The sense I get is that it has to do with the reasons for the dismissal. If a player is "run-off," it's a mutual benefit. Team gets scholarship, player gets to go play right away. Win win all the way around. If a player is dismissed due to discipline, the coach may have no choice but to come to that conclusion. It's a self-inflicted "dismissal." Yes, the player is forced to transfer to continue his D1 career, but does that warrant an exception to play earlier than you should? I'm sure that was along the lines of what Georgetown said when asked, that "Look, if it wasn't for X and Y, we would hope Antwan was still with us. We didn't have a choice given his behavior."URIRecruitingInfo wrote: ↑4 years agoI don't know the technical answer (if there is one) but run-offs are performance related and dismissals are conduct related. The thing about run-offs is they are completely off the record so to get a waiver after being run-off, the former coach has to fully admit to the run-off. It makes no sense why the NCAA considers what the former coach has to say for a waiver after a dismissal. He wasn't suspended, he was dismissed so he had to transfer.
As others have indicated, what advantage is there for Georgetown to play nice? Gtown and URI are competing for bids and recruits. If Walker had chosen North Dakota St., maybe they don't put up as big of a counter-offensive. But I also don't think that makes them wrong. I think if URI (or PC) had a talented player on the roster who a coach was forced to dismiss due to discipline, the thought wouldn't be "What can we do to get that player to play faster" and I also don't think many fans want to be pushing for earlier eligibility. Just a hunch, maybe I'm speaking for myself on that one.