22 AM
kung pahirapan ng ticket sa playoff ang problema, e di paghiwalayin nila ng venue ang 2 games sa isang araw. kumuha sila ng isang murang venue (NAS) para sa isang laro. common sense na lang kung aling game ang ilalagay sa Araneta at alin sa NAS.

siguro naman mako-cover nila ang isa pang venue since yun naman ang inaasahan nila, di ba? yung dumugin ng tao? whicj necessitates the splitting in the first place.

good idea... but can ABS handle this? assuming they can, is this feasible?


Kaya ng ABS yan. During the MBA days, two games in two different cities ang norm. It is also feasible because double revenue in a way. Example, instead of one person paying for seat 1 Row A Lower box in Araneta and watching two games, you will have another person paying for seat 1 Row A Lower box in Philsports as well for the other game.

I don't think ABS has a share of ticket sales but now that you've said it, it seems they're capable of doing so.

The thing is what if Araneta is not available? Like last year? And the mentality is Araneta or bust?

batangueño
06-25-2008, 01:27 AM
Kabayang Howard the Duck, I think as early as now, the UAAP should reserve the Araneta Coliseum so that most of the second round games, the Final Four games and the Finals can be held there securely. I think the decision to use the ULTRA for much of the first round was due to the fact that other events such as High School Musical and some concerts as well as the PBA finals booked the Araneta Coliseum quite early and that the UAAP came up with an official schedule quite late. ???

I also do not think that the "two places" scheme of the MBA days would work on the UAAP. We really should maximize the use the venues, most especially the Araneta Coliseum, as much as we can.

Now, to the question about an unavailable Araneta Coliseum scenario, I think the 10,000-seat ULTRA would be capable of handling some of the crucial games (e.g. rubber match game, a Final Four match-up that is not that big) except for really big ones like DLSU vs ADMU.

Howard the Duck
06-25-2008, 11:26 AM
But the unavailability of Araneta sorta contributed to the extension of UE's "layoff" though. So in case Araneta can't be used, the host would just wait for the next day the Big Dome is available instead of using another arena, most especially if the playoff matchup/s is/are marquee.

I don't think Ateneans and Lasallians will allow their game to be held in ULTRA or some other lesser venue. The PEX boys have shouted their displeasure to high heavens last year when that happened, right? That's why the league has to wait for the day Araneta would be available again. Which lead to UE's rustiness, like come on, we all know they choked on Game 2, but on Game 1 you could see they ran out of gas at the closing stages, napagod na siguro, hindi kasi sanay.

RockLobster
06-25-2008, 11:51 AM
The news articles that came out regarding the rule change on the incentive for a team that sweeps the elims seem to show how the UAAP board is barking at the wrong tree again (no pun intended against the NU board rep). :)

The articles recounted how UE went 14-0 in the elims last season only to be swept by DLSU in the finals. The author might not have been relating it to the new rule being proposed, which gives the unbeaten team a twice-to-beat advantage in the finals, but given the UE debacle, it certainly wasn't the existing "decentivized" rule, was it? I agree to a certain extent that it was the long layoff before the finals that did the Warriors in. Even if the Warriors were twice-to-beat, the incentive may not have helped them much given the pressure they had to go through to beat a rampaging and more experienced Archers side. But more than second-guessing the disposition of either team, the point is that I think the rule didn't really play a major role in all this.

shyboy
06-25-2008, 12:00 PM
Kung gusto nilang malaki ang advantage ng naka-sweep, eh di gawin nilang 5 times to beat ang sweeper. ::) Or ibalik nila sa automatic champion na agad ang sweeper para wala nang chechebureche. >:(

jembengzon
06-25-2008, 12:01 PM
will somebody get a real basketball group to run the uaap league, and leave the board reps up to policy making nalang ? *;D

seriously *;D maybe it's about time

Howard the Duck
06-25-2008, 12:53 PM
Kung gusto nilang malaki ang advantage ng naka-sweep, eh di gawin nilang 5 times to beat ang sweeper. ::) Or ibalik nila sa automatic champion na agad ang sweeper para wala nang chechebureche. >:(

Actually the automatic champion clause is the fairest since all of the teams played the same strengths of scheduyle so no sense for a playoffs if a team sweeps the tourney.

GHRanger
06-25-2008, 01:13 PM
will somebody get a real basketball group to run the uaap league, and leave the board reps up to policy making nalang ? *;D

seriously *;D maybe it's about time


I guess this is something that has been discussed in this forum time and time and time and again, 2 years na before the season and after the season - if i remember it right. IMHO, this is probably a good move for the board because it creates a sort of balance in the organization. Plus it will be run (hopefully) by a professional group who will be consistent year in and year out.

But the main question is will the board relinquish it's hold? Moreso, will they be willing to reduce the bottomline for this?

Abangan.... :D

The_Big_Cat
06-26-2008, 09:03 AM
It is now an official proposal. A twice to beat advantage for the team that will sweep the eliminations.
I guess they must have read my earlier post. ;) ;D

I think it is a good incentive for a team that will sweep the eliminations. A team that played excellent and consistent basketball all season long. May I also suggest a "tuesday playdate" to be added to the current thursday, saturday & sunday playdates in case of tie-breaker games for the 4th, 3rd & 2nd spots. So that you may have an "every-other-day" playoff games either on thursday-saturday-tuesday or tuesday-thursday-sunday and for the top seed(the sweep team) not to wait so long in the step-ladder playoffs.

In last year's Finals, many have thought that DLSU would be a tired team but guess again they obviously looked the "warmer" team while UE looked like a "frozen drumstick".

batangueño
06-27-2008, 10:27 PM
I am still curious. Supposing we are in a step-ladder format (or even in a Final Four format) but the Araneta Coliseum is not available for use by the UAAP. Some of us here think that the reason why UE's 14-0 achievement went to waste was because they got laid back for about a month, no thanks to the UAAP adjusting to the Araneta Coliseum's schedule (the venue was not available on certain days then) during the step-ladder series.

If we again reach the same scenario as last year, should the UAAP again adjust to the schedule of the Araneta Coliseum or should we just use another venue like ULTRA, Cuneta Astrodome or The Arena in San Juan just to finish the whole step-ladder or Final Four format and proceed to the Finals?

Howard the Duck
06-27-2008, 11:15 PM
I am still curious. Supposing we are in a step-ladder format (or even in a Final Four format) but the Araneta Coliseum is not available for use by the UAAP. Some of us here think that the reason why UE's 14-0 achievement went to waste was because they got laid back for about a month, no thanks to the UAAP adjusting to the Araneta Coliseum's schedule (the venue was not available on certain days then) during the step-ladder series.

If we again reach the same scenario as last year, should the UAAP again adjust to the schedule of the Araneta Coliseum or should we just use another venue like ULTRA, Cuneta Astrodome or The Arena in San Juan just to finish the whole step-ladder or Final Four format and proceed to the Finals?


lalo na kung ateneo-la salle. paano na yan? papayag ba ang mga fans nila na sa ultra sila magharap? ::)
(of course neither team should be the sweeper)

batangueño
06-28-2008, 02:53 AM
lalo na kung ateneo-la salle. paano na yan? papayag ba ang mga fans nila na sa ultra sila magharap? ::)
(of course neither team should be the sweeper)

That is one question that should be answered. What if Ateneo and La Salle face each other in one of the Final Four or step-ladder scenarios and the Araneta Coliseum happens to be unavailable for use by the UAAP? Will the two teams and their respective fans and supporters find it acceptable to have the game held in an alternate venue like the ULTRA or the Cuneta Astrodome just to finish the whole process and move on to the Finals? ???

