And then there were 11

[RF2044]

With the annoucements about BJ / Patterson transferring, here's how our roster breaks down for next year:

1. Joseph
2. Cooney
3. Gbinije
4. Roberson
5. Coleman
6. McCullough
7. Obokoh
8. Howard
9. Richardson
10. Lydon
11. Diagne

Two open scholarships heading into next season, as things stand at this specific snapshot in time. Which raises a few questions:

• Will it be possible to add Bryant by exploiting a loophole in the appeals process that will temporarily freeze the penalties from going into effect?

• If we don't fill either of those, can the open scholarships somehow be applied to our penalty? We owe the NCAA 12 -- getting two out of the way would provide a measure of relief down the road, and if they aren't going to be used, we should be able to apply them to fulfill the scholarship reduction penalty

 

[Alsacs]

With the annoucements about BJ / Patterson transferring, here's how our roster breaks down for next year:

1. Joseph
2. Cooney
3. Gbinije
4. Roberson
5. Coleman
6. McCullough
7. Obokoh
8. Howard
9. Richardson
10. Lydon
11. Diagne

Two open scholarships heading into next season, as things stand at this specific snapshot in time. Which raises a few questions:

• Will it be possible to add Bryant by exploiting a loophole in the appeals process that will temporarily freeze the penalties from going into effect?

• If we don't fill either of those, can the open scholarships somehow be applied to our penalty? We owe the NCAA 12 -- getting two out of the way would provide a measure of relief down the road, and if they aren't going to be used, we should be able to apply them to fulfill the scholarship reduction penalty

I asked this earlier and Jake said from what he was told that if we are at 11 next year the NCAA wouldn't give us partial credit so basically we need to be at 10 or whatever number we are at won't matter to the NCAA and the penalties would basically be pushed back 1 year and its our own decision to not be at 13 and the NCAA doesn't care.

So basically we need to hope we can get Bryant next year or we are imposing our own 2 scholarship reduction next year.

 

[Ghost]

With the annoucements about BJ / Patterson transferring, here's how our roster breaks down for next year:

1. Joseph
2. Cooney
3. Gbinije
4. Roberson
5. Coleman
6. McCullough
7. Obokoh
8. Howard
9. Richardson
10. Lydon
11. Diagne

Two open scholarships heading into next season, as things stand at this specific snapshot in time. Which raises a few questions:

• Will it be possible to add Bryant by exploiting a loophole in the appeals process that will temporarily freeze the penalties from going into effect?

• If we don't fill either of those, can the open scholarships somehow be applied to our penalty? We owe the NCAA 12 -- getting two out of the way would provide a measure of relief down the road, and if they aren't going to be used, we should be able to apply them to fulfill the scholarship reduction penalty

I've contended since the day they released that abomination of a decision that the loophole exists - still believe it does.

If we want Bryant, and Bryant wants to attend Syracuse - then he should be ours. Why clarify? Never ask for permission - just do it up.

The NCAA wrote the stupid thing, and it says we can defer.

 

[iommi]

I asked this earlier and Jake said from what he was told that if we are at 11 next year the NCAA wouldn't give us partial credit so basically we need to be at 10 or whatever number we are at won't matter to the NCAA and the penalties would basically be pushed back 1 year and its our own decision to not be at 13 and the NCAA doesn't care.

So basically we need to hope we can get Bryant next year or we are imposing our own 2 scholarship reduction next year.

No offense, but your first paragraph is one long run-on sentence and I could not follow what you were trying to convey.

 

[phil77]

My guess this wouldn't have been done if Bryant wasn't coming.

 

[RF2044]

I asked this earlier and Jake said from what he was told that if we are at 11 next year the NCAA wouldn't give us partial credit so basically we need to be at 10 or whatever number we are at won't matter to the NCAA and the penalties would basically be pushed back 1 year and its our own decision to not be at 13 and the NCAA doesn't care.

So basically we need to hope we can get Bryant next year or we are imposing our own 2 scholarship reduction next year.

I'm not sure that your first paragraph would be enforceable. They sanctioned us with a 12 scholarship reduction penalty that needs to be completed by 2019 season.

If they aren't going to allow us to apply them next year, then it would be like forcing us to have a 14 scholarship penalty if they stand in the way of us landing Bryant.

Which would be a crock of sh/t, and akin to them applying a "new" interpretive penalty.

 

[sabach]

I've contended since the day they released that abomination of a decision that the loophole exists - still believe it does.

If we want Bryant, and Bryant wants to attend Syracuse - then he should be ours. Why clarify? Never ask for permission - just do it up.

The NCAA wrote the stupid thing, and it says we can defer.

The loophole exists but only if we are at 11 or 12 for next year. Once we drop to 10 we have to go with the reductions next year. In other words we need to use the loophole now before anyone else leaves.

 

[iommi]

I'm not sure that your first paragraph would be enforceable. They sanctioned us with a 12 scholarship reduction penalty that needs to be completed by 2019 season.

If they aren't going to allow us to apply them next year, then it would be like forcing us to have a 14 scholarship penalty if they stand in the way of us landing Bryant.

Which would be a crock of sh/t.

I had a hard time making out alsacs' first paragraph but I think he's saying that if we are under 13 next year, they won't give us credit for any unused scholarships towards the 12 scholarship reduction.

 

[dasher]

I actually think it is as ridiculous as we have to have 11 when we get TB (if we get him. this is no sure thing).

