And then there were 11

[Alsacs]

ESPN insider is saying we did this to get another player in the 2016 class with Moyer. I think we now can safely say Battle is that guy and we don't need to worry about making room for him if we only have 10 schollys for 2016.

 

[Madbiker]

ESPN insider is saying we did this to get another player in the 2016 class with Moyer. I think we now can safely say Battle is that guy and we don't need to worry about making room for him if we only have 10 schollys for 2016.

You think those guys know anything about Bryant? I doubt it. Even if Bryant comes, the staff likely knows they can open 1 additional slot in 2016. There are possibilities.

 

[Alsacs]

You think those guys know anything about Bryant? I doubt it. Even if Bryant comes, the staff likely knows they can open 1 additional slot in 2016. There are possibilities.

Insider has nothing new on Bryant. I don't think anybody has an honest clue what is happening with Bryant. If we can offer him a scholly I think he is coming to SU. Buss/Johnson gones means we will be at 9 for 2016-2017 so we can get Battle is what Insider said.

 

[jekelish]

This is when I wish someone would actually clarify whether we can actually sign Bryant, so we can all stop speculating one way or the other. At last check, the NCAA wouldn't clarify it to Mike Waters, and the Bryants couldn't even get a straight answer. Hopefully they've at least let them know by now.

 

[hoopsupstate]

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.

All this means is that you have proof that you have signed financial agreements that don't allow you to get to the number 10. By these letters it shows that we meet the threshold to defer to 16-17.

 

[kuethstheman]

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.

I think your analysis shows that the wording is pretty clear. It's not ambiguous. There's not a loophole. It says what it says.

The only thing that I'm not sure about is what happens if we get to 10 (e.g. via another transfer) but then also sign Bryant. Bryant would put us over 10 but because his would be dated after the report, might that prevent us from deferring the sanctions?

 

[reedny]

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

He means that all the NCAA cares about is whether we're at 10 and starting penalties .. or we're not and we're pushing the penalties out a year. That would suggest that since we're already over 10 for next season (11 per RF above), it doesn't matter if we're 11, 12 or 13 .. we're over 10 and our penalties would start the next year (16-17).

 

[reedny]

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.

I agree with your thinking --- if the NCAA acknowledges that our "financial .. agreements" with recruits prevent us from beginning the restrictions in 2015, then it seems pretty simple: we start the restrictions the following year (2016). We don't need an "appeal loophole".

I don't think they can pick and choose/partially apply the restrictions. If we're delaying the restrictions until 2016, then they can't prevent us from having 11, 12 or whatever in 2015 -- that would mean they're, in effect, penalizing us for 5 years not 4.

 

[iommi]

He means that all the NCAA cares about is whether we're at 10 and starting penalties .. or we're not and we're pushing the penalties out a year. That would suggest that since we're already over 10 for next season (11 per RF above), it doesn't matter if we're 11, 12 or 13 .. we're over 10 and our penalties would start the next year (16-17).

Thanks, I figured it out with some assistance from other posters. I'm thinking one reason JB has told Battle he has a scholarship for sure is maybe DC is on target to graduate after next year and wouldn't want to stay here as a fifth year senior. He's pretty old right now, so maybe he wants to go pay for play, assuming his knee holds up. And if his knee doesn't hold up, he won't be playing at all anyway.

Plus, it is hard to imagine Chris Mc here after next year.

 

[reedny]

Thanks, I figured it out with some assistance from other posters. I'm thinking one reason JB has told Battle he has a scholarship for sure is maybe DC is on target to graduate after next year and wouldn't want to stay here as a fights year senior. He's pretty old right now, so maybe he wants to go pay for play, assuming his knee holds up. And if his knee doesn't hold up, he won't be playing at all anyway.

Plus, it is hard to imagine Chris Mc here after next year.

Or, maybe, MR.

 

[orangecuse]

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

All this means is that you have proof that you have signed financial agreements that don't allow you to get to the number 10. By these letters it shows that we meet the threshold to defer to 16-17.

Does 'executed athletically related financial aid agreements' translate to signed letters of intent? Thinking if they're not one in the same, then has this financial aid agreement actually been executed yet? Are they separate documents? If they're are one in the same, then my thought is moot as the signed letters of intent were done last November.

