Does anyone know if the University tried to get the 2014 season counted in the NCAA decision | Syracusefan.com
.

Does anyone know if the University tried to get the 2014 season counted in the NCAA decision

A

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
62,857
Like
89,374
To reduce scholarships?
We lost 2 scholarships for 2015, 2016, 2017 and one for 2018.
The NCAA accepted our 2014 ban but we played the 2014 with 10 guys on scholarship.
Louisville has been reducing scholarships last year and is doing it now in anticipation of penalties from the NCAA with their own ban last year.
I really hope the SU general council tried to include that into our argument with the NCAA. Even if we didn't intend to play with 10 guys the NCAA doesn't know that and we could have argued it was a self imposed penalty.
Could we get these scholarships back sooner or is that ship sailed? If so that was a bad job but our council to atleast argue it and tried
to lessen the blow.
 
Alsacs said:
To reduce scholarships?
We lost 2 scholarships for 2015, 2016, 2017 and one for 2018.
The NCAA accepted our 2014 ban but we played the 2014 with 10 guys on scholarship.
Louisville has been reducing scholarships last year and is doing it now in anticipation of penalties from the NCAA with their own ban last year.
I really hope the SU general council tried to include that into our argument with the NCAA. Even if we didn't intend to play with 10 guys the NCAA doesn't know that and we could have argued it was a self imposed penalty.
Could we get these scholarships back sooner or is that ship sailed? If so that was a bad job but our council to atleast argue it and tried
to lessen the blow.
Expand...
The penalty that has absolutely killed us is the two coaches on the road part. Every other school has 4 coaches out there. If there are three events going on at the same time, we have to miss one. Couple that with what seems a bit strange that every time Jb attends one of these events, a ass't is with him .It's like he can't go alone to any of these. With the restrictions we just can't have two guys at the same event.
 
Right I said 2 because it was reduced and put 1 for 2018 because of last year being docked 3.
My point is why didn't try to get the 2014-15 season counted since we used that year for the postseason ban.
Louisville is doing that now.
 
Alsacs said:
Right I said 2 because it was reduced and put 1 for 2018 because of last year being docked 3.
My point is why didn't try to get the 2014-15 season counted since we used that year for the postseason ban.
Louisville is doing that now.
Expand...
We don't know that the NCAA will give Louisville a break because of that however. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Maybe they would have had a different ruling for us.
 
dasher said:
The penalty that has absolutely killed us is the two coaches on the road part. Every other school has 4 coaches out there. If there are three events going on at the same time, we have to miss one. Couple that with what seems a bit strange that every time Jb attends one of these events, a ass't is with him .It's like he can't go alone to any of these. With the restrictions we just can't have two guys at the same event.
Expand...
Maybe so but I think with elite camps and AAU you can see whoever you want.
I think the lost schollys are hurting us more. If we could get 3 back loaded to 2014-15 that could have ended the penalties after this year.
Louisville isn't going to be hammered because this year is their 2nd in a row at 11. Thus if they get 4 yrs 2 lost schollys they already served half of it.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
I can't wait to see UNC's penalties.
Expand...
UNC is going to lose the 2005 NC.
Their football team and women's basketball will get hammered and they will get the penalties we got.
4 yrs 2 lost schollys.
 
Alsacs said:
Maybe so but I think with elite camps and AAU you can see whoever you want.
I think the lost schollys are hurting us more. If we could get 3 back loaded to 2014-15 that could have ended the penalties after this year.
Louisville isn't going to be hammered because this year is their 2nd in a row at 11. Thus if they get 4 yrs 2 lost schollys they already served half of it.
Expand...
We have had enough ships to compete. We haven't had enough coaches on the road to recruit successfully. Plus, if the Ville isn't hurt worse than we were, it's a complete joke. Their offenses were so much worse. Not in the same league. Having said that, I'm not counting on it.
 
dasher said:
We don't know that the NCAA will give Louisville a break because of that however. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Maybe they would have had a different ruling for us.
Expand...
They will get credit they are doing it for a reason.
They took the ban with a legit top 15 they will get credit.

My point in this post is did we try to get 2014-15 counted. If we did good job if we didn't that wasn't smart and maybe we should try another appeal with threat of litigation.
 
Alsacs said:
UNC is going to lose the 2005 NC.
Their football team and women's basketball will get hammered and they will get the penalties we got.
4 yrs 2 lost schollys.
Expand...
Didn't I just see, and I may be wrong, but isn't men's hoop back in the loop for penalties?
 
