WAITING GAME
Lobos say Bragg was “run off ” at ASU, thus should be eligible now
UNM still trying to get highly touted Carlton Bragg on the court before December 16
Despite the NCAA denying its waiver claim once, the University of New Mexico’s fight to get junior power forward Carlton Bragg on the court before Dec. 16 continues.
And letters obtained by the Journal making the case for Bragg’s immediate eligibility seem to indicate he also has the blessing of his former school.
“We have consulted with other Division I compliance offices as well as outside legal counsel,” UNM athletic director Eddie Nuñez wrote to the NCAA’s Legislative Relief Appeals Committee on Oct. 31. “All these parties are as unanimously perplexed as we are in that this case clearly meets all the (requirements) . ... Though we are all disappointed it has come this far, we are hopeful that this appeals committee will see the facts as currently presented.” They didn’t. The NCAA on Nov. 6 denied UNM’s appeal for a waiver that would have allowed the for-
mer Kansas Jayhawk, who was enrolled for less than a semester last year at Arizona State and never played a game, to join his Lobo teammates in games immediately rather than wait until the end of the fall semester, which is when he is slated to become eligible.
NCAA rules require players to sit out a full calendar year after the completion of any semester in which they were enrolled at another Division I school. Bragg, who enrolled at UNM in January on his own dime and was later placed on scholarship over the summer, was enrolled at ASU only for the fall semester of the 2017-18 academic year.
That means he can play in games (he is already a full participant in practice) after the completion of this fall semester at UNM, the first of which for the Lobos is Dec. 16 against Central Arkansas.
But the NCAA allows for exceptions for players who were deemed “runoff” from their previous school for “reasons outside the control of the studentathlete” when the player is still academically eligible and on pace to graduate within the standard fiveyear window, which Bragg is.
The intent of the rule is not to penalize players who simply fell out of favor with one program.
According to Nuñez’s letter and UNM’s documentation submitted to the NCAA, ASU Director of Compliance Steve Webb wrote to UNM on Oct. 24 that the Sun Devils “basketball staff made the decision that Carlton was not a good fit for the team and was therefore dismissed” and that “there was no institutional rule or policy that would have prohibited his return.”
UNM is not indicating what led ASU to deem Bragg wasn’t a good fit, and Bragg has not spoken to media about his waiver situation. UNM is pointing to the letter of the NCAA law that states if the player is removed from the team but still is in good academic standing, he meets the run-off directive.
Nuñez’s letter also quoted a text message from ASU coach Bobby Hurley to Bragg that again showed the program had been working to help UNM’s case.
“(Hurley) texted Carlton, ‘We can’t do anything more than we have already done for your case,’ ” Nuñez wrote.
UNM’s case rests on this point: Unless Bragg was kicked off the team for a specific rule violation, which ASU says is not the case, the NCAA should rule in his favor.
UNM Faculty Athletics Representative Amy T. Neel also reviewed the case and has asked the NCAA’s Legislative Relief Appeals Committee to reconsider.
“According to the emails and texts that I have been shown,” Neel wrote in a letter obtained by the Journal, “Mr. Bragg was in good standing with ASU and the basketball team when he was released from the team for lack of fit. I hope you will allow him to play for UNM this fall without serving a year in residence.”
Lobos coach Paul Weir said last week he was shocked by the NCAA’s ruling and reiterated on Wednesday that UNM has not yet exhausted its options on trying to get Bragg on the court sooner rather than later.
“I’d be lying if I said I haven’t spent over a 100 man-hours on this over the past couple of months with compliance, with attorneys, with professors, with you name it as far as trying to put my arms around it and understand it as best we can,” Weir said last week. “I think we all have conflicts of interest in various areas. As I try to pride myself in understanding that concept, I’ve shared this information with as many people I respect as I know … people who can give me a straight answer – either ‘Paul you’re right’ or ‘Paul you’re wrong.’ I’ve yet to meet someone to tell me that they would have adjudicated the case the same way. Very confusing to me.”
A message left with the NCAA seeking comment on Wednesday was not returned.