Howard the Duck
06-28-2008, 11:27 AM
lalo na kung ateneo-la salle. paano na yan? papayag ba ang mga fans nila na sa ultra sila magharap? ::)
(of course neither team should be the sweeper)

That is one question that should be answered. What if Ateneo and La Salle face each other in one of the Final Four or step-ladder scenarios and the Araneta Coliseum happens to be unavailable for use by the UAAP? Will the two teams and their respective fans and supporters find it acceptable to have the game held in an alternate venue like the ULTRA or the Cuneta Astrodome just to finish the whole process and move on to the Finals? ???

baka depende sa host. last year halos ipako sa krus ang UST nang malaman na sa philsports lang sila :o

batangueño
06-28-2008, 05:11 PM
baka depende sa host. last year halos ipako sa krus ang UST nang malaman na sa philsports lang sila* :o

Kabayan, Cuneta at Ninoy ang venues last year. ;)

Still, dapat pa din pag-usapan kung ano ang dapat gawin ng UAAP kapag hindi pwedeng gamitin ang Araneta Coliseum during a crucial stage in the tournament like the Final Four or, in the case of a team sweeping the eliminations, the step-ladder format. We all saw the delay at last year's step-ladder format all due to the UAAP adjusting to the Araneta Coliseum's schedule. ???

Howard the Duck
06-28-2008, 07:00 PM
baka depende sa host. last year halos ipako sa krus ang UST nang malaman na sa philsports lang sila :o

Kabayan, Cuneta at Ninoy ang venues last year. ;)

Still, dapat pa din pag-usapan kung ano ang dapat gawin ng UAAP kapag hindi pwedeng gamitin ang Araneta Coliseum during a crucial stage in the tournament like the Final Four or, in the case of a team sweeping the eliminations, the step-ladder format. We all saw the delay at last year's step-ladder format all due to the UAAP adjusting to the Araneta Coliseum's schedule. ???

actually sa philsports are first choice venue nila for the ADMU-DLSU game. ewan ko kung bakit since cuneta/NAS lang talaga ang mga venues last year :D

flsfnoeraekadad
06-29-2008, 01:39 AM
Aprubado na yung twice to beat rule for the sweeper ng elims.

Howard the Duck
06-30-2008, 02:03 AM
actually twice to win
yung other finalist thrice to win

parang best of 5 series pero 1-0 na kaagad ang sweeper

nastrans
07-06-2008, 10:29 PM
I dont get this "ID" rule, I'll understand if they reprimand it but not by issuing them a technical foul, there are other means to implement this rule but not that way as a penalty.

But Ateneo won convincingly no question.

nash_bedista
07-06-2008, 10:47 PM
"Narvasa Rule" ;D

No Id, No game!

nastrans
07-06-2008, 11:06 PM
Base sa experience ba yan? :D

Kulang na lang mga players habang naglalaro may ID din. :D

Mateen Cleaves
07-07-2008, 09:19 AM
Is it just me or does it seem that they're giving the advantage back to the floppers now? I only watched the Sunday games, but it seemed to me that more often than not, the call would go against the man with the ball. Even if both offensive and defensive players were moving.

pio_valenz
07-07-2008, 11:46 AM
Base sa experience ba yan? :D

Kulang na lang mga players habang naglalaro may ID din. :D


Chito Narvasa already brought this up during the coaches meeting. He clearly explained that anyone not wearing his ID while on the bench during a game will result in a technical foul against his team.

nel
07-07-2008, 12:17 PM
Just how is the ID supposed to help improve the game? Each school presumably submits a list of personnel who are authorized to be around the game area, so it's a simple matter to check. Ultimate accountability for admitting personnel should rest with the team officials. Did Narvasa just want to leave his mark on the UAAP?

bluewing
07-07-2008, 12:34 PM
Is it just me or does it seem that they're giving the advantage back to the floppers now? I only watched the Sunday games, but it seemed to me that more often than not, the call would go against the man with the ball. Even if both offensive and defensive players were moving.


actually, i'd say it was pretty even. charges and blocking were both called consistently. may ibang player lang talaga na mas magaling kumuha ng charge than others.* ;D

batangueño
07-07-2008, 01:52 PM
Hindi ko din maintindihan yung ID rule na yan eh. Aside from submitting a list of players, coaches and team staff members to the UAAP, it seems impossible to me that Chito Narvasa and the referees not to recognize the coaches? ???

bchoter
07-07-2008, 01:58 PM
Is the ban on the spectator who got in former Commissioner Ed Cordera still in effect? Baka magpang abot sila (Mr. Dayrit ba yon?) ni Narvasa at the rate Narvasa is going :D

pio_valenz
07-07-2008, 05:48 PM
Just how is the ID supposed to help improve the game? Each school presumably submits a list of personnel who are authorized to be around the game area, so it's a simple matter to check. Ultimate accountability for admitting personnel should rest with the team officials. Did Narvasa just want to leave his mark on the UAAP?

I, for one, am not too crazy about the rule, either. One of the persons affected by this is UP's very own Mang Rod, who has served as the Maroons' utility man since Joe Lipa's first tour of duty in the early 80s. But since only a limited number of persons can now be given ID's, Papa Rod had to watch the game yesterday outside of the playing area where he couldn't perform his duties.

Pero nasabihan na kasi ang lahat ng coaches, so to speak plainly, what happened to DLSU was inexcusable.

nel
07-08-2008, 09:39 AM
Perhaps, but is the rule enforced until the final buzzer, or are the team personnel only supposed to wear the IDs at the start of the game? I saw a picture of Coach Pido on the court without an ID. So what gives?

I may be nitpicking, but I reiterate: how is the rule supposed to improve the game or enhance security in the venue? Identities of the various team personnel can easily be checked as they move from the dugouts to the playing court, so wearing an ID on the bench is pointless. Is it meant to impose discipline on the teams?* Just another example of a stupid rule implemented by the UAAP just so that those running this year's edition can say they did something differently from previous years.

How about making one simple change: hiring a professional sports management group to run the UAAP so that we can get intelligent rules in place that can be consistently implemented over the years, instead of the current year-to-year changes? Currently, the commissioner is replaced by the host every year, but the board members desperately cling to their board seats (and the 6-figure allowance that reportedly comes with it) as if their lives depended on it (somehow this reminds me of politicians). Can we have it the other way around - change the board, but get a good commissioner on a multi-year contract? The air in the UAAP board meetings has been stale for a number of years now.

nastrans
07-08-2008, 10:26 AM
In the NCAA, if you dont wear your ID, you'll just be reprimanded. While it is true that the ID rule is part of the FIBA, it won't charge a team a technical foul.