Alsacs said:
They will get credit they are doing it for a reason.
They took the ban with a legit top 15 they will get credit.

My point in this post is did we try to get 2014-15 counted. If we did good job if we didn't that wasn't smart and maybe we should try another appeal with threat of litigation.
Expand...
We should have done the last part already.
 
dasher said:
Couple that with what seems a bit strange that every time Jb attends one of these events, a ass't is with him .It's like he can't go alone to any of these. With the restrictions we just can't have two guys at the same event.
Expand...
Didn't know that. The scholarship reduction doesn't hurt as much since JAB rarely used all 13 anyway (except when he rewarded a couple of senior walk-ons). Not being able to have as many coaches on the road hurts, but there has to be more to the recent snubs than just not visiting a recruit's event six times instead of four.
 
Guessing that when we filed our appeal, it delayed the start of the scholarship reductions.

Had we just accepted the 12 scholarship ding, we could have started a year earlier.

Since we're never at 13 schollies anyways, maybe we could claim that we've already taken a voluntary one scholarship reduction every year since the beginning of the decade? ;)
 
dasher said:
Didn't I just see, and I may be wrong, but isn't men's hoop back in the loop for penalties?
Expand...
I said the BB will lose what we did.
4 years 2 schollys it may be more at first and then reduced down to 4 x 2.
They are going to lose the 2005 NC Rashad McCants and Jackie Manuel's garbage is going to do it.
 
OrangeXtreme said:
Guessing that when we filed our appeal, it delayed the start of the scholarship reductions.

Had we just accepted the 12 scholarship ding, we could have started a year earlier.

Since we're never at 13 schollies anyways, maybe we could claim that we've already taken a voluntary one scholarship reduction every year since the beginning of the decade? ;)
Expand...
You don't get my point.
Did we or did we not impose a self postseason ban for 2014-15?
If so why didn't we impose a self 3 scholarship ban for 2014-15 as we knew we were losing scholarships.
My point is did we make this argument. If we didn't that is just dumb. If we did and the NCAA said no that is grounds to sue now.
 
Alsacs said:
Right I said 2 because it was reduced and put 1 for 2018 because of last year being docked 3.
My point is why didn't try to get the 2014-15 season counted since we used that year for the postseason ban.
Louisville is doing that now.
Expand...

Because we would have had to declare in advance that we weren't going to use the scholarships in anticipation of being penalized, not after you didn't find someone to give them to ask the NCAA to count that as a self imposed reduction. So the last possible credible point to have done that would have been late August 2014? But I don't see that as being particularly credible. Until this past season, I can't remember us ever adding players to our roster that late.

We announced the NCAA tournament participation ban in February when it was still plausible for us to have received an invite. In other words the self imposed penalty was arguably a penalty at the time that we made the decision to impose it on ourselves.

Not awarding unused scholarships to a walk on that is already on the roster, isn't really not using a scholarship in a penalty sense (except for the walk-on not receiving the money).
 
Last edited:
pfister1 said:
Because we would have had to declare in advance that we weren't going to use the scholarships in anticipation of being penalized, not after you didn't find someone to give them to ask the NCAA to count that as a self imposed reduction.

With the NCAA tournament participation we announced in advance that we were removing ourselves from consideration in anticipation of the NCAA penalty.

I don't think we had 13 players on scholarship in 2012-13 either, why not ask the NCAA to credit those unused scholarships against the penalty?? The answer is it doesn't make sense unless you are affirmatively announcing in advance that you will forego using them. And not giving them to a walk on that is already on the roster, isn't really not using a scholarship in a penalty sense.
Expand...
Why do you have to announce scholarships prior to the year starts and you don't have to self impose the ban prior to the season?
If we announced the ban prior to the season started Rak could have left and been treated better. We could have made it up that the 10 scholarships for 2014-15 were in anticipation of a ruling and we were getting ahead.
The NCAA couldn't disprove that and we would have grounds for a lawsuit if they didn't give us credit and they give other schools credit.
Either we tried and failed and have grounds to sue or we don't have thinkers on this issue.
I don't care about walkons getting scholarships.
 
Alsacs said:
You don't get my point.
Did we or did we not impose a self postseason ban for 2014-15?
If so why didn't we impose a self 3 scholarship ban for 2014-15 as we knew we were losing scholarships.
My point is did we make this argument. If we didn't that is just dumb. If we did and the NCAA said no that is grounds to sue now.
Expand...

The NCAA didn't release the sanctions until March 6, 2015. So we had no idea how severe the penalties were going to be until then.

