Class of 2015 C/PF Thomas Bryant (NY) Verballed to Indiana

[torque]

Mommy and tommy are very close. IU doesn't even have room right now. crean has one more shot next year, if his team struggles he will be fired. If Bryant doesn't do well enough to be highly drafted, he would have to stay another year with God knows who is coaching . This would be an extremely risky move, I think as some of us others know, tommy is quite possibly giving the reporters some bs In his interviews.

Young fella, be a man and do things the right way.

 

[kidorange]

The uncertainty of whether S.U. can actually sign TB under the current circumstances may be the reason he has not committed. If this is true he should and most likely is keeping the interest up for another offer somewhere else. The fact that he has not accepted our offer maybe (complete speculation) we can not take him.

He may have not committed because spots just recently opened up. Would have been a bad look if he jumped on board as soon as kids transfered out (also complete speculation).

 

[netman99]

The uncertainty of whether S.U. can actually sign TB under the current circumstances may be the reason he has not committed. If this is true he should and most likely is keeping the interest up for another offer somewhere else. The fact that he has not accepted our offer maybe (complete speculation) we can not take him.

I still think this is the case and it does not matter how manner scholarships open up this year, the sanctions specifically prevent them signing a player that has not "already" have a financial agreement. That is TB!!! I have not heard how SU can bypass that clause yet. I don't think deferring to next year has anything to do with the financial aid clause. If SU appeals and tries to slide TB in during the appeal time may be an option but I can't imagine SU doing that.

 

[jsshap]

I still think this is the case and it does not matter how manner scholarships open up this year, the sanctions specifically prevent them signing a player that has not "already" have a financial agreement. That is TB!!! I have not heard how SU can bypass that clause yet. I don't think deferring to next year has anything to do with the financial aid clause. If SU appeals and tries to slide TB in during the appeal time may be an option but I can't imagine SU doing that.

I have not read the sanctions decision since it came out, and perhaps I misread it, but when I read it I thought it was clear in what it said -- if SU has already received commitments for players for next year it can elect to defer the penalty until the following year. In other words, based on my reading, it just as easily could have said "since Syracuse has already received commitments for next year, Syracuse has the option of deferring scholarship sanctions until the following year." The notion that the meaning of this provision is fluid and changes based on subsequent events does not make sense to me and offends standard principles of legal interpretation.

 

[cusetown1]

I still think this is the case and it does not matter how manner scholarships open up this year, the sanctions specifically prevent them signing a player that has not "already" have a financial agreement. That is TB!!! I have not heard how SU can bypass that clause yet. I don't think deferring to next year has anything to do with the financial aid clause. If SU appeals and tries to slide TB in during the appeal time may be an option but I can't imagine SU doing that.

His mother said that there was a scholarship available for him. There is nothing saying we can't take anymore recruits.

 

[CraigForth]

I still think this is the case and it does not matter how manner scholarships open up this year, the sanctions specifically prevent them signing a player that has not "already" have a financial agreement. That is TB!!! I have not heard how SU can bypass that clause yet. I don't think deferring to next year has anything to do with the financial aid clause. If SU appeals and tries to slide TB in during the appeal time may be an option but I can't imagine SU doing that.

I have not read the sanctions decision since it came out, and perhaps I misread it, but when I read it I thought it was clear in what it said -- if SU has already received commitments for players for next year it can elect to defer the penalty until the following year. In other words, based on my reading, it just as easily could have said "since Syracuse has already received commitments for next year, Syracuse has the option of deferring scholarship sanctions until the following year." The notion that the meaning of this provision is fluid and changes based on subsequent events does not make sense to me and offends standard principles of legal interpretation.

Can we start a thread designated to debating whether or not SU can add a player next year that hasn't already signed an LOI...please

 

[AZOrange]

I have not read the sanctions decision since it came out, and perhaps I misread it, but when I read it I thought it was clear in what it said -- if SU has already received commitments for players for next year it can elect to defer the penalty until the following year. In other words, based on my reading, it just as easily could have said "since Syracuse has already received commitments for next year, Syracuse has the option of deferring scholarship sanctions until the following year." The notion that the meaning of this provision is fluid and changes based on subsequent events does not make sense to me and offends standard principles of legal interpretation.

Agreed. The provision is clear.