And nel, your right it doesn't improve anything about the game when you issue a technical foul. And the rule lacks consistency, some of the coaches didn't even have their picture on their ID's worn during the weekend, kung baga parang ang dating makasuot ka lang kahit wala kang mukha hindi ka matetechnical.

pablohoney
07-08-2008, 10:32 AM
Is it just me or does it seem that they're giving the advantage back to the floppers now? I only watched the Sunday games, but it seemed to me that more often than not, the call would go against the man with the ball. Even if both offensive and defensive players were moving.


The refs are also uber-ly sensitive.
Re ID rule -- Ngayon ko lang nalaman na pwede pala i-assess ng Technical Foul, even BEFORE the game has started.
May point ang mga La Sallista -- dapat pantay-pantay ang pagimplement.

On NABRO -- Now it's the other way around - the Blue Side seemed to have gotten the calls, while the Green side is left wondering. ;D

Howard the Duck
07-08-2008, 12:57 PM
ang hirap sabayan ng NABRO na yan :P

danny
07-09-2008, 04:40 AM
In the NCAA, if you dont wear your ID, you'll just be reprimanded. While it is true that the ID rule is part of the FIBA, it won't charge a team a technical foul.

And nel, your right it doesn't improve anything about the game when you issue a technical foul. And the rule lacks consistency, some of the coaches didn't even have their picture on their ID's worn during the weekend, kung baga parang ang dating makasuot ka lang kahit wala kang mukha hindi ka matetechnical.


In the NCAA, if you wear your shoes, you are already playing illegally outside the league. ;) A technical foul for not wearing the ID is cruel. Ano to, Police State? :D

Mateen Cleaves
07-09-2008, 05:32 AM
Archers elevate controversial ‘T’ to UAAP board

"Asked what the basis of the technical foul was, Narvasa did not make a categorical answer but said that “Anyone who understands basketball knows that you don’t get a technical foul because of that (not wearing IDs).”

He, however, refused to further comment on the matter. “As much as possible, I want to discuss the case with the parties involved,” he added."

http://sports.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20080709-147278/Archers-elevate-controversial-T-to-UAAP-board

_________________________________________________
I can't say I'm surprised. I never liked the choice of Narvasa as Commish because, among others, I think that his ego is too big for the position. He must think he's Chief Justice or something. This is an issue that needs transparency more than stonewalling because it affects all teams -- the game in which it occurred is no longer relevant. Instead of being defensive and all that, why doesn't he try enlightening us for a change?

gfy
07-09-2008, 05:57 AM
^Agree. Even when he was a player. His younger brother Ogie is more humble. Did he go to UP for law?

Dark Knight
07-09-2008, 06:26 AM
The mere faces of Pumaren and his coaching staff are ID's already. What was he thinking? :D

eightyfiver
07-09-2008, 08:05 AM
Total may evidence naman na hindi nag-suot ng ID si Coach Pido at hindi na na-technical, dapat i-invalidated ang result ng game at i-replay. :o

easter
07-09-2008, 08:13 AM
No ID = Technical Foul

If the rule was discussed and the majority agreed or it got the required number of votes then the rule should be enforced even how silly it is.

DLSU was guilty of the offense so they have to suffer the consequence.

UST was also guilty but was unpunished. The problem is in this game and not on the DLSU vs ADMU game. DLSU cannot cite that the rule should be invalidated or they be excused since UST did not follow it.

Now the UAAP board should punish UST as well. The solution? Add 2 points to the score of UE. But wait freethrows are not sure 2 points! Then UST has to suffer the consequence as well.

Sounds too late the hero right? Maybe. I don't know if this will have an effect on the quotient system.

pinoyvespa
07-09-2008, 08:52 AM
One of the reasons I have heard for the issuance of the technical was that the DLSU coaching staff were asked to wear their IDs at the start of the game but they initially refused and argued with the officials about it.* This led to a "delay of game" and thus a technical.

coreytaylor
07-09-2008, 11:14 AM
la salle never learn to lose (coaching staff lang ah)!

Howard the Duck
07-09-2008, 11:26 AM
If the rule was discussed and the majority agreed or it got the required number of votes then the rule should be enforced even how silly it is.

naku aangal ang mga atenista dito ::)

bchoter
07-09-2008, 11:38 AM
Naalala ko tuloy yung no cheering during time outs

gfy
07-09-2008, 12:06 PM
One of the reasons I have heard for the issuance of the technical was that the DLSU coaching staff were asked to wear their IDs at the start of the game but they initially refused and argued with the officials about it.* This led to a "delay of game" and thus a technical.




That's what I thought too. But I think for non-critical rules like this, there should be some leeway or warning at least for a week. Then lower the boom.

Howard the Duck
07-09-2008, 12:28 PM
Naalala ko tuloy yung no cheering during time outs

i 100% expect the ateneans to support their brothers lasallians in the fight against stupid rules :o

batangueño
07-09-2008, 12:52 PM
Chito Narvasa and his NABRO boys are starting to make fun of the league this early with all those silly rules and dubious foul calls. I think Hercules Callanta and Sergio Cao should re-think of this situation given the fact that UP is this Season 71 host. ::)

Well anyway...


Archers elevate controversial ‘T’ to UAAP board
By Cedelf P. Tupas
Philippine Daily Inquirer (http://sports.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20080709-147278/Archers-elevate-controversial-T-to-UAAP-board)
First Posted 02:15:00 07/09/2008


MANILA, Philippines—It could turn out to be the most fussed-about technical foul of the UAAP in years.

De La Salle University is set to elevate the technical foul slapped on its coaching staff for their failure to wear their IDs to the UAAP Board, but it refuses to say exactly what it wants from the board.

Bro. Bernie Oca, the DLSU representative to the UAAP Board, Tuesday night told the Philippine Daily Inquirer they will submit a letter to the Board on Wednesday but did not reveal what action the school is seeking.

Pressed for details, all Oca told the Inquirer was: “It’s not a protest letter.”

The clearest statement from the La Salle camp regarding the technical foul came from coach Franz Pumaren, who decried the technical foul after the match and said “I just want to know why the rule is selective.”

A source in the La Salle camp said the school will go as far as backing its letter with a video showing University of Santo Tomas’ coaching staff go unpunished despite committing the same infraction in their match versus University of the East at the Araneta Coliseum Saturday.

But Oca did not confirm the presence of such a documentary evidence.

Oca did stress that their letter will not question the outcome of Sunday’s game, which started with Eagles’ star Chris Tiu hitting a pair of free throws on that controversial technical foul and ended with Ateneo de Manila University on top, 77-71.

As far as Chito Narvasa, this year’s UAAP basketball tournament commissioner, is concerned, though, “the case is already closed” since it did not affect the outcome of the game.

But Pumaren asked: “How can it be closed when he has not addressed the issue?”

Narvasa said UAAP teams were informed about the strict implementation of the ID rule during the June 21 workshop at the Blue Eagle Gym, which he said La Salle was unable to attend.

Pumaren however said La Salle attended all UAAP meetings.

Narvasa also questioned why La Salle did not give him a copy of the photo showing UST coach Pido Jarencio without his ID during Saturday’s game. La Salle sent the photo to media outlets, including the Inquirer, last Monday.

Asked what the basis of the technical foul was, Narvasa did not make a categorical answer but said that “Anyone who understands basketball knows that you don’t get a technical foul because of that (not wearing IDs).”