Prior to the sanctions being announced, SU already self-imposed a series of significant penalties, including:
  • A one-year ban from 2014-15 post-season competition for men’s basketball
  • A voluntary, two-year period of probation for the Department of Athletics
  • Eliminating one scholarship for men’s basketball for the 2015-2016 season
  • Eliminating one off-campus recruiter for men’s basketball for six months during the 2015-2016 academic year
  • Vacating 24 men’s basketball wins: 15 for the 2004-05 academic year; 9 for the 2011-12 academic year; and
  • Vacating 11 football wins: 6 for the 2004-05 academic year; 1 for the 2005-06 academic year; 4 for the 2006-07 academic year.
Syracuse University | Update on NCAA Infractions Ruling

It looks like we took a self-imposed 1 scholarship ban for 2015-16 even before the sanctions hit.

Why didn't SU take a ban for 2014-15? I doubt you'll find the answer you're looking for on an internet message board.

Maybe you could write a letter to SU Legal and ask them?

 
OrangeXtreme said:
The NCAA didn't release the sanctions until March 6, 2015. So we had no idea how severe the penalties were going to be until then.

Prior to the sanctions being announced, SU already self-imposed a series of significant penalties, including:
  • A one-year ban from 2014-15 post-season competition for men’s basketball
  • A voluntary, two-year period of probation for the Department of Athletics
  • Eliminating one scholarship for men’s basketball for the 2015-2016 season
  • Eliminating one off-campus recruiter for men’s basketball for six months during the 2015-2016 academic year
  • Vacating 24 men’s basketball wins: 15 for the 2004-05 academic year; 9 for the 2011-12 academic year; and
  • Vacating 11 football wins: 6 for the 2004-05 academic year; 1 for the 2005-06 academic year; 4 for the 2006-07 academic year.
Syracuse University | Update on NCAA Infractions Ruling

It looks like we took a self-imposed 1 scholarship ban for 2015-16 even before the sanctions hit.

Why didn't SU take a ban for 2014-15? I doubt you'll find the answer you're looking for on an internet message board.

Maybe you could write a letter to SU Legal and ask them?
Expand...
I am asking the questions as the ban was leaked on this board from own insiders.
You telling me to ask SU legal really answers my question if you don't know fine but maybe someone else on here knows. I am hoping that person who took a lot of heat on this board and was just giving his insider info will answer.
 
Alsacs said:
Why do you have to announce scholarships prior to the year starts and you don't have to self impose the ban prior to the season?
If we announced the ban prior to the season started Rak could have left and been treated better. We could have made it up that the 10 scholarships for 2014-15 were in anticipation of a ruling and we were getting ahead.
The NCAA couldn't disprove that and we would have grounds for a lawsuit if they didn't give us credit and they give other schools credit.
Either we tried and failed and have grounds to sue or we don't have thinkers on this issue.
I don't care about walkons getting scholarships.
Expand...


You realize that the concept is that the self imposed action actually is detrimental to you in some way.

You truly don't see the difference between announcing the NCAA ban in-season, but before bids are awarded and announcing scholarship reductions in season well after you've already formed your roster for that season?

Incidentally, for any reduction in scholarships that Louisville may be imposing on itself to be a credible self imposed penalty, I think they would have to be on record well before the season begins as saying the reason we are limiting ourselves to x number of scholarship roster players this upcoming season is because we are self imposing a reduction as a penalty. And they would have to have a history of actually using all 13 scholarships, or at least a number greater than what they limited themselves to.
 
Last edited:
pfister1 said:
You realize that the concept is that the self imposed action actually is detrimental to you in some way.

You truly don't see the difference between announcing the NCAA ban in-season, but before bids are awarded and announcing scholarship reductions in season after you've already formed your roster for that season?
Expand...
How does the NCAA know if you didn't try to fill your 3 available scholarships prior to the season starting?
We could argue JB could have filled out the roster but didn't in anticipation of penalties.
They way we did the ban was bush league. I am okay with it being bush league because I want to win but it wasn't done right.
 
Alsacs said:
How does the NCAA know if you didn't try to fill your 3 available scholarships prior to the season starting?
Expand...

They don't, that's why it isn't a credible penalty if self-imposed retroactively.
 

Similar threads

S
    • Like
It’s time, if I were Head Coach edition
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
STEVEHOLT
STEVEHOLT

Forum statistics

Threads
175,339
Messages
5,351,082
Members
6,236
Latest member
SaltyCity

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
9,724
Total visitors
9,942
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom