Class of 2015 C/PF Thomas Bryant (NY) Verballed to Indiana

[jordoo]

And its no secret what guys he is talking about.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Not according to PS article that we need 4 to leave to get Bryant. I'm confused

 

[jekelish]

SR - Cooney
SR - Gbinije
JR - Patterson
JR - Johnson
JR - Obokoh
JR - Coleman
JR - Roberson
SO - McCullough
SO - Joseph
FR - Diagne
FR - Richardson
FR - Lydon
FR - Howard

That junior class is not going to be intact next season. I will honestly be a little stunned if we ever see Coleman suit up for Syracuse again, because I just don't think his body will ever be able to take it.

So the next year...

Minus Cooney, Gbinije, and some combination of Coleman/Patterson/Johnson/Obokoh, possibly Joseph

Put it in these terms:

SR - Roberson
SR - (unnamed)
(say we lose 3 of the 5 juniors between now and then, which I think is realistic)
JR - Joseph
(McCullough won't stay past next year)
SO - Diagne
SO - Richardson
SO - Lydon
SO - Howard
FR - Moyer

That would be eight scholarships. Put one more of Coleman/Patterson/Johnson/Obokoh back on the roster, that's still only 9 scholarships. And that's with only losing two of the rising juniors. That leaves space for either Bryant this year, or Battle next year. If only 2 of 5 juniors return, as outlined above, there'd be room for BOTH Bryant and Battle, since the scholarship reduction, the way I read it, won't start until the 16-17 season.

 

[jekelish]

Not according to PS article that we need 4 to leave to get Bryant. I'm confused

That's the question - are we reducing to 12 next year? I've seen people mention that. I still don't see how that impacts Bryant, if someone leaves.

 

[Jack Hall]

Not according to PS article that we need 4 to leave to get Bryant. I'm confused

My take is we can have 10 schollys next year but we can delay some of these lost schollys and go over up to 13 based on '15 guys who have already accepted. So based on the 4 incoming freshmen we will have 13 schollys next year and we will delay losing 3 one year. So the only way to get Bryant is to have 4 guys leave that are not incoming freshmen, ie out if Pat, BJ, Chino, and Cole, G, etc 4 would have to leave to be able to accomodate TB?

 

[jekelish]

My take is we can have 10 schollys next year but we can delay some of these lost schollys and go over up to 13 based on '15 guys who have already accepted. So based on the 4 incoming freshmen we will have 13 schollys next year and we will delay losing 3 one year. So the only way to get Bryant is to have 3 guys leave that are not incoming freshmen, ie out if Pat, BJ, Chino, and Cole, 3 would have to leave

But I'm not seeing anything indicating we would only have 10 scholarships to work with next year, considering we already have 13, and the ruling says that if those offers have been executed, the penalty gets delayed one year to 16-17. I can't see anything in the ruling indicating next season is impacted at all in terms of scholarship reduction, unless the NCAA just didn't do a good job of making that clear.

 

[Jack Hall]

That's the question - are we reducing to 12 next year? I've seen people mention that. I still don't see how that impacts Bryant, if someone leaves.

We can only have 10 schollys at most for 16-17. But we can have 13 this year and could delay the start of losing 3 for one year, ie we would lose 3 for 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 and 19-20

 

[jekelish]

We can only have 10 schollys at most for 16-17. But we can have 13 this year the start of losing 3 for one year, ie we would lose 3 for 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19?

The four year penalty would be in place, but since we've executed offers for 15-16, it would begin a year later, so it would still be four years of reductions...moving it to 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20. That's what it appears to say in the ruling.

Specifically, this is what it says: "If the school has already executed scholarship offers for the 2015-16 year, the school may begin the four-year penalty with the 2016-17 year."

That indicates that it will not impact next year's roster AT ALL. So I'm not sure I'm following Mike's logic/math.

 

[Jack Hall]

The four year penalty would be in place, but since we've executed offers for 15-16, it would begin a year later, so it would still be four years of reductions...moving it to 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20. That's what it appears to say in the ruling.

Specifically, this is what it says: "If the school has already executed scholarship offers for the 2015-16 year, the school may begin the four-year penalty with the 2016-17 year."

That indicates that it will not impact next year's roster AT ALL. So I'm not sure I'm following Mike's logic/math.

We cant have TB unless we only have 10 schollys. If TB doesnt come we can have 13 and delay just as you wrote

 

[jekelish]

We cant have TB unless we only have 10 schollys. If TB doesnt come we can have 13 and delay just as you wrote

But that doesn't make sense. He's impacting us for 15-16, not 16-17, which is when the penalty begins.

We are allowed to have 13 scholarships next year. If someone leaves, there should be one open spot for Bryant based on this.

 

[Jack Hall]

The four year penalty would be in place, but since we've executed offers for 15-16, it would begin a year later, so it would still be four years of reductions...moving it to 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20. That's what it appears to say in the ruling.

