|
Post by efg72 on May 13, 2018 13:00:19 GMT -5
The question on partial was meant to suggest academic scholarship therefore no Signing
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on May 13, 2018 14:54:58 GMT -5
These may be very special, unusual circumstances, that may have required some out of the box thinking in terms of offering spots on the roster. Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on May 13, 2018 15:01:59 GMT -5
I am going to assume we are looking to replace at least 3 slots this summer with the class of 2019. I'm not making any assumptions at this point. What we can or can't do in 2019 is an open question which may not get answered until the NCAA investigation has run its course. Our overtures to recruits have,up until now, been a little peculiar: 1. We "extended an opportunity to play" to three premier recruits in April (Wade, Friday, and Lowder). None of these three used the word "offer" to describe whatever it was they got from Holy Cross, though a couple of third party sites used the word "offer" in tweets. 2. There are supposedly three other 2019s who got "offers" from HC (Porcic, Weber, and Wojcik). Again, none of them have directly acknowledged these as "offers," though Porcic and Weber re-tweeted third-party sites that used the word "offer." 3. These six kids have a cumulative total of over 20 offers identified as such on VC, including ones received immediately before and after our overtures to them, but there is no HC offer on any of their individual VC pages. There are no 2019 offers shown on Holy Cross' VC page - the other seven teams in the PL have a combined total of 104. I'm not saying VC "knows" something, but I do find this strange, What these things suggest to me is that the NCAA inquiry is hamstringing our 2019 recruiting because either (a) we don't know how many 2019 slots will be available until the findings of the inquiry are in, or (b) we are constrained from making formal 2019 offers until that time. The Fab Five + One all committed to Holy Cross by the end of the first week in August 2016, iirc. That point on the 2018 calendar is less than 90 days away. Tick-tock . . . Interesting. I wonder if scholarship restrictions are on the horizon (either self-imposed or from the NCAA). When there are serious compliance issues in two consecutive years, it starts to bring in the “failure to monitor” designation which is a pretty serious NCAA no-no. What a (bleep)show.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 13, 2018 16:46:43 GMT -5
I believe in basketball.there is a cap on the total number of players who can receive full or partial financial aid, provided that the aid awarded to any player on the roster is merit-based. (Because the Ivies do not award merit aid, there is no cap for them.) The cap in men's hoops is 13, A partial scollie, for the purposes of the cap, counts as a full scollie. A school cannot have 12 players on full and two players on partials. ____________________________ The following case may have a bearing on the hyper-analysis going on in this thread, in that the student athlete was suspended by the school, and after the school investigated, was re-instated to the team, but forced to sit out the first 20 percent of the season. The NCAA called the offense a major violation, it chose to impose only the most minimal of penalties. The student was never identified in any report. although some clever sleuthing would uncover the name. paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-censured-major-ncaa-violation-womens-tennis. Nothing is over until its over.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on May 13, 2018 19:14:29 GMT -5
I believe in basketball.there is a cap on the total number of players who can receive full or partial financial aid, provided that the aid awarded to any player on the roster is merit-based. (Because the Ivies do not award merit aid, there is no cap for them.) The cap in men's hoops is 13, A partial scollie, for the purposes of the cap, counts as a full scollie. A school cannot have 12 players on full and two players on partials. ____________________________ Just to clarify, in case some misunderstand, the limit of 13 only applies if the player was "recruited" under the NCAA definition. Extra players can receive need-based aid or academic scholarships IF they were not recruited.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 13, 2018 19:38:50 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, bison. I think we can posit that in the instant case, all four players were 'recruited'.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on May 13, 2018 19:42:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, bison. I think we can posit that in the instant case, all four players were 'recruited'. They’re not “recruited” until a coach makes a visit to them or the school pays for them to take an official visit to campus.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 13, 2018 20:18:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, bison. I think we can posit that in the instant case, all four players were 'recruited'. They’re not “recruited” until a coach makes a visit to them or the school pays for them to take an official visit to campus. www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/resources/recruiting-calendarsWhere, in that NCAA paragraph, do you read "official visit" or a coach contacting a recruit in person?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on May 13, 2018 20:44:54 GMT -5
If for no other reason than the sanity and comity of Crossporters, I hope this suspension situation gets resolved soon as this thread is getting as testy as the old politics threads.
The lack of information and transparency has naturally spawned speculation. Some of it might turn out to be spot-on while most of it will likely be far, far from reality.
I'd counsel patience except for the fact that I'm one of the worst offenders in that area.
Hey, football opener is only 16 weeks away!
