|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 27, 2023 16:40:18 GMT -5
There are three caps that went away: 1.) The PL cap of 60 full equivalencies. 2.) The PL cap of 90 rostered players. 3.) An NCAA cap of no more than 25 new scholarships per year. In trying to figure out how, on its present course, HC would have 105 players on the 2023 roster, which is 20 above the 85 cap for FCS for players receiving fin aid, I found this article by an AP college football reporter in 2020, with respect to the Super Seniors and their fifth year of roster eligibility: www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/ncaa-eligibility-waived-covid/507-bd82c688-d5e2-4fb3-82c0-a6db9200af2eSee also, swimswam.com/fall-sport-athletes-5th-year-of-eligibility-wont-hit-scholarship-limitsBack in 2020, the fifth year Super Seniors not being counted against NCAA caps was discussed in the context of schools not being able to afford to add these additional scholarship players for their fifth year. Ultimately, whether or not to absorb the scholarship cost was left to the individual school. This is something that the PL appeared to recognize in its doing away with its caps on the number of football scollies and roster size, and the new language about school choice. . My belief is that when the NCAA took subsequent action to extend the fifth year of eligibility to players whose nominal fourth year of eligibility would have ended with the 2021, 2022, and 2023 seasons, this cohort of fifth year Super Seniors would also not be counters. (The original cohort of fifth year Super Seniors were those whose nominal fourth year was the 2020 season.)
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 2, 2023 14:10:35 GMT -5
There are three caps that went away: 1.) The PL cap of 60 full equivalencies. 2.) The PL cap of 90 rostered players. 3.) An NCAA cap of no more than 25 new scholarships per year. In trying to figure out how, on its present course, HC would have 105 players on the 2023 roster, which is 20 above the 85 cap for FCS for players receiving fin aid, I found this article by an AP college football reporter in 2020, with respect to the Super Seniors and their fifth year of roster eligibility: www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/ncaa-eligibility-waived-covid/507-bd82c688-d5e2-4fb3-82c0-a6db9200af2eSee also, swimswam.com/fall-sport-athletes-5th-year-of-eligibility-wont-hit-scholarship-limitsBack in 2020, the fifth year Super Seniors not being counted against NCAA caps was discussed in the context of schools not being able to afford to add these additional scholarship players for their fifth year. Ultimately, whether or not to absorb the scholarship cost was left to the individual school. This is something that the PL appeared to recognize in its doing away with its caps on the number of football scollies and roster size, and the new language about school choice. . My belief is that when the NCAA took subsequent action to extend the fifth year of eligibility to players whose nominal fourth year of eligibility would have ended with the 2021, 2022, and 2023 seasons, this cohort of fifth year Super Seniors would also not be counters. (The original cohort of fifth year Super Seniors were those whose nominal fourth year was the 2020 season.) My reply is time sensitive as it involves the fast moving MBB coaching situation and could be made irrelevant at any second 🙂 but if HC decided to pull all the stops out and max FB funding during this unique period of opportunity to see how just how far the program could go under this coach with total resources, and skimp on a new MBB coach for a year to pay for it, I'm not crying about it. Is that a possibility?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 2, 2023 15:46:28 GMT -5
There are three caps that went away: 1.) The PL cap of 60 full equivalencies. 2.) The PL cap of 90 rostered players. 3.) An NCAA cap of no more than 25 new scholarships per year. In trying to figure out how, on its present course, HC would have 105 players on the 2023 roster, which is 20 above the 85 cap for FCS for players receiving fin aid, I found this article by an AP college football reporter in 2020, with respect to the Super Seniors and their fifth year of roster eligibility: www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/ncaa-eligibility-waived-covid/507-bd82c688-d5e2-4fb3-82c0-a6db9200af2eSee also, swimswam.com/fall-sport-athletes-5th-year-of-eligibility-wont-hit-scholarship-limitsBack in 2020, the fifth year Super Seniors not being counted against NCAA caps was discussed in the context of schools not being able to afford to add these additional scholarship players for their fifth year. Ultimately, whether or not to absorb the scholarship cost was left to the individual school. This is something that the PL appeared to recognize in its doing away with its caps on the number of football scollies and roster size, and the new language about school choice. . My belief is that when the NCAA took subsequent action to extend the fifth year of eligibility to players whose nominal fourth year of eligibility would have ended with the 2021, 2022, and 2023 seasons, this cohort of fifth year