Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pfister1, post: 1351140, member: 285"] I don't think you are reading the sanctions correctly, if you believe there isn't a question here (the language is below). If we don't lost any more returning players; I agree, no question we can defer. In that case we have and will have 11 commitments that were made prior to the issuance of the sanctions ("11 already executed financial aid agreements") and we would be able to defer the penalty so that we don't have to revoke an award to get to the reduced number. In that case I agree with the interpretation that there is nothing that would prevent us from giving out additional scholarships up to 13 because the deferral means that next year is not a year subject to restriction. However, if we lose one additional returning player the four incoming signed recruits would only put us at 10 committed scholarships for next year. Even if we added Bryant to get to 11 we would still only have 10 "already executed financial aid agreements" that were in existence at the time we became aware of the sanctions - because the other three (Patterson, Johnson and player X) will have gone away. Those commitments could be honored in an environment where we were forced to reduce to 10 without requiring us to revoke a commitment to anyone. I wouldn't be as certain that the NCAA would allow us to defer if it were an after awarded scholarship (which Bryant's would be) that pushed us to 11 because that issue can be avoided by not extending the offer. Not sure how the appeal and people's suggestion that penalties are stayed plays into it as the appeal may or may not be decided before the Spring signing period wraps up. I don't think the NCAA would have as much difficulty screwing Bryant if we offered him and he accepted simply because they could say we were all on notice and chose to push ahead anyway. [B]Reduction in Athletics Awards. [/B] The total number of athletically related financial aid awards in men's basketball shall be reduced by three awards during each of the 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years. If the institution has already executed athletically related financial aid agreements to prospective student - athletes for the 2015 - 16 academic year that would prevent the institution from meeting this penalty, the institution has the option to begin the penalty with the 2016-17 academic year. If because of already executed financial aid agreements, the institution chooses to begin this penalty with the 2016-17 academic year, the institution must provide documentation of the date that the agreement was signed by the prospective student-athletes that prevented the institution from beginning the penalty with the 2015-16 academic year. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?