Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pfister1, post: 1355252, member: 285"] 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: [INDENT][I][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.[/I][/INDENT] 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? [/QUOTE]

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