 

[CraigForth]

It always starts like this:
"Are we sure we can even take another player, my reading of the repor..."(That's where I black out)

Then a reply:
[Gives the correct answer]

Then further arguments:
"But, time is a flat circle"

 

[pearl31]

I still think this is the case and it does not matter how manner scholarships open up this year, the sanctions specifically prevent them signing a player that has not "already" have a financial agreement. That is TB!!! I have not heard how SU can bypass that clause yet. I don't think deferring to next year has anything to do with the financial aid clause. If SU appeals and tries to slide TB in during the appeal time may be an option but I can't imagine SU doing that.

dude... really?

 

[pfister1]

I have not read the sanctions decision since it came out, and perhaps I misread it, but when I read it I thought it was clear in what it said -- if SU has already received commitments for players for next year it can elect to defer the penalty until the following year. In other words, based on my reading, it just as easily could have said "since Syracuse has already received commitments for next year, Syracuse has the option of deferring scholarship sanctions until the following year." The notion that the meaning of this provision is fluid and changes based on subsequent events does not make sense to me and offends standard principles of legal interpretation.

I don' think the meaning of the provision is fluid, but as circumstances change so does the result achieved when applying those circumstances.

Here it is:

Reduction in Athletics Awards.
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.​

As of today we do not have a commitment from, or to, Bryant. Because he did not sign in the early signing period, as our other recruits did, I don't believe an LOI (or commitment) can be entered into with Bryant until April 15th. The period within which one can be signed extends through mid May. McCullough has until April 26th to declare.

Without Bryant and with the guys we are presently expecting to have back we have 11 commitments for the 2015-16 season. This would clearly place us above 10 and allow (require) us to defer our punishment for a year. Once we defer I think we can execute two additional commitments if we were choose to do so, because once deferred there is no penalty this season.

However, if McCullough irrevocably enters the draft (or another player declares he won't return) we no longer have 11 commitments for next season (existing as of the time that the Sanctions were announced), we only have 10. I suppose there are a couple of different ways to look at what could happen between now and when the next domino falls:

1. McCullough stays - we have 11 - we sign sign Bryant to take us to 12 we defer. This seems like an easy interpretation to me.
2. McCullough leaves - dropping us to 10 - Bryant wants to sign. Can we still defer? Prior to signing that 11th commitment - the one that didn't exist at the time that the sanctions were announced, we only had 10 commitments and no longer had grounds to defer the penalty (all four already signed commitments for the 2015-16 season can be accommodated in that case). That would arguably leave us with no room to sign Bryant?
3. Bryant signs taking us to 12 - McCullough leaves after Bryant has signed dropping us back to 11. Until McCullough irrevocably enters his hat in the ring, I don't think we should have to assume that he will, might or even could. But, that said, are we still entitled to the deferral in this case? We now only have 10 commitments that were in place at the time the sanctions were announced. We do however have a decent argument that at the time we signed Bryant we had enough that we expected we would have to take the deferral and thus we acted accordingly in signing Bryant, even though those circumstances no longer exist. Would the NCAA support us in this interpretation?

 

[jordoo]

It can be interpreted a few ways but basically the bottom line is that since we were over booked originally then we could put the Ship reductions off for a season. If they are being put off we can do whatever we want this year. Seriously even if they ment it the other way its written like crap and confusing. What are they going to do if we sign another player? NOTHING because they said we can put it off a season and we have officially given notice that we will file an appeal. Its my thought that we may just be waiting on doing anything publicly (even contact) with Bryant until we have submitted the official appeal in writing.

 

[netman99]

dude... really?

I certainly hope I am wrong on this but to me the statement in the sanctions document was black and white. The link to the document is no longer available. If someone has the link to the sanctions please post it. I will post the exact clause and please explain how I am misreading this. This has been discussed ad-nausea but I have never read a post that logically explained the clause. TB himself has stated SU has backed off, what other explanation? Staff feels they no longer need his services????

 

[jordoo]

I don' think the meaning of the provision is fluid, but as circumstances change so does the result achieved when applying those circumstances.

Here it is:

Reduction in Athletics Awards.
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.​

As of today we do not have a commitment from or to Bryant. Because he did not sign in the early signing period, as our other recruits did, I don't believe an LOI (or commitment) can be entered into with Bryant until April 15th.