Specifically, this is what it says: "If the school has already executed scholarship offers for the 2015-16 year, the school may begin the four-year penalty with the 2016-17 year."

That indicates that it will not impact next year's roster AT ALL. So I'm not sure I'm following Mike's logic/math.

4 guys not incoming freshmen would have to leave to get TB? And then we would still only be able to have 10 the next 3 yrs after that. If no TB we can have 13 next yr and then only 10 4 yrs after that?

 

[jekelish]

4 guys not incoming freshmen would have to leave to get TB? And then we would still only be able to have 10 the next 3 yrs after that. If no TB we can have 13 next yr and then only 10 4 yrs after that?

Mike's logic is based on us beginning with 10 scholarships for NEXT year. That's not true, though. Because we've already executed scholarships, and Bryant has an offer, the start date for the reductions is pushed back a year. So theoretically, it should not impact Bryant AT ALL.

 

[Jack Hall]

But that doesn't make sense. He's impacting us for 15-16, not 16-17, which is when the penalty begins.

It has to add up to 12. The question is, is it 3 lost for 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 , 18-19 OR is it 3 lost for 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20. We can still get Bryant but 4 would have to leave this yr to make room for him

 

[jekelish]

It has to add up to 12. The question is, is it 3 lost for 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 , 18-19 OR is it 3 lost for 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20. We can still get Bryant but 4 would have to leave this yr to make room for him

It is very clearly spelled out as 3 lost for 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, because again - we have scholarships out for this year's class, bringing us to 13 scholarships.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. I don't see any possible way we need to drop FOUR players to be able to bring in Bryant, based on the wording of the NCAA report. None.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Mike's logic is based on us beginning with 10 scholarships for NEXT year. That's not true, though. Because we've already executed scholarships, and Bryant has an offer, the start date for the reductions is pushed back a year. So theoretically, it should not impact Bryant AT ALL.

4 guys are grandfathered in because they SIGNED already. These are the only recruits we can bring in and still push the sanctions until 2016.

Bryant has not signed. If we bring Bryant in for 2015, the sanctions have to start in 2015... meaning only 10 schollys.

That's how I'm reading it.

 

[jekelish]

Ok, NOW I've read it back again and understand it: because this year's class has all signed, the school is financially obligated to them. Bryant hasn't signed, so there is no financial obligation. Therefore, we can sort of "grandfather" Lydon/Diagne/Richardson/Howard in, but if we try to add Bryant, that starts the clock back at 15-16 since he would be a new addition.

 

[Jack Hall]

It is very clearly spelled out as 3 lost for 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, because again - we have scholarships out for this year's class, bringing us to 13 scholarships.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. I don't see any possible way we need to drop FOUR players to be able to bring in Bryant, based on the wording of the NCAA report. None.

Why does that article you provided a link for say we lost TB then?

 

[jekelish]

4 guys are grandfathered in because they SIGNED already.. That allows us to push the sanctions until 2016.

Bryant has not signed. If we bring Bryant in for 2015, the sanctions have to start in 2015... meaning only 10 schollys.

That's how I'm reading it.

Ha...yep, posted at the same time as me basically. I re-read it and that's my new interpretation as well. Hell, we even used the same phrasing. Ha.

 

[Jack Hall]

4 guys are grandfathered in because they SIGNED already.. That allows us to push the sanctions until 2016.

Bryant has not signed. If we bring Bryant in for 2015, the sanctions have to start in 2015... meaning only 10 schollys.

That's how I'm reading it.

Shoot yes thats how i was reading it but now iam not sure

 

[jekelish]

Shoot yes thats how i was reading it but now iam not sure

No, I'm sure of that now. That does make sense. It just wasn't particularly clear at first, but now that I've read around a little more, it makes sense.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Of course, if we start a year earlier ... we finish a year earlier.

 

[jekelish]

Of course, if we start a year earlier ... we finish a year earlier.

Ah, but delay it a year, it gives us more time to appeal and, hopefully, less time having to incur the penalties.

 

[Jack Hall]

Just read Mike Ws article. I assume he wouldnt have written it unless he knew what he was talking about, ie he verified it all, it all is very confusing but based on reading his article and the ncaa ruling looks like 4 would have to leave to get TB. That really stinks because JB just plays 8 which means imo RP, CO, TL, FH , and Diagne dont play much next year. So bottom line they wont play much but their presence keeps TB from coming and TB would have played. Even BJ playing a lot next yr is no sure thing. Tough spot for JB to be in from a purely roster perspective, forgetting all the other crap

 

[jekelish]

Here's my take on the situation: http://.com/ncaa-penalties-effectively-end-pursuit-of-thomas-bryant/

 

[Shenexon]

Here's my take on the situation: http://.com/ncaa-penalties-effectively-end-pursuit-of-thomas-bryant/

Nice article but not quite what I had in mind. Any chance you have an article prepped where we find a way to add Bryant and live happily ever after?