Just to put things in perspective. The NCAA investigation...

[BWCD]

If it's total schollies we can award each year per roster size, then Big Ern's numbers are right.

I was always told that it's not that way, but instead, given 12 schollies over 4 years--that's 3 less kids per year that you can SIGN.

Forget signing odd # classes...the yearly "max" w/o creative math is 25 schollies given to signees. With sanctions--it's 22. We lose 3 right off the top each year for 4 years, and can still back fill that with walkons to get to our 85 max roster size.

What that ends up doing is giving you less talent on the roster as far as how many kids you can recruit, but you still get up to 85 kids on the active roster each year. It makes your numbers harder in recruiting, as you have less space...but it doesn't make you take the field with 73 kids when the other team can field 85.

 

[3FW]

Rumors will come in bunches next week. Hard to guess on this one.

 

[zone3cane]

These NCAA crooks are knowingly hanging this bs investigation over UMs head, while laughing at how high they are making the University jump for them.

 

[MIA42178]

Sharon Tate was murdered 8-9-69. Manson was convicted 1-25-71. Less than 18 months

 

[crossover22[]_[]]

I've said it for months now. It will be september before they announce anything. They know the public hates them right now. They will wait till football starts so espn isnt showing just our penalties all day every day. They don't need the negative attention.

Mark it down. September.

 

[Ibis Wingz]

Absolutely ridiculous. When the NCAA fixes themselves, this has to be a case study on how not to operate an investigation. These people running this are boarder line retarded.

I'm pretty sure they crossed the border.

 

[HeHateMe]

Wouldn't be surprised if we got the news the day before our first game.

 

[tampacane21]

The NCAA stalling is a way to give us a stiffer penalty than they actually would have been able to. Basically their thinking is, we can't give them a penalty worse than PSU so let's drag it out so they are penalized wihout actually being penalized.

 

[Ernie McCracken]

12 schollies over 4 years.

That's 12% of our adjusted gross. That's not peanuts.

This. It's the 4 years that really hurts us. That's an awful long time to deal with scholly limits. IF, say, that rumor were true then

This year, we can have 85 athletes
In 2014 we could have 82 athletes
In 2015 we could have 79 athletes
In 2016 we could have 76 athletes
In 2017 we could have 73 athletes!!

Usually with these scholarship reductions, they don't allow you to make up for attrition either, so chances are we would be in the 60's.

So we're trying to build for the future, but with only 73 athletes on scholarship in 2017 we literally would have no depth at all. Then, in 2018, we would have to sign a MONSTER class, bringing in 35+ kids.

2018 would be a repeat of last year.

It basically screws our program for a long time moving forward.

Pretty sure this is completely wrong

I'm pretty sure it's right, ace.

No, there are many factors. The limits would be 3 less scholarships available per year from 25. So they'd have 22 scholarships per year to offer. Then they'd probably be limited to a total of 82 scholarship players per year for the 4 years. If we bring in the max per year for 4 years then we'd have 88. So at no point would we be forced to 73 by the sanctions.

That's not how it works. At least, it's not how it's worked for any other school that got hit with scholly reductions.

If we get hit with 12 over 4 years, that means that in year 4, we're down 12 schollies from the max of 85. It ALSO means, like you say, we can sign a max of 22 per year (while not going over the total cap), so we wouldn't be able to make up for attrition.

 

[nadiamufdi]

Ernie - are you factoring in that we could have possibly already self imposed scholly losses? We didn't take a full class this past year.

12 scholarship would hurt but it could've been much worse, like USC bad. Fsu lost 3 scholarship a year for 3 years for their academic scandal. They seem to have done quite well talent wise since then

 

[ball915]

Thanks Randy

you forgot the comma

 

[Chuckles]

There's some buzz going around.....12 schollies over 4 years.....no bowl ban. Limits' on visits blah blah. If true, i'll take it.

sk8

Oh we skate fo sho.

I ain't even worried.

Whoopsie-do!

 

[Supercane85]

12 schollies over 4 years.

That's 12% of our adjusted gross. That's not peanuts.

This. It's the 4 years that really hurts us. That's an awful long time to deal with scholly limits. IF, say, that rumor were true then

This year, we can have 85 athletes
In 2014 we could have 82 athletes
In 2015 we could have 79 athletes
In 2016 we could have 76 athletes
In 2017 we could have 73 athletes!!