He, however, refused to further comment on the matter.

“As much as possible, I want to discuss the case with the parties involved,” he added.

JONAS HAO
07-09-2008, 02:18 PM
The T's on both pumaren and black? Plain stupid.

Nabro's officiating was horrible on both ends.
Huy Atty.Narvasa, umayos ka nga!

Guardian Angel
07-09-2008, 02:56 PM
The T's on both pumaren and black? Plain stupid.

Nabro's officiating was horrible on both ends.
Huy Atty.Narvasa, umayos ka nga!


Chito is not a lawyer. Ogie is the lawyer.

easter
07-09-2008, 03:12 PM
Chito Narvasa and his NABRO boys are starting to make fun of the league this early with all those silly rules


Silly or not the teams agree so everyone should face the consequence.

TruVerde
07-09-2008, 03:20 PM
EVERYONE and not SELECTIVE!!!!

shyboy
07-09-2008, 04:01 PM
Chito Narvasa and his NABRO boys are starting to make fun of the league this early with all those silly rules*


Silly or not the teams agree so everyone should face the consequence.

Wala namang sinasabi na we don't agree with the consequence. The question is why is it only La Salle was penalized? That's the clarification being asked.

bchoter
07-09-2008, 04:12 PM
So what are we suggesting? That DLSU should not have been penalized because another team who, earlier, violated the same rule was not penalized? Taking if futher, should we then just abandon the rule because, again, a team was not penalized inspite of their violation of the same rule? Or do we do what was suggested in the BEN that UE be given two technical foul shots that, if they convert, will be added to their final tally?

For purpose of discussion are we saying that a certain team was being singled out? That there is an uneven application of hte rule? Are we then discounting the possibility that the officials were negligent in the previous game?

Nananadya o sadyang naging t@nga?

easter
07-09-2008, 04:14 PM
Chito Narvasa and his NABRO boys are starting to make fun of the league this early with all those silly rules


Silly or not the teams agree so everyone should face the consequence.

Wala namang sinasabi na we don't agree with the consequence. The question is why is it only La Salle was penalized? That's the clarification being asked.


So dapat ayusin yung mali. Yung sa DLSU tama ang implementation ng rules.

Yung kay Pido mali. Ano ngayon ang gagawin sa UST.

easter
07-09-2008, 04:26 PM
Or do we do what was suggested in the BEN that UE be given two technical foul shots that, if they convert, will be added to their final tally?


Or kung gusto nila at the start of the next UST vs UE game in the 2nd round, two freethrows muna ang UE.

Howard the Duck
07-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Or do we do what was suggested in the BEN that UE be given two technical foul shots that, if they convert, will be added to their final tally?


Or kung gusto nila at the start of the next UST vs UE game in the 2nd round, two freethrows muna ang UE.

kung may bawi man dapat sa same opponent din ng UST ;D

or against either ateneo or la salle :D

bchoter
07-09-2008, 04:44 PM
Or do we do what was suggested in the BEN that UE be given two technical foul shots that, if they convert, will be added to their final tally?


Or kung gusto nila at the start of the next UST vs UE game in the 2nd round, two freethrows muna ang UE.
Sana wag ito kasi we're applying the penalties of a violation that happened in another game.

So ano nga ba ang gusto ng DLSU from the Commissioner's office? If Chito Narvasa admits that they erred in the UST game ok na ba yon sa DLSU?

Fried Green Tomato
07-09-2008, 05:25 PM
^

We welcome an open admission by Narvasa that he committed a boo-boo in not imposing the same violation, he had given to us, in the ue-ust game but if such gesture is not forthcoming then we want to make it on record that we did raise point of clarification for the inconsistency committed by the commissioner.

The DLSU letter is more for clarification purposes and NOT a protest letter (no doubt that Ateneo won the game fair & square). The uaap board is the right venue to elevate quries/clarifications and also, with the way Narvasa's demeanor, i think there's a need to review the bounds of his power. We do not mind penalty being given to us especially if we did commit an error but we're not going to take sitting down the selective application of a rule.

It just so happened that the imposition of the technical was made during our game... but what if it's the other way around? I'm sure ust would raise the same issue to the board also.

bchoter
07-09-2008, 05:33 PM
Is it also possible that they did not apply the rule selectively but an honest mistake on the part of the referees who called the UE-UST game? If so, should UE be given two technical FTs? Moving forward, what if this happens again in the future and that the 2 FTs can alter the result of the game?

Howard the Duck
07-09-2008, 05:35 PM
IMHO, it is a stupid rule whatever the consequences :P

stonecold316
07-09-2008, 05:45 PM
Ayusin na lang ang implementation ng rules at huwag ng magturo ng ibang UAAP teams.

nel
07-09-2008, 05:54 PM
Is it also possible that they did not apply the rule selectively but an honest mistake on the part of the referees who called the UE-UST game? If so, should UE be given two technical FTs? Moving forward, what if this happens again in the future and that the 2 FTs can alter the result of the game?


I don't think it's the job of the referees to check that the ID rule is being followed by people on the bench. Their job is to make sure that the game is played according to the rules of the game.

Yes, the ID rule is stupid, and what does that make the person who proposed it?

Personally, an admission that the rule was not consistently enforced should be enough. The results of the games last weekend are already final, and any errors in the past should not impact future games. However, if rules are to be implemented, then it should be on a consistent basis with no exceptions.

bchoter
07-09-2008, 06:18 PM
Personally I find it as a case of them being negligent in the UE-UST game rather than them going after DLSU.

Yes, the rule is stupid like most, if not all, here agree, and the same can be said to the person who proposed it. How about the persons who approved it?

pablohoney
07-09-2008, 06:25 PM
I know it's too early to judge and all, but don't you guys think that at this early in the season, with the ID rule controversy and the highly questionable calls by the NABROs among others, the UAAP Board has surpassed our humble expectations? ;D

Isama mo pa ang appointment ni Narvasa as the UAAP Commish, parang icing on the cake na. ;)


nel: The results of the games last weekend are already final, and any errors in the past should not impact future games. However, if rules are to be implemented, then it should be on a consistent basis with no exceptions.

Amen!

Dark Knight
07-09-2008, 06:34 PM
Narvasa is an Atenean if im not mistaken. ;D

pablohoney
07-09-2008, 06:38 PM
ooooops

deleted post

bchoter
07-09-2008, 06:39 PM
When Narvasa approached the table I thought I was watching a re-run of iskul bukol at Channel 13 :D

Skul namin sigurado ka...

easter
07-09-2008, 06:42 PM
Actually Narvasa isn't at fault. Again this rule was pre-approved so everyone should comply.

He and the refs I think made an honest mistake on Pido. So if there is a mistake it should be rectified. Penalized UST by adding two points to UE. Its that simple.

batangueño
07-09-2008, 07:18 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Upon review of the game tapes, the suspension slapped on UE Red Warrior Paul Lee as a result of two technical fouls has been reversed by Chito Narvasa. The referees who officiated on the UE vs UST game were also warned because their officiating was "questionable".

Narvasa, through a memo, further stated that the "trash talking and taunting" that Lee committed was suppose to have only received a warning and not a technical foul.