 

[rrlbees]

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 Does 'executed athletically related financial aid agreements' translate to signed letters of intent? Thinking if they're not one in the same, then has this financial aid agreement actually been executed yet? Are they separate documents? If they're are one in the same, then my thought is moot as the signed letters of intent were done last November.

That's not the point. What is highlighted in yellow is what allows you to push out a year. Now that you've HAD to push out a year, what says you can't bring in others this year?

 

[dasher]

That's not the point. WhT is highlighted in yellow is what allows you to push out a year. Now that you've HAD to push out a year, what days you can't bring in others?

We can. Otherwise it would now be a 14 ship loss. 2 this year and 3 the next 4.

 

[UelSU]

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

The benefit of being at only 11 Scholarships next year means we have room for Moyer and Battle...IF, and only IF McCullough leaves after next year. I don't believe we will add any more players this year.

 

[RF2044]

That's not the point. What is highlighted in yellow is what allows you to push out a year. Now that you've HAD to push out a year, what says you can't bring in others this year?

And that is exactly what the coaching staff plans to utilize to potentially add Bryant.

 

[pearl31]

per the Mike Waters article linked this morning in OrangeXtreme's 'news' thread...

In the short term, the departures of Johnson and Patterson would give Syracuse the ability to sign Thomas Bryant...

 

[Alsacs]

per the Mike Waters article linked this morning in OrangeXtreme's 'news' thread...

In the short term, the departures of Johnson and Patterson would give Syracuse the ability to sign Thomas Bryant...

If we can offer Bryant a scholly I would think we are 99% to get a commitment so this is good news. With Bryant we would be at 12 and if JB wanted to go all-in he shop for a 5th yr FA and for the jugular for a title next year.

 

[Fly Rodder]

If we can offer Bryant a scholly I would think we are 99% to get a commitment so this is good news. With Bryant we would be at 12 and if JB wanted to go all-in he shop for a 5th yr FA and for the jugular for a title next year.

LeBron still has 4 years of eligibility left, right?

Heck, Carmelo still has three, could use a year to get back into playing shape, and the Knicks will still be a disaster next season. 'Melo won't even need a scholarship.

 

[two3zone]

LeBron still has 4 years of eligibility left, right?

Heck, Carmelo still has three, could use a year to get back into playing shape, and the Knicks will still be a disaster next season. 'Melo won't even need a scholarship.

Neither one have any eligibility left.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Neither one have any eligibility left.

Boo.

 

[Alsacs]

If we can add Byrant then we could theatrically get to 13 next year and should shop for a 5th yr FA guard for depth. We need another guard to win a title next year. With Bryant if he is legit post offense we will be deep in post players but we would need another guard to win it all and I hope JB is shopping for one if he will be able to use 13 next yr and use it on a 1 yr guy.

 

[SBU72]

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

No. Coach already called Moyer AND Battle to insure their parents that there were scholarships available for them. With Ron and BJ gone, those are the 2 scholarships. Of course it does require someone else to go to get down to 8 to allow this. McCullough going after 2016?

 

[iommi]

If we can offer Bryant a scholly I would think we are 99% to get a commitment so this is good news. With Bryant we would be at 12 and if JB wanted to go all-in he shop for a 5th yr FA and for the jugular for a title next year.

Your % to get Bryant is way too high.

 

[moqui]

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.

honestly, I think the people arguing that are being obtuse - some willfully so - in order to keep open a slim window of hope.

the penalty can only be put off in the case of already executed financial aid agreements, which must be certified by dated documents. there is a reason for that second provision. if SU tries to add another player on scholarship after the March 6 date of the penalty assessment, then the put-off option is cancelled and they have to get down to 10 scholarship players immediately.

the only question is whether this is all put in suspension by the appeal; that is the only loophole I see

 

[iommi]

honestly, I think the people arguing that are being obtuse - some willfully so - in order to keep open a slim window of hope.

the penalty can only be put off in the case of already executed financial aid agreements, which must be certified by dated documents. there is a reason for that second provision. if SU tries to add another player on scholarship after the March 6 date of the penalty assessment, then the put-off option is cancelled and they have to get down to 10 scholarship players immediately.

the only question is whether this is all put in suspension by the appeal; that is the only loophole I see

Wrong.