- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 3,522
This is an edited rehash of what I wrote in another thread, but its important and IMO the NCAA scholarship reductions are almost toothless, and for show to save a little face, after being managed by Donna Shalala.
Bear with me.
USC etc got reductions, but they were not only against the 85 cap but per class as well. 15/15/15. THAT is the thing that really hamstrings a program. You can't oversign to make up for attrition.
Staying at a slightly reduced cap against the 85 isn't a big deal. Its when you need a class of 28 kids and you can only sign 16 because you are limited to a specifically smaller class that year (like 15, or even 22). USC was limited to SPECIFIC class sizes of 15/15/15.
From what it appears, we do NOT have any class restrictions! It isn't noted anywhere. I THINK, we're just held to 82. Note this specific line:
3. Reduction in Athletics Awards. The total number of athletically related
financial aid awards in football shall be reduced by a combined total of nine
during the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years. The institution shall
reduce the total number of athletics awards during each academic year. The
institution has the option of assigning the reductions during those years.
That bolded "option" at the end, signals to me that all we have to do is stay at 82. NO SPECIFIC CLASS REDUCTIONS.
If we were limited to 22/22/22 over three years, we'd end up playing down at 72 or so in the end, not 82. The attrition in that 22/22/22 case would be cumulative because you are continuously prevented from oversigning to make up for smaller classes and lost kids. It would have hurt and hamstrung us even after it was all over, as USC will be ****ed for the next few years.
Guys, we, and may other schools play below the cap all the time. Its hard to get it perfect. If I am interpreting this correctly, these reductions are practically just for show. We got off.
For further example, USC is near 55 right now, even though they are allowed to be at 75. That's how crippling specific class size restrictions are. They needed a LOT more than 15 kids each year to get to 75, but were capped at 15 over and over. That's why I am explaining that 22/22/22 would have been far more crippling for us than just the 9 with "The institution has the option of assigning the reductions during those years." We would have ended up down at 72 in 3 years, not 82. Because we just wouldn't have been able to add enough kids.
Guys, we truly skated. Lets say that with ZERO reductions, normal operations, we would have ended up with rosters of 83, 84, and 83 over the next three years, just being careful not to mis-manage the roster. That's normal. A kid gets gets hurt too late to add a kid, etc. We're rarely at 85, if ever. We really are going to only lose 4 kids in my example where we would have played at 83, 84, and 83. Not 9. Because we were never going to magically be at 85/85/85 anyway. What it basically means is that we will lose maybe one kid at the bottom of the classes each year, a kid that we were on the fence about giving a ride to anyway, and a couple of walk ons that would have been awarded the final spot or two on the team as a thank you won't get it.
Make sense?
WE. ******* SKATED. The NCAA gave us a toothless scholarship reduction.
I am almost more concerned with that fact that we can only give recruits tickets to one home game a year, LOL.
Bless you, Donna, bless you. Well played.
Bear with me.
USC etc got reductions, but they were not only against the 85 cap but per class as well. 15/15/15. THAT is the thing that really hamstrings a program. You can't oversign to make up for attrition.
Staying at a slightly reduced cap against the 85 isn't a big deal. Its when you need a class of 28 kids and you can only sign 16 because you are limited to a specifically smaller class that year (like 15, or even 22). USC was limited to SPECIFIC class sizes of 15/15/15.
From what it appears, we do NOT have any class restrictions! It isn't noted anywhere. I THINK, we're just held to 82. Note this specific line:
3. Reduction in Athletics Awards. The total number of athletically related
financial aid awards in football shall be reduced by a combined total of nine
during the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years. The institution shall
reduce the total number of athletics awards during each academic year. The
institution has the option of assigning the reductions during those years.
That bolded "option" at the end, signals to me that all we have to do is stay at 82. NO SPECIFIC CLASS REDUCTIONS.
If we were limited to 22/22/22 over three years, we'd end up playing down at 72 or so in the end, not 82. The attrition in that 22/22/22 case would be cumulative because you are continuously prevented from oversigning to make up for smaller classes and lost kids. It would have hurt and hamstrung us even after it was all over, as USC will be ****ed for the next few years.
Guys, we, and may other schools play below the cap all the time. Its hard to get it perfect. If I am interpreting this correctly, these reductions are practically just for show. We got off.
For further example, USC is near 55 right now, even though they are allowed to be at 75. That's how crippling specific class size restrictions are. They needed a LOT more than 15 kids each year to get to 75, but were capped at 15 over and over. That's why I am explaining that 22/22/22 would have been far more crippling for us than just the 9 with "The institution has the option of assigning the reductions during those years." We would have ended up down at 72 in 3 years, not 82. Because we just wouldn't have been able to add enough kids.
Guys, we truly skated. Lets say that with ZERO reductions, normal operations, we would have ended up with rosters of 83, 84, and 83 over the next three years, just being careful not to mis-manage the roster. That's normal. A kid gets gets hurt too late to add a kid, etc. We're rarely at 85, if ever. We really are going to only lose 4 kids in my example where we would have played at 83, 84, and 83. Not 9. Because we were never going to magically be at 85/85/85 anyway. What it basically means is that we will lose maybe one kid at the bottom of the classes each year, a kid that we were on the fence about giving a ride to anyway, and a couple of walk ons that would have been awarded the final spot or two on the team as a thank you won't get it.
Make sense?
WE. ******* SKATED. The NCAA gave us a toothless scholarship reduction.
I am almost more concerned with that fact that we can only give recruits tickets to one home game a year, LOL.
Bless you, Donna, bless you. Well played.