Also, the referees who officiated the Ateneo vs La Salle game last Sunday were suspended by Narvasa for a week because "they lost control of the game".


Gulo no? ;D

easter
07-09-2008, 07:24 PM
^ No this is good. May reason kung bakit nag-change ang penalty kay Paul Lee.

Plus it is evident that the refs lost control of the ADMU-DLSU game when Maierhoffer and Jobe were almost wrestling at each other. Plus lots of trash talking in that game.

All of us wants someone to do something about the officiating. Now it is being done.

batangueño
07-09-2008, 07:30 PM
But Kabayang easter, don't you think that such scenarios would also undermine Narvasa's control over his NABRO boys? I mean, if Narvasa's really in full control, the rules are set and being implemented properly and the NABRO boys might actually be in control of the games that they are officiating (unless, of course, they are doing Binondo a huge favor). ???

However, Narvasa still refuses to answer issues regarding the technical foul charged on the La Salle bench due to the ID. What a knucklehead! >:(

easter
07-09-2008, 07:33 PM
NABRO can actually do whatever it wants during the game but after that Narvasa has control. he can reward or penalize refs for their performances. This is where he can show his control.

About DLSU and the ID, again they made a violation so that was the right call.

What we should wait for is what Narvasa will do to UST.

batangueño
07-09-2008, 07:37 PM
Kabayang easter, maybe we should look into the FIBA rule book regarding the issue of IDs, if ever there is such a rule on that. I do not think that a technical foul just because the staff forgot to wear their IDs is fair. Perhaps a warning would suffice for the first offense but the next time the same violation was committed again, then the technical should be charged.

As for UST (and, apparently, NU), well, let's see if Narvasa would slap them a technical for not wearing IDs just like the technical slapped on La Salle last Sunday. Also, can we check if the ID that Norman Black was wearing really his? ;D

easter
07-09-2008, 08:03 PM
Kabayang easter, maybe we should look into the FIBA rule book regarding the issue of IDs, if ever there is such a rule on that. I do not think that a technical foul just because the staff forgot to wear their IDs is fair. Perhaps a warning would suffice for the first offense but the next time the same violation was committed again, then the technical should be charged.


Again kabayang batangueño, if this rule was made with the consensus of majority then walang magagawa kahit na its stupid. Pumayag eh sana sa simula pa lang umayaw na sila. Kaso walang umimik. Why make a rule and not enforce it?

I really don't think we need the FIBA rule book on this. More on administrative lang ito ng UAAP.

Howard the Duck
07-09-2008, 11:52 PM
kung pinagkasundaan na one technical foul = no ID kahit wala sa FIBA rules accepted yun

batangueño
07-10-2008, 12:06 AM
kung pinagkasundaan na one technical foul = no ID kahit wala sa FIBA rules accepted yun

I guess there is no problem with La Salle accepting the penalty for failing to wear an ID during last Sunday's game if it was already a consensus within the league. The problem really is if Narvasa would punish UST (no offense to Kabayang Howard the Duck, Manong bchoter and the rest of our friends from UST) for committing the same mistake last Saturday. It was pretty clear that Pido was not wearing an ID then and yet the NABRO boys and Chito Narvasa did not charge him and UST with a technical foul unlike when Franz Pumaren failed to wear his ID during the Ateneo-La Salle game last Sunday.

This photograph, I guess, speaks for itself.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2vc73b6.jpg

Narvasa should be FAIR in implementing the rules. That's what most people are complaining of.

Howard the Duck
07-10-2008, 12:20 AM
kung pinagkasundaan na one technical foul = no ID kahit wala sa FIBA rules accepted yun

I guess there is no problem with La Salle accepting the penalty for failing to wear an ID during last Sunday's game if it was already a consensus within the league. The problem really is if Narvasa would punish UST (no offense to Kabayang Howard the Duck, Manong bchoter and the rest of our friends from UST) for committing the same mistake last Saturday. It was pretty clear that Pido was not wearing an ID then and yet the NABRO boys and Chito Narvasa did not charge him and UST with a technical foul unlike when Franz Pumaren failed to wear his ID during the Ateneo-La Salle game last Sunday.

This photograph, I guess, speaks for itself.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2vc73b6.jpg

Narvasa should be FAIR in implementing the rules. That's what most people are complaining of.


ang problema kasi if they'll still punish UST. i for one wouldn't care. but if they'll do punish UST, sa round 2 na, walang +2 points for UE (paano kung panalo ang UST by 2 points?) or sa immediate next game ng UST ang punishment (ano bang kinalaman ng UP sa nangyari last game?)

at saka lahat ng referees sa mundo, once they didn't see or notice it, it means it never happened. parang wrestling :D

and i've read that franz himself refused to wear the IDs. i dunno if pido was reprimanded.

batangueño
07-10-2008, 12:27 AM
Kabayang Howard the Duck, regarding the referees who officiated last Saturday's UE-UST game, one of them was Boyong Mañalac. That guy has so many "fans" both in the UAAP and the NCAA. :D

Well anyway, that, I think, is the whole issue at this point. If Narvasa punished La Salle with a technical foul for failing to wear an ID, how come he could not do the same to other schools that committed the same offense? ???

Howard the Duck
07-10-2008, 12:29 AM
Kabayang Howard the Duck, regarding the referees who officiated last Saturday's UE-UST game, one of them was Boyong Mañalac. That guy has so many "fans" both in the UAAP and the NCAA. :D

Well anyway, that, I think, is the whole issue at this point. If Narvasa punished La Salle with a technical foul for failing to wear an ID, how come he could not do the same to other schools that committed the same offense? ???

maybe UE hasn't protested? after all they're the ones affected?

but i doubt if UE will protest since they've won the game. will UE allow DLSU to protest in behalf of them?

no request = no action

batangueño
07-10-2008, 12:35 AM
Hay naku! Ewan ko na lang. Kakasimula pa lang ng bagong UAAP season, nagkaloko-loko na kaagad dahil sa... Oh well... Nevermind. ::)

Howard the Duck
07-10-2008, 12:38 AM
Hay naku! Ewan ko na lang. Kakasimula pa lang ng bagong UAAP season, nagkaloko-loko na kaagad dahil sa... Oh well... Nevermind. ::)

akala ko ba ADMU ang isang naka-hitlist ng mga.... nevermind ::) :p

batangueño
07-10-2008, 12:42 AM
akala ko ba ADMU ang isang naka-hitlist ng mga.... nevermind ::) :p

Buti nga sana kung mga Atenista lang ang nasa hitlist eh. Ngayon, pati mga Lasalista, nagrereklamo na din. Actually, pati yung isang technical na charge kay Aboy Castro nung Sunday, ikinaiinis ko din kasi mali yung tawag nila. Hay... ::)

Narvasa! Gising! >:(

bchoter
07-10-2008, 10:07 AM
Question. Pano kung sa isang game nagmura ang coach at hindi natawagan ng referees but a video recording clearly shows na nagmura yung coach... dapat bang patawan ng technical foul yung coach sa next game niya? Or bigyan ng 2 FTs yung nakalaban to be added to their final score? On the succeeding games ba puwede ng sabihin ng coach na wag siyang tawagan ng technical foul kasi hindi tinawagan yung coach ng previous game?

