Lucca Staiger to Represent the Cyclones Internationally This Summer.
The NCAA has again handed down a ruling against an Iowa State athlete. You may not know Lucca Staiger yet, but you would have come basketball season. He was ruled inelligible because he played on a club team in Germany where other players had been "PAID". Lucca Staiger has never been paid money. Thus, he shouldn't have been suspended. Please, Visit this link to sign the petition.
Freshman basketball player at Iowa State University, is ineligible for the entire year. This decision stems from Lucca’s participation on the Ehingen Club team in his native Germany when he was only in high school. The NCAA Amateurism Certification Program, in its first year of existence, concluded that the Ehingen team was “professional” because two of the players on the team received benefits in excess of NCAA limits. Due solely to his participation on this team, the NCAA imposed the maximum penalty of one year’s loss in eligibility, even though Lucca did not personally receive any improper compensation. The same penalty was also levied on Lucca’s former teammate Fabian Boeke of Washington State University.
The truly sad thing is that Lucca tried to do everything in his power to ensure that he would be eligible to play college basketball in the United States. He made contact with the NCAA to check on eligibility guidelines, and chose the Ehingen Club team in part because he thought it would allow him to maintain his eligibility, and past players from the same club have not encountered any difficulty playing in the United States. Lucca also ensured that he never received any improper compensation.
How can you get involved?
- Sign the petition!
Reinstate Lucca Staiger
- Discuss with other Cyclone fans!
- Share your thoughts!
Post your comments here
- Join a Facebook group!
Save Lucca from the NCAA
Re-Instate Lucca Staiger
(Both require Facebook login)
- Spread the word! Contact local and national media outlets.
Media Contact Information
Essentially, the NCAA imposed the maximum possible sentence on a kid who tried to do everything right and never received any improper personal benefits. Contrasting this penalty with those received by other individuals who knowingly broke well established rules shows the injustice of this decision.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?