Scholarship Limit Question

[UelSU]

If we only use 8 Scholarships this year, can SU "bank" the other 3 for future years and get done with the penalty earlier, or is it a "use them or lose them" situation where we are capped at "x" number of spots per year no matter what?

 

[cuseguy]

If we only use 8 Scholarships this year, can SU "bank" the other 3 for future years and get done with the penalty earlier, or is it a "use them or lose them" situation where we are capped at "x" number of spots per year no matter what?

No.

It would be nice, though.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

If we only use 8 Scholarships this year, can SU "bank" the other 3 for future years and get done with the penalty earlier, or is it a "use them or lose them" situation where we are capped at "x" number of spots per year no matter what?

We might be able to potentially appeal to move the penalty ones. It's not a given but I am sure they would be looking at it.

 

[UelSU]

No.

It would be nice, though.

Yeah, I just found an article where it says we are capped per year: 11, 11 & 12. I guess there will be some happy walk-on's this year if we only stay at 8.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

No more appeals.

We lost 3 scholarships for 2015-16.

We'll be down 2 for 2016-17.
2 for 2017-18.
1 for 2018-19.

 

[Dave85]

No more appeals.

We lost 3 scholarships for 2015-16.

We'll be down 2 for 2016-17.
2 for 2017-18.
1 for 2018-19.

NCAA! A bunch of corrupt a holes worse than FIFA.

 

[Brooky03]

Being able to 'bank' them would made perfect sense to any reasonable human being. Therefore, the NCAA will not allow it.

 

[Dave85]

Being able to 'bank' them would made perfect sense to any reasonable human being. Therefore, the NCAA will not allow it.

It goes against the a hole part of their mandate. The other part of the mandate is to be as corrupt and profitable as FIFA for its members.

 

[pfister1]

Being able to 'bank' them would made perfect sense to any reasonable human being. Therefore, the NCAA will not allow it.

It actually makes no sense. I don't understand why people keep asking the question. We have a firm limit on the number of scholarships that we are allowed to award in each of the years that we are subject to penalty. The NCAA doesn't care if we award less than we are allowed, its up to us to decide how we allocate them, including not awarding them. The only reason the one adjustment was made was because the punishment was changed as a result of the appeal after we had already complied with the restriction. At that point there was no way that we could avail ourselves of awarding the scholarship we were given back at the time that the result of the appeal was announced, so instead they "credited" it forward. Had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was within SU's discretion.

 

[SWC75]

We won't stay at 8. Coaches like to scrimmage with scholies guarding scholies.

 

[Brooky03]

It actually makes no sense. I don't understand why people keep asking the question. We have a firm limit on the number of scholarships that we are allowed to award in each of the years that we are subject to penalty. The NCAA doesn't care if we award less than we are allowed, its up to us to decide how we allocate them, including not awarding them. The only reason the one adjustment was made was because the punishment was changed as a result of the appeal after we had already complied with the restriction. At that point there was no way that we could avail ourselves of awarding the scholarship we were given back at the time that the result of the appeal was announced, so instead they "credited" it forward. Had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was within SU's discretion.

I'm saying the punishment setting a cap each year makes no sense, which is accurate. If a civil court case rules that somebody has to pay somebody else a million dollars over 4 years or whatever, you could pay a million right away and be done with it. Your punishment is served and over with after that point. It's nonsense to not allow that. Absolute nonsense.

When we took the APR hit however many years ago, we 'self-imposed' a schollie reduction, effectively 'banking' some of the scholarship sanctions ahead of time. And if I recall correctly, the NCAA didn't require that the scholarship hit had to be taken for x number of scholarships each year. It was a set number that we just had to take within some timeframe. I might be remembering incorrectly, but regardless, requiring a certain number of scholarships to be withheld each year rather than a lump sum to be withheld by the end of some timeframe cannot be construed as anything other than asinine.

 

[Fly Rodder]

The penalty is meant to stretch out over four years. The original penalty wasn't 12 scholarships over four years, it was three scholarships per year for four years.

 

[Brooky03]

The penalty is meant to stretch out over four years. The original penalty wasn't 12 scholarships over four years, it was three scholarships per year for four years.

Understood. I'm saying that structuring it that way is something a dumb idiotface would do.

 

[Jasoncuse]

The sad thing is we are unlikely to use 13 scholarships in any given year, so the kids that are missing out are the walk-ons who earn that ship through their hard work and dedication. At least a few of them will get one this year.

 

[MSOrange]

Understood. I'm saying that structuring it that way is something a dumb idiotface would do.

The intention was to make the penalty hurt over several years for punishment whether we think it's fair or not

 

[Brooky03]

The intention was to make the penalty hurt over several years for punishment whether we think it's fair or not

Fair or not, it still doesn't make sense. Theoretically, taking a 'death penalty' (all the schollie reduction in one year) would hurt infinitely more than losing 3 or 4 per year for 4 years. Likewise, taking a 6 schollie reduction each year for two years would hurt more than 3 per year over 4 years. So the NCAA is what? Protecting us from ourselves?

 

[two3zone]

Fair or not, it still doesn't make sense. Theoretically, taking a 'death penalty' (all the schollie reduction in one year) would hurt infinitely more than losing 3 or 4 per year for 4 years. Likewise, taking a 6 schollie reduction each year for two years would hurt more than 3 per year over 4 years. So the NCAA is what? Protecting us from ourselves?

We took a post season ban when we probably weren't getting in anyway. Now you want us to get a break on scholarships because the staff wasn't able to fill them?

It's amazing we got away with the post season ban, it's more of a joke we didn't fill the scholarships than it is anything else. You're making it sound like we didn't fill the roster on purpose.

 

[Brooky03]

We took a post season ban when we probably weren't getting in anyway. Now you want us to get a break on scholarships because the staff wasn't able to fill them?

It's amazing we got away with the post season ban, it's more of a joke we didn't fill the scholarships than it is anything else. You're making it sound like we didn't fill the roster on purpose.

The intent shouldn't/doesn't matter. The NCAA didn't let us get away with anything by taking the postseason ban early. First, it was far far from a foregone conclusion that we wouldn't have gotten in. The team had work to do, but certainly could have won a few of those games towards the end of the season if they were playing for something. Second, what does it matter if the ban comes in a season when we're good or bad? Last I checked, being good enough to make the postseason isn't a requirement for a postseason ban to take effect. We still banned ourselves from the ACC Tournament and NIT, which isn't nothing. Hell, if we took the ban this last season instead, people would have said we wouldn't have made the tourney then either, so it's the definition of a moot point.

 

[two3zone]

The intent shouldn't/doesn't matter. The NCAA didn't let us get away with anything by taking the postseason ban early. First, it was far far from a foregone conclusion that we wouldn't have gotten in. The team had work to do, but certainly could have won a few of those games towards the end of the season if they were playing for something. Second, what does it matter if the ban comes in a season when we're good or bad? Last I checked, being good enough to make the postseason isn't a requirement for a postseason ban to take effect. We still banned ourselves from the ACC Tournament and NIT, which isn't nothing. Hell, if we took the ban this last season instead, people would have said we wouldn't have made the tourney then either, so it's the definition of a moot point.

Ok, say we could have gotten in 2014/2015, we lose and we're out, guess what? We don't make the final four this year if that's the case.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

Ok, say we could have gotten in 2014/2015, we lose and we're out, guess what? We don't make the final four this year if that's the case.

Why?

 

[IthacaMatt]

Why?

Because we would have been on probation.

 

[two3zone]

Why?

Well, if we didn't take the ban the ban would have happened this year, no?