Howard the Duck
07-10-2008, 10:43 AM
^ ang alam ko dati sa NCAA, junel baculi was caught showing the dirty finger on tape and he was suspended the next game. walang techs on the next game/matchup

bchoter
07-10-2008, 10:45 AM
^ Coach Pido came out with a statement that UST is willing to be sanctioned on the next game. Kung gusto ng UAAP plus 2 na ang UP.

pablohoney
07-10-2008, 10:55 AM
^ Coach Pido came out with a statement that UST is willing to be sanctioned on the next game. Kung suto ng UAAP plus 2 na ang UP.


Kung ganun rin lang Manong, mabuti pang i-award na lang ang +2 points sa UE, para matigil na ang iba. ;D

Howard the Duck
07-10-2008, 11:03 AM
di pa naman nagagawa sa ibang tourney yang +2 na yan ah.

suspension na lang kung gusto nila ng parusa

batangueño
07-10-2008, 11:34 AM
Ngayon pa lang, mga Kabayan, naiisip niyo na ba na first week of competitions pa lang eh umeepal na si Narvasa? Ang gulo niya eh. Parang gusto niyang pagtripan tayong lahat na UAAP members. >:(

We should have heeded the warnings of our NCAA friends, most especially the Bedans. Baka bukas o makalawa, maghamon na din ng suntukan si Chito. :o ;D

bchoter
07-10-2008, 11:37 AM
Well he is your school's choice. Siguro nararapat na mag welga ka sa kinauukulan :D

batangueño
07-10-2008, 11:44 AM
Well he is your school's choice. Siguro nararapat na mag welga ka sa kinauukulan :D

Ewan ko dyan kina Sergio Cao at Herky Callanta at sa lahat naman ng tao na pwedeng piliin, si NCAA reject Narvasa pa. Sa bagay, naubusan na siguro sila ng oras kakaisip ng tao na bukod kay Joe Lipa ay pwedeng maging Kume. Ang problema, Kunsumisyoner ang nakuha nila sa halip na Commissioner. ::)

Manong bchoter, teka muna. Di ba ang pagpili ng Commissioner ng UAAP ay may concurrence ng BUONG UAAP board? Damay-damay lang din pati yung members na mula sa pitong iba pang miyembro ng ating liga. ;D

As kung may welga, ewan ko pero nai-suggest ko na magkaroon ng "Narvasa Resign" banners sa tuwing may laro ang La Salle at UP tutal magkasabay naman yung dalawa sa schedule at para malaman nina Cao at Callanta ang pagkainis ng mga tao kay NCAA reject Narvasa. Ingat nga lang kasi baka i-charge ang mga may hawak ng "Narvasa resign" banners ng technical foul for excessive complaining and improper crowd decorum. :o ::)

easter
07-10-2008, 02:36 PM
Ano po ba ang gusto nyong gawin ni Narvasa para maayos ang lahat ng ito? Ano ba ang inaasahang solusyon sa reklamong ito?

bchoter
07-10-2008, 03:20 PM
^ Mea Culpa yata.

Dark Knight
07-10-2008, 07:40 PM
Also, the referees who officiated the Ateneo vs La Salle game last Sunday were suspended by Narvasa for a week because "they lost control of the game".


Gulo no? ;D


Narvasa should explain "they lost control of the game". Or they lost count of the free throws. ;D

Next, no briefs = technical foul. :D

easter
07-11-2008, 08:58 AM
Case is closed na daw.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=124797

asianthom
07-11-2008, 10:56 AM
nakakatawa naman ang lasal they're making coach pido as an example.
sa ateneans naman di ba you hate stupid rules. im just wondering bakit ur so tahimik here when u were so galit with mrs francisco for enforcing what you called a stupid rule. that atenean_blooded was so galit in pex.

gfy
07-11-2008, 11:59 AM
I am not sure but don't they require IDs in the US NCAA or in most basketball competitions abroad? I think Narvasa should have made some allowance for this new and not-so-critical rule to be strictly enforced. At least a week. My quarrel with Mrs. Francisco is the 5-min rule was also new at that time and I heard the Blu Babble had already practiced the routine so it couldn't be cut off just like that. And that they didn't know or were properly notified by school authorities, correct me if I am wrong.The thing is what's a minute or two anyway? Warning first. Next time lower the boom. Everybody is just so uptight.

pablohoney
07-11-2008, 01:16 PM
I am not sure but don't they require IDs in the US NCAA or in most basketball competitions abroad? I think Narvasa should have made some allowance for this new and not-so-critical rule to be strictly enforced. At least a week. My quarrel with Mrs. Francisco is the 5-min rule was also new at that time and I heard the Blu Babble had already practiced the routine so it couldn't be cut off just like that. And that they didn't know or were properly notified by school authorities, correct me if I am wrong.The thing is what's a minute or two anyway? Warning first. Next time lower the boom. Everybody is just so uptight.


Ok lang siguro kung ADMU lang ang magpeperform/nagperform nuon.
Pero hindi ba palaging hati sa oras ang pagperform during halftime? ???
Sa pagkakaalam ko, kung sino ang lamang na team siya ang unang magpeperform parati during the halftimes.
Sa game na iyun, lamang ata ang UST coming into the second half.

Anwyay, same difference lang ang 5-Minute Rule and the ID Rule -- both are stupid BUT they were approved by the Board, and as such, dapat magcomply lahat.
Siyempre natural lang magreact ang DLSU (ID rule) at ADMU (5-minute rule) dahil sila ang (sabihin na nating:) may magkukulang.

Coach Pido is willing to have UP shoot 2 fts sa laban bukas.

Pero with the way NARVASA is handling things, bad precedent ito.

By the way, may point si asianthom
(kahit na "let's-make-tusok-the-fishball".) ;D

gfy
07-11-2008, 04:05 PM
I think the rules are ok. The 5-min rule is ok because some pep squads were taking 8 or so minutes before. It's just that it was the first game, I think, after the rule was agreed upon (on a Thursday) and our game was that Saturday. So warning after the performance would have been sufficient instead of Mrs. Francisco going to the table pressing the buzzer like crazy.

glock23
07-11-2008, 05:13 PM
Ano po ba ang gusto nyong gawin ni Narvasa para maayos ang lahat ng ito? Ano ba ang inaasahang solusyon sa reklamong ito?


aminin lang nya na nag kamali sya, ok na! and while that may be a tall order to ask a man of his 'stature'....A haircut would suffice! ;D Carry on chaps!

jembengzon
07-11-2008, 06:21 PM
Ano po ba ang gusto nyong gawin ni Narvasa para maayos ang lahat ng ito? Ano ba ang inaasahang solusyon sa reklamong ito?


aminin lang nya na nag kamali sya, ok na! and while that may be a tall order to ask a man of his 'stature'....A haircut would suffice!* ;D Carry on chaps!


glock23, di pwede yung haircut, uso yung retro daw* ;D

glock23
07-11-2008, 06:43 PM
Ano po ba ang gusto nyong gawin ni Narvasa para maayos ang lahat ng ito? Ano ba ang inaasahang solusyon sa reklamong ito?


aminin lang nya na nag kamali sya, ok na! and while that may be a tall order to ask a man of his 'stature'....A haircut would suffice! ;D Carry on chaps!