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on May 13, 2018 21:00:45 GMT -5
In the bylaw on Financial Aid, when discussing what makes a student-athlete a "counter", it says the following: 15.02.8 Recruited Student-Athlete. For purposes of Bylaw 15, a recruited student-athlete is a student athlete who, as a prospective student-athlete: (a) Was provided an official visit to the institution’s campus; (b) Had an arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with a member of the institution’s coaching staff (including a coach’s arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with the prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s parents, relatives or legal guardians); or (c) Was issued a National Letter of Intent or a written offer of athletically related financial aid by the institution for a regular academic term. - - - - - Note that any aid the athlete receives can't be "athletically related financial aid", meaning that he can only get exactly what a non-athlete would get in the same circumstances. No special terms or extra aid or loans converted to grants other than what would be normal for a non-athlete. If he gets special terms, then he becomes a counter even if he wasn't recruited under the NCAA definition.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on May 13, 2018 21:08:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, bison. I think we can posit that in the instant case, all four players were 'recruited'. Not necessarily. See the definition I posted above.
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on May 14, 2018 2:27:34 GMT -5
Did Charlie Jones eventually earn a scholarship at AU? Yes. I believe the last two years. We had a player transfer after Charlie's sophomore season and a second leave around the same time who couldn't make it academically. I'm not exactly sure of the sequencing but I'm pretty sure he got one of those two scholarships going forward.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on May 14, 2018 5:53:27 GMT -5
Did Charlie Jones eventually earn a scholarship at AU? Yes. I believe the last two years. We had a player transfer after Charlie's sophomore season and a second leave around the same time who couldn't make it academically. I'm not exactly sure of the sequencing but I'm pretty sure he got one of those two scholarships going forward. So Jones is a very recent example of a student-athlete whose status changed from PWO to scholarship. It may not happen often, but it does happen.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 14, 2018 6:53:34 GMT -5
bison, on your points re: financial aid and counters.
On the old board, as you undoubtedly recall, there was a protracted discussion with respect to football, and whether a PL school could bulk up its roster with student athletes who were receiving need-based aid only; i.e., if HC reached 85 counters with merit-based aid, could HC add athletes 86, 87, 88..... who were receiving only need-based aid, and the answer/conclusion was 'no'.
The discussion ventured into whether a player in another sport who was receiving a full or partial scollie would be a counter in football, and I recall the answer was 'yes'. (I can't remember whether there was a distinction between merit or need-based aid, but the athlete's primary sport for which he was recruited was not football.)
The only exceptions I recall were if the athlete's scollie aid was from an external source, and the source was independent of the college; e.g., a ROTC student who also played football. In that case, the answer was that the athlete was not a counter.
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on May 14, 2018 12:47:59 GMT -5
Yes. I believe the last two years. We had a player transfer after Charlie's sophomore season and a second leave around the same time who couldn't make it academically. I'm not exactly sure of the sequencing but I'm pretty sure he got one of those two scholarships going forward. So Jones is a very recent example of a student-athlete whose status changed from PWO to scholarship. It may not happen often, but it does happen. It's not that uncommon, especially in football: But perhaps you were just talking about basketball.
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on May 14, 2018 16:57:34 GMT -5
I believe in basketball.there is a cap on the total number of players who can receive full or partial financial aid, provided that the aid awarded to any player on the roster is merit-based. (Because the Ivies do not award merit aid, there is no cap for them.) The cap in men's hoops is 13, A partial scollie, for the purposes of the cap, counts as a full scollie. A school cannot have 12 players on full and two players on partials. ____________________________ Bison, Bison, How does this work at the Ivy's where there are no athletic scholarships, as everything is "need based"? Harvard, for instance, has many more than 13 players, all who were recruited under the above guidelines? I've seen the NCAA rulebook, and am glad I don't have to carry it around!!
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on May 14, 2018 17:21:46 GMT -5
I am going to assume we are looking to replace at least 3 slots this summer with the class of 2019. I'm not making any assumptions at this point. What we can or can't do in 2019 is an open question which may not get answered until the NCAA investigation has run its course. Our overtures to recruits have,up until now, been a little peculiar: 1. We "extended an opportunity to play" to three premier recruits in April (Wade, Friday, and Lowder). None of these three used the word "offer" to describe whatever it was they got from Holy Cross, though a couple of third party sites used the word "offer" in tweets. 2. There are supposedly three other 2019s who got "offers" from HC (Porcic, Weber, and Wojcik). Again, none of them have directly acknowledged these as "offers," though Porcic and Weber re-tweeted third-party sites that used the word "offer." 3. These six kids have a cumulative total of over 20 offers identified as such on VC, including ones received immediately before and after our overtures to them, but there is no HC offer on any of their individual VC pages. There are no 2019 offers shown on Holy Cross' VC page - the other seven teams in the PL have a combined total of 104. I'm not saying VC "knows" something, but I do find this strange, What these things suggest to me is that the NCAA inquiry is hamstringing our 2019 recruiting because either (a) we don't know how many 2019 slots will be available until the findings of the inquiry are in, or (b) we are constrained from making formal 2019 offers until that time. The Fab Five + One all committed to Holy Cross by the end of the first week in August 2016, iirc. That point on the 2018 calendar is less than 90 days away. Tick-tock . . . Well, if the key July live period comes and goes, and we are still seeing the same vague verbiage with our "offers", then I will transition into full panic mode. For now, I am going to remain (as my old football coach would say) fat, dumb and happy.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Wormer on May 15, 2018 4:31:58 GMT -5
Guys. Enough with attacking one another, calling each other names, pointing out others credentials, defending others, repeating the same point ad nauseum, etc.
Stick to the topic. Please.
Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on May 15, 2018 11:46:55 GMT -5
More like all athletic scholarships are one year scholarships. That being said, a coach would have to be jerk to pull one without just cause and would also have trouble recruiting in the future if he tried that. There is an implied four year commitment from the school, but technically not guaranteed. It is implied to be four years at most PL schools. Definitely not assumed to be four years, however, in most conferences. For example, there have been numerous instances of scholarships being non-renewed in MAAC schools. I think it's safe to say that in D1 basketball, there are over 100 scholarships non-renewed every year. Sadly another example today of a scholarship being pulled from a player. Eric Musselman at Nevada has brought in more new recruits/transfers than he has scholarships. Thus today he non-renewed the scholarship of Marcel Pettway, who transferred their last year from Bryant and has yet to play a game. He sat this year and now will have to transfer again and maybe sit again. It's tough to even find schools with open spots at this time of year, so he may end up having to go D2.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on May 15, 2018 11:51:02 GMT -5
The NCAA should keep records on skools and coaches who do that.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on May 15, 2018 12:04:26 GMT -5
It is implied to be four years at most PL schools. Definitely not assumed to be four years, however, in most conferences. For example, there have been numerous instances of scholarships being non-renewed in MAAC schools. I think it's safe to say that in D1 basketball, there are over 100 scholarships non-renewed every year. Sadly another example today of a scholarship being pulled from a player. Eric Musselman at Nevada has brought in more new recruits/transfers than he has scholarships. Thus today he non-renewed the scholarship of Marcel Pettway, who transferred their last year from Bryant and has yet to play a game. He sat this year and now will have to transfer again and maybe sit again. It's tough to even find schools with open spots at this time of year, so he may end up having to go D2. Like father, like son
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on May 15, 2018 12:10:10 GMT -5
The NCAA should keep records on skools and coaches who do that. If they had a list of schools that don't do it, the list would be much shorter. For every case that gets publicity, there are ten where the player quietly "chooses" to transfer after being told there won't be a scholarship for him next year. At least if the player is told in March, he will be able to find a landing spot. When you are told in mid-May, it is very tough.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on May 15, 2018 12:15:24 GMT -5
It is implied to be four years at most PL schools. Definitely not assumed to be four years, however, in most conferences. For example, there have been numerous instances of scholarships being non-renewed in MAAC schools. I think it's safe to say that in D1 basketball, there are over 100 scholarships non-renewed every year. Sadly another example today of a scholarship being pulled from a player. Eric Musselman at Nevada has brought in more new recruits/transfers than he has scholarships. Thus today he non-renewed the scholarship of Marcel Pettway, who transferred their last year from Bryant and has yet to play a game. He sat this year and now will have to transfer again and maybe sit again. It's tough to even find schools with open spots at this time of year, so he may end up having to go D2. If this was his sit-out year, why would he have to sit out again? He was technically never on the Nevada roster
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on May 15, 2018 12:17:56 GMT -5
I have no problem with the coach telling a player the truth. You are not likely to get any minutes next year or the year after. If you choose to transfer I will put in a good word for you as your character and academic standing. But if a kid transfers in and then you tell him there’s no scholarship for him that’s dirty pool.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on May 15, 2018 12:27:23 GMT -5
Sadly another example today of a scholarship being pulled from a player. Eric Musselman at Nevada has brought in more new recruits/transfers than he has scholarships. Thus today he non-renewed the scholarship of Marcel Pettway, who transferred their last year from Bryant and has yet to play a game. He sat this year and now will have to transfer again and maybe sit again. It's tough to even find schools with open spots at this time of year, so he may end up having to go D2. If this was his sit-out year, why would he have to sit out again? He was technically never on the Nevada roster Normally a player has to be in residence at his new school for a year before he is allowed to play for that school. Having said that, there is a chance that he may appeal to the NCAA and be allowed to play immediately. That assumes he finds a D1 spot. If he goes down to D2, he wouldn't have to sit in any case.
|
|