Without Bryant and with the guys we are presently expecting to have back we have 11 commitments for the 2015-16 season. This would clearly place us above 10 and allow (require) us to defer our punishment for a year. Once we defer I think we can execute two additional commitments if were choose to do so, because once deferred their is no penalty this season.

However, if McCullough irrevocably enters the draft (or another player declares he won't return) we no longer have 11 commitments for next season (existing as of the time that the Sanctions were announced), we only have 10. I suppose there are a couple of different ways to look at what could happen between now and when the next domino falls:

1. McCullough stays - we have 11 - we sign sign Bryant to take us to 12 we defer. This seems like an easy interpretation to me.
2. McCullough leaves - dropping us to 10 - Bryant wants to sign. Can we still defer, because prior to signing that 11th commitment - the one that didn't exist at the time that the sanctions were announced we only had 10 commitments and no longer had grounds to defer the penalty. The would arguably leave us with no room to sign Bryant?
3. Bryant signs taking us to 12 - McCullough leaves after Bryant has signed dropping us back to 11. Until McCullough irrevocably enters his hat in the ring, I don't think we should have to assume that he will, might or even could. But, that said, are we still entitled to the deferral in this case? We now only have 10 commitments that were in place at the time the sanctions were announced. We do however have a decent argument that at the time we signed Bryant we had enough that we expected we would have to take the deferral and thus we acted accordingly in signing Bryant, even though those circumstances no longer exist. Would the NCAA support us in this interpretation?

Whatever they can't have it 27 different ways designed to hurt us as much as possible no matter which of 100 different things happen. If we have too many it gets pushed off a year if not it doesn't and we had too many (LOI) when they issued it. Also I believe once the official written appeal is filed there is a hold on whatever penalties are being appealed. Signing day is April 15th, written appeal will be around that date as well just saying.

 

[Consigliere]

I still think this is the case and it does not matter how manner scholarships open up this year, the sanctions specifically prevent them signing a player that has not "already" have a financial agreement. That is TB!!! I have not heard how SU can bypass that clause yet. I don't think deferring to next year has anything to do with the financial aid clause. If SU appeals and tries to slide TB in during the appeal time may be an option but I can't imagine SU doing that.

Ok English teachers out there. Let's explain a conditional predicate. Condition is "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," or if we have financial aid committed to more than 10 players for 2015-16." Predicate is "the institution has the option to begin the penalty with the 2016-17 academic year." or three year window for penalty DOES NOT START until 2016-17.

Poorly written by the NCAA particularly with the trailing sentences but the language as written is clear. Nothing further to discuss at this point.

 

[cusetown1]

I certainly hope I am wrong on this but to me the statement in the sanctions document was black and white. The link to the document is no longer available. If someone has the link to the sanctions please post it. I will post the exact clause and please explain how I am misreading this. This has been discussed ad-nausea but I have never read a post that logically explained the clause. TB himself has stated SU has backed off, what other explanation? Staff feels they no longer need his services????

The university of syracuse can take bryant If he wants to come.

 

[iommi]

It can be interpreted a few ways but basically the bottom line is that since we were over booked originally then we could put the Ship reductions off for a season. If they are being put off we can do whatever we want this year. Seriously even if they ment it the other way its written like crap and confusing. What are they going to do if we sign another player? NOTHING because they said we can put it off a season and we have officially given notice that we will file an appeal. Its my thought that we may just be waiting on doing anything publicly (even contact) with Bryant until we have submitted the official appeal in writing.

This is a good possibility. A couple weeks ago I posed the question: has SU officially appealed (in writing)? Everyone chimed in, saying we had (but maybe all we had done was submitted the intention to appeal notice). I think there is a good chance that may be the issue. Fingers are crossed that when we officially appeal, we will be able to seal the deal.

Maybe that also explains the silence and why Mrs. Bryant has said they were waiting for things to clear up. The things that had to be cleared up were the transfers and the official submission of the appeal in writing.

 

[RF2044]

I don' think the meaning of the provision is fluid, but as circumstances change so does the result achieved when applying those circumstances.

Here it is:

Reduction in Athletics Awards.
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.​

As of today we do not have a commitment from or to Bryant. Because he did not sign in the early signing period, as our other recruits did, I don't believe an LOI (or commitment) can be entered into with Bryant until April 15th and the period extends through mid May. McCullough has until April 26th to declare.