glock23, di pwede yung haircut, uso yung retro daw ;D



;D

Howard the Duck
07-11-2008, 07:10 PM
oo nga dapat na siyang magpagupit para mukhang kagalang-galang naman siya


at para sundin na siya ni coach norman next time ;D


PS: No ID, no entry... after the game? (http://howard-the-duck.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-id-no-entry-after-game.html")

skinheadz
07-13-2008, 11:51 AM
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g32/bokalbz/uaap/DSC05507.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g32/bokalbz/uaap/DSC05508.jpg

Howard the Duck
07-13-2008, 01:06 PM
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g32/bokalbz/uaap/DSC05507.jpg

parang feeling api ah ;D



http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g32/bokalbz/uaap/DSC05508.jpg

tama! :P

BigBlue
07-13-2008, 01:40 PM
wow, all this because of two lousy freethrows?

glock23
07-13-2008, 02:07 PM
wow, all this because of two lousy freethrows?


wow are you really serious? you think it's just about two lousy freethrows? :o

atenean_blooded
07-13-2008, 02:16 PM
nakakatawa naman ang lasal they're making coach pido as an example.
sa ateneans naman di ba you hate stupid rules. im just wondering bakit ur so tahimik here when u were so galit with mrs francisco for enforcing what you called a stupid rule. that atenean_blooded was so galit in pex.


A few quick points:

1. My beef with Francisco was her acting like a bad host, among other things. And my sentiments on stupid rules were not related to the 5-minute rule, but to the drum-limit rule that made absolutely no sense when it was implemented mid-year, especially since other pep squads had just acquired more equipment.

2. In this situation, I did mention in one thread that the call made by Narvasa was weird. But while I find nothing wrong with an ID-wearing rule per se, I too wonder whether or not it deserves technical free throws, according to the interpretation of the league officials, which La Salle and other member schools have consented to submit themselves to. An ID-wearing rule seems fine, especially during big games like Ateneo-La Salle games, arguably for security reasons. (Of course, I would have expected the officials to be familiar with Franz Pumaren, at the very least.) However, I am quite certain that this situation would not have been blown into the proportions it has been had La Salle won the basketball game. Removing the two free throws that ensued would have simply reduced the Ateneo's winning margin.

3. That said, let me be perfectly clear when I say Narvasa should not act as a fourth referee. As commissioner, he should act upon controversies when they are given to him for resolution, especially if things can be sorted out without his intervention. And while he can be proactive in keeping referees and officiating in check, he should do so in a manner that is above reproach.

4. La Salle has not been clear on what it wants, though. *All the news accounts say is that La Salle wants the Board to "rectify" what La Salle perceives as an error or lack of fairness in the application of rules. *While La Salle itself allegedly did not supply the picture of Pido Jarencio (given instead by some supporter of theirs, or so the discussion goes), the fact that La Salle invokes this incident doesn't seem to take into account that such was the operative fact. It was perhaps unfortunate that it was La Salle that got tagged for violating a rule. Ok, so we're there. But now that UST's coach has even asked to be punished if the league thought it necessary, what does La Salle want now? I don't think they'll get an apology from Narvasa, who has been attacked, castigated, and maligned in various online fora by their supporters (unless, of course, he takes the higher road, which is the only road he can take). A removal of the two points scored on the free throws will not change the outcome of La Salle's loss to the Ateneo. So now, what does La Salle want? Until that becomes clear, I don't think we'll have any clear resolution of this sorry situation.

Howard the Duck
07-13-2008, 03:43 PM
actually kung tinanggal ang 2 FTs baka maiba ang quotient lalo na kung both ADMU and DLSU wounds up tied with another team (kasi kung sila lang din ang tied dadaanin na lang sa extra game)

atenean_blooded
07-14-2008, 12:39 AM
actually kung tinanggal ang 2 FTs baka maiba ang quotient lalo na kung both ADMU and DLSU wounds up tied with another team (kasi kung sila lang din ang tied dadaanin na lang sa extra game)


Parang long-term investment pala yan. ;D

Howard the Duck
07-14-2008, 01:52 AM
actually kung tinanggal ang 2 FTs baka maiba ang quotient lalo na kung both ADMU and DLSU wounds up tied with another team (kasi kung sila lang din ang tied dadaanin na lang sa extra game)


Parang long-term investment pala yan. ;D

every point goes a long way esp. in ADMU-DLSU games ;D

pablohoney
07-14-2008, 10:51 AM
atenean_blooded:1. My beef with Francisco was her acting like a bad host, among other things. And my sentiments on stupid rules were not related to the 5-minute rule, but to the drum-limit rule that made absolutely no sense when it was implemented mid-year, especially since other pep squads had just acquired more equipment.

The drum-limit rule was implemented way back 2002, IIRC, when Adamson was the host.
The rule has been applied inconsistently since it was passed.
Perhaps it was because it was only Mrs. Fransisco who had the "balls" to enforce the rule, which made her very unpopular. Add that she was somewhat forced to police the ranks of other school's supporters/pep squads, because other school/board reps were somewhat absent at just the right time.
And to think the rule also has directly impacted USTYJ as well, til now.

atenean_blooded
07-14-2008, 11:26 AM
atenean_blooded:1. My beef with Francisco was her acting like a bad host, among other things. And my sentiments on stupid rules were not related to the 5-minute rule, but to the drum-limit rule that made absolutely no sense when it was implemented mid-year, especially since other pep squads had just acquired more equipment.

The drum-limit rule was implemented way back 2002, IIRC, when Adamson was the host.
The rule has been applied inconsistently since it was passed.
Perhaps it was because it was only Mrs. Fransisco who had the "balls" to enforce the rule, which made her very unpopular. Add that she was somewhat forced to police the ranks of other school's supporters/pep squads, because other school/board reps were somewhat absent at just the right time.
And to think the rule also has directly impacted USTYJ as well, til now.


Well, she certainly showed more balls than Matibag.

pablohoney
07-15-2008, 06:04 PM
atenean_blooded:1. My beef with Francisco was her acting like a bad host, among other things. And my sentiments on stupid rules were not related to the 5-minute rule, but to the drum-limit rule that made absolutely no sense when it was implemented mid-year, especially since other pep squads had just acquired more equipment.

The drum-limit rule was implemented way back 2002, IIRC, when Adamson was the host.
The rule has been applied inconsistently since it was passed.
Perhaps it was because it was only Mrs. Fransisco who had the "balls" to enforce the rule, which made her very unpopular. Add that she was somewhat forced to police the ranks of other school's supporters/pep squads, because other school/board reps were somewhat absent at just the right time.
And to think the rule also has directly impacted USTYJ as well, til now.


Well, she certainly showed more balls than Matibag.


Hell, yeah. ;D

bchoter
07-28-2008, 02:16 PM
Hindi ba UST ang nag propose ng 16-man roster for this season? Aba'y pabor na pabor sa amin ah :D

batangueño
07-28-2008, 03:13 PM
Hindi pa yata napapag-usapan dito yung P100,000 bond na kailangan i-post kapag mag-file ng protesta. Kailan pa na-approve ang bagong rule na yan? ;) ;D

nastrans
07-28-2008, 03:29 PM
Kababayan, this season lang naapprove ang rule na yan. Apparently, talagang rule yan sa FIBA but 450 na dolyares lang ang babayarang bond.

Yun nga lang masyadong hefty ang 100,000 na pisong bond na yan.

batangueño
07-28-2008, 03:57 PM
Kabayang nastrans, matindi talaga ang UAAP. Biruin mo, yung bond na dapat i-post bago maghain ng protesta ay mas malaki pa kaysa sa mga piyansa ng heinous crimes dito sa atin. Magagaling talaga masyado itong mga nasa UAAP board pagdating sa usaping pera. ;) ;D

31gna
07-28-2008, 06:22 PM
nakalagay ba kung san mapupunta ang 100K na ito?

Fried Green Tomato
07-28-2008, 06:36 PM
^
pandagdag sa allowance ng board members.

Mataas na kasi bilihin kaya kawawa naman mga board members dahil kailangang magkaroon ng extra board meeting kapag may protest. Sa gas pa lang lugi na sila. ::)

Howard the Duck
07-28-2008, 10:14 PM
di ba dapat kahit anong mangyayari ibabalik ang bond? ???

bchoter
08-01-2008, 10:31 AM
I hope the referees will soon outlaw flopping in the uAAP. napakasakit sa mata ang mga artista. And the referees keep biting.

And the best actor is...

GHRanger
08-01-2008, 11:01 AM
I agree manong - nagpapabagal sa laro at nakakasawa at sakit tingnan.

joelex
08-01-2008, 11:08 AM
I hope the referees will soon outlaw flopping in the uAAP. napakasakit sa mata ang mga artista. And the referees keep biting.

And the best actor is...


i dont think that there shouldve been a foul called on Ben Fernandez on Chris Tiu during a crucial stage of the game when they were both at the midcourt line, that is just physical D and Macky Escalona has been doing it all his career. The refs just totally bought Chris Tiu's acting.

Fried Green Tomato
08-01-2008, 11:15 AM
I hope the referees will soon outlaw flopping in the uAAP. napakasakit sa mata ang mga artista. And the referees keep biting.

And the best actor is...


gawing foul na rin yang flopping. tignan ko lang kung may magtangka pang gumawa.

... hindi pa nga natatampi tumitilapon na! Baka yon natutuhan sa US training nila?

bchoter
08-01-2008, 11:19 AM
I was just actually feeling bitter after we lost to the Warriors and the Tamarawas with Arellano and Cawaling and Barroca flopping left and right :D

We also have out share of "floppers" with Carlos leading the worst actor category. He flew like 5 ft after a silght shove from JV :D

Howard the Duck
08-15-2008, 01:59 AM
Is it a good idea for the UAAP to use the Page playoff system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_playoff_system)? Of course in the finals best-of-three pa rin. this will also remove the twice to beat advantage.


dunno if this is the correct place for this...

atenista_comm
08-15-2008, 02:06 PM
Is it a good idea for the UAAP to use the Page playoff system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_playoff_system)? Of course in the finals best-of-three pa rin. this will also remove the twice to beat advantage.


dunno if this is the correct place for this...


It is quite similar with the stepladder format that we have, right?

Howard the Duck
08-15-2008, 03:35 PM
Is it a good idea for the UAAP to use the Page playoff system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_playoff_system)? Of course in the finals best-of-three pa rin. this will also remove the twice to beat advantage.


dunno if this is the correct place for this...


It is quite similar with the stepladder format that we have, right?


yeah but the first round matchups are 1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 4. the winner of the 1 vs. 2 advances to the finals outright while the winner of the 3 vs. 4 will face the 1 vs. 2 loser in the semis.

i dunno if this a "fairer" setup but it does cut down the maximum number of games from 7 to 6, but the minimum number of games goes up from 4 to 5...

and we'd get to see a #1 vs. #2 game four times max every postseason

bg_eagle
08-26-2008, 06:42 PM
Is it a good idea for the UAAP to use the Page playoff system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_playoff_system)? Of course in the finals best-of-three pa rin. this will also remove the twice to beat advantage.


dunno if this is the correct place for this...


It is quite similar with the stepladder format that we have, right?


yeah but the first round matchups are 1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 4. the winner of the 1 vs. 2 advances to the finals outright while the winner of the 3 vs. 4 will face the 1 vs. 2 loser in the semis.

i dunno if this a "fairer" setup but it does cut down the maximum number of games from 7 to 6, but the minimum number of games goes up from 4 to 5...

and we'd get to see a #1 vs. #2 game four times max every postseason


I think the current set-up would be more exciting and more fair. The top 2 seeds, particularly the second seed would be at a disadvantage. There would practically be no advantage for the 2nd seed especially if the race between 2nd and 3rd is close.

If we remember last year's step ladder format, DLSU was 2, Ateneo was 3 and UST was 4. If we applied this system, DLSU would have been eliminated in the semifinals leading to a UE-Ateneo finals. Under such a scenario, the eventual champions would have been eliminated. While I am not in any position to judge if that would have been more just, it demonstrates a flaw in the system because it does take away the advantage of a 2nd seed which is the twice to beat advantage.

Howard the Duck
08-26-2008, 11:07 PM
Is it a good idea for the UAAP to use the Page playoff system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_playoff_system)? Of course in the finals best-of-three pa rin. this will also remove the twice to beat advantage.


dunno if this is the correct place for this...


It is quite similar with the stepladder format that we have, right?


yeah but the first round matchups are 1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 4. the winner of the 1 vs. 2 advances to the finals outright while the winner of the 3 vs. 4 will face the 1 vs. 2 loser in the semis.

i dunno if this a "fairer" setup but it does cut down the maximum number of games from 7 to 6, but the minimum number of games goes up from 4 to 5...

and we'd get to see a #1 vs. #2 game four times max every postseason


I think the current set-up would be more exciting and more fair. The top 2 seeds, particularly the second seed would be at a disadvantage. There would practically be no advantage for the 2nd seed especially if the race between 2nd and 3rd is close.

If we remember last year's step ladder format, DLSU was 2, Ateneo was 3 and UST was 4. If we applied this system, DLSU would have been eliminated in the semifinals leading to a UE-Ateneo finals. Under such a scenario, the eventual champions would have been eliminated. While I am not in any position to judge if that would have been more just, it demonstrates a flaw in the system because it does take away the advantage of a 2nd seed which is the twice to beat advantage.

we can't simply carry over the results since the scenarios are different. and the proposed system would only work if there is no undefeated team. last year there was an undefeated team so the stepladder was used, which is totally fair if only used correctly.

a better comparison will be on 2006. #1 ADMU vs #2 UE and #3 UST vs. #4 ADU (no sense for the 3rd seed playoff) in the semis, then the winner of #1 vs. #2 goes to the finals while the loser and the #3 vs. #4 winner goes to the prelim final.

also, the race for #2 will be just as important as it is now since a #2 spot can give you a ride all the way to the finals without going through the semis where you can still be beaten.

plus i think the twice to beat advantage makes it really hard for the lower seed to enter the finals. not as if the difference in standings is that wide (in 2005, nos. 1-3 had the same 10-4 records!). buti pa sana kung malayo ang agwat ng teams.