With 3 open spots...

[Jasoncuse]

Does anybody know if we could possibly apply whatever openings we don't fill towards the scholarship reduction? Let's say we add Dembele and nobody else, can those 2 open ships go towards the penalty to reduce it quicker?

If not, then it looks like we'll be having some walk-ons on scholarship.

 

[Dave85]

Does anybody know if we could possibly apply whatever openings we don't fill towards the scholarship reduction? Let's say we add Dembele and nobody else, can those 2 open ships go towards the penalty to reduce it quicker?

If not, then it looks like we'll be having some walk-ons on scholarship.

You are assuming the NCAA can or would behave in a logical manner. So with that false assumption, my guess is they would rule "no".

 

[Fly Rodder]

No. The penalty was "three scholarships per year for four years." The four years was part of the penalty.

 

[EastCoast2]

I'd rather keep the 2 scholarships, give them to walk-ons who give us a perfect APR score, then be able to use those scholarships for the 2017 and 2018 classes.

 

[dasher]

The NCAA already did that once for us. Originally it was 3 for 4 years. When they reduced it to 3 ships over 4 years. the actually counted 3 for this year and so going forward, we are out 2, 2, 1. Withe defections of kj and Chino, the ships won't be a problem for us.

 

[pfister1]

This question keeps getting asked, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

The penalty is the penalty. No one has ever said that you have to use the maximum number of scholarships that you are allowed, only that you have a maximum that you cannot exceed.

Originally our maximum was reduced by three from 13 to 10. When the appeal was decided our maximum was adjusted back up to 11. So the argument goes that we only awarded 10 scholarship this year because we thought we were under a restriction limiting us to 10 (which is somewhat specious anyway as we know we would have awarded 11 and even maybe 12 if Diagne and Bryant had accepted).

The reason they made the initial adjustment is because the change in the penalty came after we had (in theory) already followed the restriction and not awarded the 11th scholarship that we ultimately won back. They couldn't go back in time and allow us to award it once it was reinstated, so instead they threw us a bone and gave us a credit on the back end.

What would be the argument for crediting us with one or more additional unused scholarships for this coming season? We have the opportunity to use them if we want to. In fact we are trying to use them, we've offered them to numerous prospects. If we don't use them it will be because we were unable to get one or more players that the staff wanted to accept them, not because we thought we were prohibited from using them.