Super Seniors would also not be counters. (The original cohort of fifth year Super Seniors were those whose nominal fourth year was the 2020 season.) My reply is time sensitive as it involves the fast moving MBB coaching situation and could be made irrelevant at any second 🙂 but if HC decided to pull all the stops out and max FB funding during this unique period of opportunity to see how just how far the program could go under this coach with total resources, and skimp on a new MBB coach for a year to pay for it, I'm not crying about it. Is that a possibility? Always a possibility. Could even be a good one. If HC football is rostering 70-75 equivalencies through the 2024 season, that is not a small amount of change. True, much of that could be covered by guarantees, and FCS playoff appearances. It would also seem that increased monies are being spent on football recruiting. And there may be salary bonuses for the coaches based on the team's success. KH is also intent on, and budgeting for, increases in scollies for the Olympic sports. But, as I have posted before, I have twice heard KH speak about what ails MBB at this juncture: the transfer portal, the NIL, student athletes pursuing athletics rather than academics, etc., If he has voiced these views publicly, he undoubtedly has expressed them privately, and more forcefully, with TPTB. Given the washout of HC's last five MMB head coaches, I included RW in that given the circumstances of his departure and he saying he was tired of recruiting. I would be surprised if TPTB, in the present situation, gave a thumbs up to KH plunking down a big pot of money for the next head coach. I will add that football has its financial supporters, and if a small gathering at another institution's new rink in CT is an indication, hockey does as well. The new Blaney court at HC was funded by George's classmates as a reunion gift. AFAIK, neither of the M/W hoops team locker rooms (suites) nor the M/W hoops coaches suite have donor names attached.
|
|
|
Post by midwestsader05 on Mar 2, 2023 17:33:06 GMT -5
Please stop with the 70-75 scholis. We are still at 60.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 2, 2023 18:40:00 GMT -5
Please stop with the 70-75 scholis. We are still at 60. Either BC is the greatest miracle worker since JC at Cana, or someone is playing games. For 2020-21 (includes the truncated spring season), for football: School total expenses / operating expenses (in thousands of dollars) Bucknell $5,559 / $253 Colgate $5,898 / $251 HCross $5,232 / $517 Fordhm $6,398 / $245 Lafaytt $5,747 / $297 Lehigh $5,233 / $124 Rchmd $6,369 / $337 'Nova $5,969 / $393 This table indicates that HC spent significantly less on scollies and coaches' salaries in 2020-21 than any other PL school, Richmond, and Villanova. HC was the only school to spend less than $5 million after operating expenses are deducted. Colgate spent $932,000 more on salaries and scollies than HC. (GU did not play football in 2020-21.) Data for 2021-22 should be released in the next month or so.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Mar 2, 2023 19:12:23 GMT -5
My reply is time sensitive as it involves the fast moving MBB coaching situation and could be made irrelevant at any second 🙂 but if HC decided to pull all the stops out and max FB funding during this unique period of opportunity to see how just how far the program could go under this coach with total resources, and skimp on a new MBB coach for a year to pay for it, I'm not crying about it. Is that a possibility? Always a possibility. Could even be a good one. If HC football is rostering 70-75 equivalencies through the 2024 season, that is not a small amount of change. True, much of that could be covered by guarantees, and FCS playoff appearances. It would also seem that increased monies are being spent on football recruiting. And there may be salary bonuses for the coaches based on the team's success. KH is also intent on, and budgeting for, increases in scollies for the Olympic sports. But, as I have posted before, I have twice heard KH speak about what ails MBB at this juncture: the transfer portal, the NIL, student athletes pursuing athletics rather than academics, etc., If he has voiced these views publicly, he undoubtedly has expressed them privately, and more forcefully, with TPTB. Given the washout of HC's last five MMB head coaches, I included RW in that given the circumstances of his departure and he saying he was tired of recruiting. I would be surprised if TPTB, in the present situation, gave a thumbs up to KH plunking down a big pot of money for the next head coach. I will add that football has its financial supporters, and if a small gathering at another institution's new rink in CT is an indication, hockey does as well. The new Blaney court at HC was funded by George's classmates as a reunion gift. AFAIK, neither of the M/W hoops team locker rooms (suites) nor the M/W hoops coaches suite have donor names attached. If this were true one of two things would be happening... 1. We'd be under NCAA investigation or 2. We'd be in the Ivy League and be on the low side of equivalencies.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 3, 2023 7:51:58 GMT -5