Without Bryant and with the guys we are presently expecting to have back we have 11 commitments for the 2015-16 season. This would clearly place us above 10 and allow (require) us to defer our punishment for a year. Once we defer I think we can execute two additional commitments if were choose to do so, because once deferred their is no penalty this season.

However, if McCullough irrevocably enters the draft (or another player declares he won't return) we no longer have 11 commitments for next season (existing as of the time that the Sanctions were announced), we only have 10. I suppose there are a couple of different ways to look at what could happen between now and when the next domino falls:

1. McCullough stays - we have 11 - we sign sign Bryant to take us to 12 we defer. This seems like an easy interpretation to me.
2. McCullough leaves - dropping us to 10 - Bryant wants to sign. Can we still defer, because prior to signing that 11th commitment - the one that didn't exist at the time that the sanctions were announced we only had 10 commitments and no longer had grounds to defer the penalty. That would arguably leave us with no room to sign Bryant?
3. Bryant signs taking us to 12 - McCullough leaves after Bryant has signed dropping us back to 11. Until McCullough irrevocably enters his hat in the ring, I don't think we should have to assume that he will, might or even could. But, that said, are we still entitled to the deferral in this case? We now only have 10 commitments that were in place at the time the sanctions were announced. We do however have a decent argument that at the time we signed Bryant we had enough that we expected we would have to take the deferral and thus we acted accordingly in signing Bryant, even though those circumstances no longer exist. Would the NCAA support us in this interpretation?

Thanks for posting the actual section of the findings report. Reading it, I don't see anything that would preclude us from bringing in an additional player at this time.

What the text indicates is that we can defer until 2016-2017 if we are already obligated to provide too many scholarships for 2015-2016 academic year that would preclude us from getting under 10 NEXT YEAR. And as evidence that we can't get under the limit, we need to provide LOI documentation from the class of 2015 to validate that we can't get under 10.

So, we have 7 returning players [counting McCullough]. We are bringing in 4 [not counting Bryant], which puts us at 11. We can provide the required / requested documentation demonstrating that the LOIs were executed, and we can't get under 10 in 2015-2016. Problem solved--the penalty defers.

That has zero to do with Bryant or his eligibility to come here. Once it's deferred, we have two open slots. We can use them--the NCAA can't prevent us from doing so without imposing some new, interpretive penalties at this point.

I should rephrase: we can use them, provided that we get the roster to the required 10 limit by 2016-2017. How those two are used once the penalty is deferred until 2016-2017 isn't within the NCAAs power to dictate / control.

 

[cuseguy]

It's pretty clear we can sign him. But if you've been paying attention, the issue is whether he wants to come here. His mom likes SU, he seems to want to get away (from mom).

That's my Cliff Notes version of the situation.

Hope that helps.

 

[andyw715]

When does the "4 in 5" scholarship guarantee become effictive?

 

[andyw715]

Every kid wants to "get away" from mom/dad when they go to school, doesn't mean they do.

 

[OlsenRyan13]

IMO I think the reason Cuse hasn't contacted him in months is they're letting the kid decide. Bryant has known we want him for a long time, and he knows that if he chooses us there will be playing time for him on a team that can be a contender. What more is there to tell him? Let Crean send him all the letters he wants, the only reason he's doing it is he knows he's on the hot seat and he needs Bryant. In the end, Bryant is going to choose the school that he wants regardless of who is recruiting him the hardest.

 

[iommi]

Every kid wants to "get away" from mom/dad when they go to school, doesn't mean they do.

I think that's where TB playing at Huntington hurt us. Most people thought TB prepping for a year was a good thing for him because of the intense competition of playing for a basketball factory. That turned out to be the case from a basketball perspective, as TB's game got better at Huntington. The negative is that he must've liked the change of scenery and being out of the nest for a while and gaining some independence.

 

[jordoo]

I understand wanting to get away from your parents but its still what 1.5 hours from Roch to Syr if memory serves. Its not like she is going to be there every day, just means she can be there much more often because its a reasonable distance and she can even go home afterwords without needing a hotel. I suppose a lot of it would be personality type of both Mom and Son.

 

[cusetown1]

Let's be honest can anybody really ever get away from their mom? I know I cant.

 

[Tobias Funke]

reports out of the Mcdonald's All American practice is that Bryant looks good. Saw it in a few write ups that he was smooth in practice and very active, expects to be a good pro prospect in a few years.