 

[Alsacs]

I had a hard time making out alsacs' first paragraph but I think he's saying that if we are under 13 next year, they won't give us credit for any unused scholarships towards the 12 scholarship reduction.

Correct. I am on my phone it is hard to write I apologize. If we aren't at 10 scholarships and delay the sanctions for one year the NCAA will not give us partial credit. Thus, if we have 11 scholarship players next year we will be basically penalized 14 scholarships over 4 years unless the penalties are reduced by the NCAA.

 

[RF2044]

I had a hard time making out alsacs' first paragraph but I think he's saying that if we are under 13 next year, they won't give us credit for any unused scholarships towards the 12 scholarship reduction.

That is what he's saying. But that would constitute a 14 scholarship penalty if they try to block us from landing Bryant.

How is that in their power to not allow us to use two open 'ships, while simultaneously also blocking us from applying them to the penalty? Double screw job.

 

[kuethstheman]

No offense, but your first paragraph is one long run-on sentence and I could not follow what you were trying to convey.

If we're at 10 next year, the reductions start next year. If we're above 10, they start the following year. If we're above 10 next year, it makes no difference of its 11, 12, or 13.

 

[rosconey]

lawyers are earning there money on this one

 

[RF2044]

If we're at 10 next year, the reductions start next year. If we're above 10, they start the following year. If we're above 10 next year, it makes no difference of its 11, 12, or 13.

It will if they try to block us from bringing in Bryant. If they don't, and we are at 12 next year, then I don't have a problem with them not allowing us to apply the 1 open scholarship to the penalty. However, I WOULD have a problem with them not allowing us to apply them if they also try to hornswaggle us twice by not allowing us to bring in someone to fill one of those vacancies.

 

[kuethstheman]

That is what he's saying. But that would constitute a 14 scholarship penalty if they try to block us from landing Bryant.

How is that in their power to not allow us to use two open 'ships, while simultaneously also blocking us from applying them to the penalty? Double screw job.

I don't see where it said we can't add more scholarships for next year, though doing that will make it harder to get down to 10 the following year.

 

[sabach]

The only benefit to being at 11 next year is to give 2 scholarships to walk ons to boost the APR.

 

[moqui]

The only benefit to being at 11 next year is to give 2 scholarships to walk ons to boost the APR.

unless you buy the interpretation that scholarships are not available unless the agreements had already been concluded prior to the time of the sanctions announcement, so no APR heroes next year.

 

[kuethstheman]

but the interpretation is that scholarships are not available unless the agreements have already been concluded prior to the time of the sanctions announcement, so no APR heroes next year.

That interpretation confuses me. I don't see anything like that in anything I've read. Have to admit I've only read posted excerpts. I'll read the actual report this weekend

 

[sabach]

unless you buy the interpretation that scholarships are not available unless the agreements had already been concluded prior to the time of the sanctions announcement, so no APR heroes next year.

I understand that interpretation but I agree with Ghost that the vague way the document was written permits us to give out up to 13 scholarships in 2015/16 so long as the reduction to 10 is pushed to 2016/17.

 

[iommi]

unless you buy the interpretation that scholarships are not available unless the agreements had already been concluded prior to the time of the sanctions announcement, so no APR heroes next year.

I've read the report. It says nothing of the sort.

 

[moqui]

That interpretation confuses me. I don't see anything like that in anything I've read. Have to admit I've only read posted excerpts. I'll read the actual report this weekend

That interpretation confuses me. I don't see anything like that in anything I've read. Have to admit I've only read posted excerpts. I'll read the actual report this weekend

I don't think it is vague at all . . . it even requires the school to provide dated documents to prove the offers were made when we claim they were made:

the loophole, as RF2044 points out, is whether this is put on hold during the appeal. if not, then nobody is getting any open 'ships.

 

[sabach]

I don't think it is vague at all . . . it even requires the school to provide dated documents to prove the offers were made when we claim they were made:

the loophole, as RF2044 points out, is whether this is put on hold during the appeal. if not, then nobody is getting any open 'ships.

This debate had already been made on this board but I see nothing that says what we can or cannot do in 2015/16 with scholarships numbered 12 and 13 so long as we are at 11 and therefore can push the penalty into 2016/17. The point being that we need to be at 10 in 2016/17 regardless.

 

[CorduroyG]

My guess this wouldn't have been done if Bryant wasn't coming.

That was my first thought when I saw BJ and buss were transferring. We getting bryant.

 

[IthacaMatt]

If we're at 10 next year, the reductions start next year. If we're above 10, they start the following year. If we're above 10 next year, it makes no difference of its 11, 12, or 13.

While that's true from a penalty-served perspective, you also have to manage the assets you already have, and that might mean not having an optimal number of players next year, but setting ourselves up to be in compliance the year after at 10 (appeal pending). Remember, you don't want to have to ask other kids to leave.

 

[TheCusian]

I don't think it is vague at all . . . it even requires the school to provide dated documents to prove the offers were made when we claim they were made: the loophole, as RF2044 points out, is whether this is put on hold during the appeal. if not, then nobody is getting any open 'ships.

It's poorly worded and not clear at all. If you have a signed doc that is dated then you defer the penalty a year. We meet that criteria, so it's deferred a year. We could sign anybody we want this year just like normal - and that highlighted bit doesn't say otherwise.