Always a possibility. Could even be a good one. If HC football is rostering 70-75 equivalencies through the 2024 season, that is not a small amount of change. True, much of that could be covered by guarantees, and FCS playoff appearances. It would also seem that increased monies are being spent on football recruiting. And there may be salary bonuses for the coaches based on the team's success. KH is also intent on, and budgeting for, increases in scollies for the Olympic sports. But, as I have posted before, I have twice heard KH speak about what ails MBB at this juncture: the transfer portal, the NIL, student athletes pursuing athletics rather than academics, etc., If he has voiced these views publicly, he undoubtedly has expressed them privately, and more forcefully, with TPTB. Given the washout of HC's last five MMB head coaches, I included RW in that given the circumstances of his departure and he saying he was tired of recruiting. I would be surprised if TPTB, in the present situation, gave a thumbs up to KH plunking down a big pot of money for the next head coach. I will add that football has its financial supporters, and if a small gathering at another institution's new rink in CT is an indication, hockey does as well. The new Blaney court at HC was funded by George's classmates as a reunion gift. AFAIK, neither of the M/W hoops team locker rooms (suites) nor the M/W hoops coaches suite have donor names attached. If this were true one of two things would be happening... 1. We'd be under NCAA investigation or 2. We'd be in the Ivy League and be on the low side of equivalencies. Sometimes, it helps to read upthread before jumping to conclusions. I posted this upthread: Bolding mine A more complete text of the article I quoted from, with calendar dates: [Bolding mine.] Obviously, nobody on Crossports was sufficiently attentive to NCAA rulings during the summer of 2020, as there was no fall sports season in the PL, --so this slipped under the radar. ----------------- There are four categories of team-related expenses in the Title IX reports, from which I copied the expense values. The four are: financial aid, operating ('game-day') expenses, coaches' compensation, and recruiting expenses. (Other expenses related to all sports are classified as indirect expenses, e.g., medical insurance for athletes.) The Title IX reports are directly directive of the NCAA revenue and expense reports, which every NCAA members submits annually to the NCAA. To my knowledge, the only NCAA-submitted reports that are audited are submissions by athletic associations at the larger public universities, as these are a separate financial entity from the university. So 'scout's honor' for the rest. HC's football operating expenses for 2020-21 were extraordinarily high as these included a trip to Billings. (For which NCAA reimbursement for such would be included as revenue.) Of note, HC's recruiting expenses for all men's sports in 2020-21 totaled $35,000, with the explanatory note that that recruiting was largely suspended because of COVID. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For those who really want to understand athletics finances, the link below is to PSU's 2021-22 NCAA revenue and expense report gopsusports.com/documents/2023/2/1/2021-22_NCAA_Report_Final.pdfIt is 90 pages long, and contains gems like PSU football coaches receiving $475,000 in bonus money because PSU went to a bowl. The report also illustrates how much football is the engine that drives the train when it comes to athletics at the autonomy schools, like PSU. The day one gets to see HC's revenue and expense report is the day that St. Joseph chapel becomes a non-denominational house of worship.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 3, 2023 8:55:44 GMT -5
Nah, it would have to become a non-denominational House of Pancakes.🙂
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 3, 2023 9:04:31 GMT -5
In the PSU NCAA revenue and expense report ^^^, the football roster totaled 125, 85 of whom were full equivalencies, receiving athletic-related (merit) aid, plus two more full equivalencies but apparently not rostered; an additional(?) 30 rostered players were receiving Pell grants, and apparently 10 were paying full freight.
This suggests that the number of rostered players receiving any form of fin aid was 115, when need-based aid was factored in. The rule on equivalencies as discussed at length in years past on this forum was that nearly any type of fin aid, including need-based aid, made one a counter, and the number of counters in FCS and FBS was 85, with the total aid for the 85 FCS counters not exceeding 63 equivalencies. It would appear that applying the old rule, PSU had 1115 football counters on its roster in 2021-22.
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Mar 3, 2023 10:02:04 GMT -5
In the PSU NCAA revenue and expense report ^^^, the football roster totaled 125, 85 of whom were full equivalencies, receiving athletic-related (merit) aid, plus two more full equivalencies but apparently not rostered; an additional(?) 30 rostered players were receiving Pell grants, and apparently 10 were paying full freight.
In general, a Pell Grant {federal$ up to $7395/yr} student is a full need student. So the additional merit/athletic aid from the school, to plus up a footballer's aid package, would need to make him a 1 full equivalent scholarship. However, the cost {90% @ HC?} to the school is less than a full scholarship equivalent. It appears some 'above the table' NIL deals could lower or disqualify Pell Grant eligibility. This suggests that the number of rostered players receiving any form of fin aid was 115, when need-based aid was factored in. The rule on equivalencies as discussed at length in years past on this forum was that nearly any type of fin aid, including need-based aid, made one a counter, and the number of counters in FCS and FBS was 85, with the total aid for the 85 FCS counters not exceeding 63 equivalencies. It would appear that applying the old rule, PSU had 1115 football counters on its roster in 2021-22.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Mar 3, 2023 10:28:45 GMT -5
I don't care about Penn State. I don't care about State U. Holy Cross has not had over 60 equivalencies on their roster.
Period.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 3, 2023 10:35:38 GMT -5
In the PSU NCAA revenue and expense report ^^^, the football roster totaled 125, 85 of whom were full equivalencies, receiving athletic-related (merit) aid, plus two more full equivalencies but apparently not rostered; an additional(?) 30 rostered players were receiving Pell grants, and apparently 10 were paying full freight.
In general, a Pell Grant {federal$ up to $7395/yr} student is a full need student. So the additional merit/athletic aid from the school, to plus up a footballer's aid package, would need to make him a 1 full equivalent scholarship. However, the cost {90% @ HC?} to the school is less than a full scholarship equivalent. It appears some 'above the table' NIL deals could lower or disqualify Pell Grant eligibility. This suggests that the number of rostered players receiving any form of fin aid was 115, when need-based aid was factored in. The rule on equivalencies as discussed at length in years past on this forum was that nearly any type of fin aid, including need-based aid, made one a counter, and the number of counters in FCS and FBS was 85, with the total aid for the 85 FCS counters not exceeding 63 equivalencies. It would appear that applying the old rule, PSU had 1115 football counters on its roster in 2021-22. If I understand you correctly, an athlete receiving a full merit scollie would not be a full need student, and could not receive a Pell grant. Thus, those on an FBS or FCS roster receiving a full scollie would be ineligible, Those on an FBS or FCS roster and receiving no merit scollie would be eligible for a Pell, which must be supplemented by other need-based aid. For FCS and athletes on partial merit scollies, could they also receive a Pell and additional need-based aid so as to meet "full need"? This table in the PSU NCAA revenue and expense report was the first time I had seen such data displayed in one of these NCAA reports. I do not recall such data being in reports that I looked at several years ago, which were for pre-COVID years.
|
|
|
Post by dharry13 on Mar 3, 2023 10:48:50 GMT -5
I personally don’t believe the school funded 70 schollies last year. I fully believe it was still the 60 they’ve always gone by. I don’t have full concrete info on this but it’s my belief there are 60 full equivalents on this current 106 man roster broken down player by player.
|
|
cross99
Climbing Mt. St. James
Posts: 85
|
Post by cross99 on Mar 3, 2023 10:51:48 GMT -5
I personally don’t believe the school funded 70 schollies last year. I fully believe it was still the 60 they’ve always gone by. I don’t have full concrete info on this but it’s my belief there are 60 full equivalents on this current 106 man roster broken down player by player. you sir, are 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 3, 2023 11:51:55 GMT -5
IIRC, whether a need/merit scholarship "counts" against a team depends on whether or not the athlete was recruited by the team.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 3, 2023 13:24:35 GMT -5
I personally don’t believe the school funded 70 schollies last year. I fully believe it was still the 60 they’ve always gone by. I don’t have full concrete info on this but it’s my belief there are 60 full equivalents on this current 106 man roster broken down player by player. For over a week, another poster and I contorted ourselves into pretzels in trying to understand how HC was rostering 106 for 2023 while still staying within an 85 cap for those receiving full/partial merit aid. We did not believe that 21 players on this football roster were paying full freight (@$75,000 a year), because that is what a strict adherence to the 85 cap means. (And our contortions were such we deserved a job in a circus.) For the recruits entering in the fall of 2023, it was posted here that 27-28 were receiving some aid, IIRC. If true, then, in this instance, BC and HC took advantage of the NCAA waiver of the 25 recruits per year receiving fin aid limit.. The waiver was put in place to allow schools to recover from the high number of transfer-outs, which were happening after recruiting was over. ------------------------------------------------ HC reported that for the class entering fall of 2022, 2021,38 athletes received athletic grant awards that were not based on need. The average sum of all such awards was $40,860. These athletes would be across all M/W sports. The similar number for Colgate for the class entering in the fall of 2022 2021was 78, with an average award of $39,400. Georgetown, which awards only need-based aid for football, awarded 105 members of the class entering the fall of 2022 2021athletic grant awards with an average value of $23,724. And no M'W ice hockey at GU, a sport capped at 19 scollies each. ^^^^ This is why I never was an auditor, because x is missing. 38 x $40,860 = $1,552,680. HC's total merit awards all classes, all sports in 2022-23 2021-22 was $9,254,000.
|
|
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 3, 2023 20:33:27 GMT -5
HC reported that for the class entering fall of 2022, 2021,38 athletes received athletic grant awards that were not based on need. The average sum of all such awards was $40,860. These athletes would be across all M/W sports. The similar number for Colgate for the class entering in the fall of 2022 2021was 78, with an average award of $39,400. Georgetown, which awards only need-based aid for football, awarded 105 members of the class entering the fall of 2022 2021athletic grant awards with an average value of $23,724. And no M'W ice hockey at GU, a sport capped at 19 scollies each. Do you see HC adding more scholarships for Title IX purposes? (FWIW, Georgetown has had a men's ice hockey team since 1938, but without facilities it morphed into a club program. A women's club team began in 2021.) www.georgetownhockey.com/history
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 3, 2023 22:35:05 GMT -5
Stumbled on this thread by mistake.
Picking just one not so random player. Peter Oliver was on the team last year. I ASSUME he was not on an athletic scholarship because he could get a free ride with his father an employee. That's one person on a not need based money that is not part of the football scholarship tally
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 3, 2023 22:42:12 GMT -5
HC reported that for the class entering fall of 2022, 2021,38 athletes received athletic grant awards that were not based on need. The average sum of all such awards was $40,860. These athletes would be across all M/W sports. The similar number for Colgate for the class entering in the fall of 2022 2021was 78, with an average award of $39,400. Georgetown, which awards only need-based aid for football, awarded 105 members of the class entering the fall of 2022 2021athletic grant awards with an average value of $23,724. And no M'W ice hockey at GU, a sport capped at 19 scollies each. Do you see HC adding more scholarships for Title IX purposes? (FWIW, Georgetown has had a men's ice hockey team since 1938, but without facilities it morphed into a club program. A women's club team began in 2021.) www.georgetownhockey.com/historyNice history of the program. Does Hockey out draw basketball now?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 4, 2023 9:48:15 GMT -5
HC reported that for the class entering fall of 2022, 2021,38 athletes received athletic grant awards that were not based on need. The average sum of all such awards was $40,860. These athletes would be across all M/W sports. The similar number for Colgate for the class entering in the fall of 2022 2021was 78, with an average award of $39,400. Georgetown, which awards only need-based aid for football, awarded 105 members of the class entering the fall of 2022 2021athletic grant awards with an average value of $23,724. And no M'W ice hockey at GU, a sport capped at 19 scollies each. Do you see HC adding more scholarships for Title IX purposes? (FWIW, Georgetown has had a men's ice hockey team since 1938, but without facilities it morphed into a club program. A women's club team began in 2021.) www.georgetownhockey.com/historyI'll obliquely answer your first question by responding with a question. 'Do I think that Holy Cross is gaming the system to reduce the prospective Title IX impact of scollie aid for males compared to females?' My answer is 'yes'. HC is in a bind, but less of a bind than if Georgetown were to award merit scollies for football. Three schools: male scollie aid / female scollie aid / male percentage of U/G population / male percentage of total Title IX reported scollie aidColgate $8,139K / $6584K / 45% / 55% HCross $6,607K / $5092K / 45% / 56% G'town $3,691K / $2,438K / 44% / 60% Georgetown reports $0 in athletic aid for football, as does the IL for all sports. The only difference in sports between HC and Colgate is 'Gate does not play baseball or women's golf. in the 2020-21 Title IX report, HC stated it spent $6,607,000 in athletic-related aid for male athletes. HC also said in that year, scollies for football were at the max PL cap of 60, and hoops and ice hockey were at the NCAA caps of 13 and 19. Total of 92 scollies. 92 scollies x average cost of $70,000 a scollie is $6,440,000. If the numbers are to be believed, HC spent $167,000 on athletic aid for participants in all other men's sports. (The $70,000 cost of a full scollie in 2020-2021 was my rounded estimate. Pre-COVID cost of attendance was $72,200, including books. And room and board cost can vary. The 2021-22 Title IX report will be post-COVID, and should provide a more accurate picture of fin aid spending.) It appears that HC may be selectively backing out need-based aid awards from the athletic aid amount. Georgetown reported it spent $6,130,000 for athletic aid for all men's and women's sports. Football would be $0 aid. I think this number needs to be checked in the 2021-2022 Title IX report, because a COVID-related adjustment seems to have been made. For example, Boston University, with ice hockey, reported $10,611,000 in athletic aid for women. Holy Cross spends $5.5 million less than Boston Univ in athletic aid for women, $3.2 million less than Bucknell, $3.8 million less than Quinnipiac (BU and Quinnipiac play women's ice hockey. Bucknell competes in women's water polo.)
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Mar 4, 2023 13:05:10 GMT -5
Stumbled on this thread by mistake. Picking just one not so random player. Peter Oliver was on the team last year. I ASSUME he was not on an athletic scholarship because he could get a free ride with his father an employee. That's one person on a not need based money that is not part of the football scholarship tally I think this has been posted before. The following is relevant from HC's employee benefits brochure. In the athletic scholarship context, the tuition benefit is not a 'full ride'. It is about 75% of the full Cost of Attendance that includes room & board. The benefit is limited to 8 semesters. Is it 'athletic/merit aid' to a recruited fballer? DEPENDENT TUITION After seven years of service, full-time employees are eligible for tuition benefits for their dependent children who are matriculated, degree-seeking students at Holy Cross. This benefit is available for up to eight semesters.
FACULTY AND STAFF CHILDREN EXCHANGE PROGRAM Holy Cross is proud to participate in FACHEX, which offers our full-time employees, after seven years of service, expanded dependent tuition benefits at 26 participating Jesuit schools
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 4, 2023 13:11:40 GMT -5
Oliver is one, Vaganek is two.
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Mar 4, 2023 13:18:04 GMT -5
Oliver is one, Vaganek is two. full time for 7 yrs Oliver yes; Vaganek maybe?
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Feb 13, 2024 9:33:52 GMT -5
^^^ So 63 full equivalents, up to 85 receiving any amount of fin aid, and no upper bound on roster size. And the NCAA did not increase the caps on the number of scollies that may be awarded because of COVID. A question that I still have is whether a fourth year or fifth year with a full scollie who then matriculates for only one semester in his senior year and again in his fifth year is counted as a half scollie in each year. The same question would apply to someone who, for example, has a half scollie. As they are not matriculating for a full year, is that half scollie become a quarter scollie? pp has your question above been resolved? my thought is that for 63 full equivalents there is no change... However, are there restrictions on the awarding of the unallocated/budgeted $? e.g. football roster only; including w/o's?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 13, 2024 11:20:54 GMT -5
^^^ So 63 full equivalents, up to 85 receiving any amount of fin aid, and no upper bound on roster size. And the NCAA did not increase the caps on the number of scollies that may be awarded because of COVID. A question that I still have is whether a fourth year or fifth year with a full scollie who then matriculates for only one semester in his senior year and again in his fifth year is counted as a half scollie in each year. The same question would apply to someone who, for example, has a half scollie. As they are not matriculating for a full year, is that half scollie become a quarter scollie? pp has your question above been resolved? my thought is that for 63 full equivalents there is no change... However, are there restrictions on the awarding of the unallocated/budgeted $? e.g. football roster only; including w/o's? No, it has not. My understanding is that the 63 is based on two academic semesters. But if you had a half-scollie player who only matriculated in the fall semester, and you had another half scollie player who matriculated both semesters, but his scollie only paid for the spring semester, by my accounting standards (which may be unique to me), you are getting two scollie players rostered and matriculating but only using one full scollie. Put another way, does a full scollie player who only matriculates one semester count as a full scollie against the 63 cap, or as a half scollie? And is the 85 cap a two semester cap for the same 85 players, or if players drop or are added during semester 2, does the 85, de facto, become 90 or 92? i.e., is the 85 a semester cap, not a full academic year cap?
|
|