Usually with these scholarship reductions, they don't allow you to make up for attrition either, so chances are we would be in the 60's.

So we're trying to build for the future, but with only 73 athletes on scholarship in 2017 we literally would have no depth at all. Then, in 2018, we would have to sign a MONSTER class, bringing in 35+ kids.

2018 would be a repeat of last year.

It basically screws our program for a long time moving forward.

Pretty sure this is completely wrong

I'm pretty sure it's right, ace.

12 scholarships over 4 years would limit UM to only 22 new scholarships per year with out the ability to backfield

Schools can do well during sanctions. It will all depend on the size of their senior class and early entries to the NFL

Example - Team Canes Insight
2013-85 players (Senior class is 18) (4 declare early) leaves team with 63 players. With 22 Scholarship available team can be at 85 players again

2nd example - Team Canes Insight
2013 - 85 players (Senior Class is 24) (5 Declare early) (3 transfers) leaves team with 53 players. With 22 Scholarships available team could only have a max of 75 players
if 2014 had a large graduating class, early entries or transfers it would really hurt the team because of the inability to back fill players that graduated, transferred or declared early.

So it really depends on how large the senior class is.

 

[post499]

That's not how it works. At least, it's not how it's worked for any other school that got hit with scholly reductions.

If we get hit with 12 over 4 years, that means that in year 4, we're down 12 schollies from the max of 85. It ALSO means, like you say, we can sign a max of 22 per year (while not going over the total cap), so we wouldn't be able to make up for attrition.

This is what I always understood... 12 over 4 would mean the following
Year 1: Can give out 22 Initial and 82 Total Scholarships
Year 2: Can give out 22 Initial and 82 Total Scholarships
Year 3: Can give out 22 Initial and 82 Total Scholarships
Year 4: Can give out 22 Initial and 82 Total Scholarships
Of course they would also specify whether it was the same for total scholarships.

I believe Penn State was 40 over 4 with 20 per year total reduction, right? So as follows:
Year 1: Can give out 15 Initial and 65 Total
Year 2: Can give out 15 Initial and 65 Total
Year 3: Can give out 15 Initial and 65 Total
Year 4: Can give out 15 Initial and 65 Total

Here was the actual wording from the NCAA report on UNC:

4. The institution will reduce by a total of 15 the number of both initial and total
grants-in-aid over a three-year period covering the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15
academic years. The institution proposed a reduction of nine initial and total
grants over the same period. The reductions shall be applied as follows:
a. A reduction of five initial and total grants in aid for the 2012-13 academic
year;
b. A reduction of five initial and total grants in aid for the 2013-14 academic
year; and
c. A reduction of five initial and total grants in aid for the 2014-15 academic
year.



Could be completely wrong but 12 over 4 doesn't seem that bad. Don't get me wrong... it still sucks and it's BS we get that when Oregon gets what, 1?... But maybe I was just preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. 12 over 4 is definately better than 30 over 3 (USC)... If that's what we got, I'd be relieved.



Oh yea and **** the NCAA

 

[SigEp77]

Call ace, he'll clear this up with the quickness.

 

[BigCaneAl]

12 schollies over 4 years.

That's 12% of our adjusted gross. That's not peanuts.

This. It's the 4 years that really hurts us. That's an awful long time to deal with scholly limits. IF, say, that rumor were true then

This year, we can have 85 athletes
In 2014 we could have 82 athletes
In 2015 we could have 79 athletes
In 2016 we could have 76 athletes
In 2017 we could have 73 athletes!!

Usually with these scholarship reductions, they don't allow you to make up for attrition either, so chances are we would be in the 60's.

So we're trying to build for the future, but with only 73 athletes on scholarship in 2017 we literally would have no depth at all. Then, in 2018, we would have to sign a MONSTER class, bringing in 35+ kids.

2018 would be a repeat of last year.

It basically screws our program for a long time moving forward.

Pretty sure this is completely wrong

I'm pretty sure it's right, ace.

12 scholarships over 4 years would limit UM to only 22 new scholarships per year with out the ability to backfield

Schools can do well during sanctions. It will all depend on the size of their senior class and early entries to the NFL

Example - Team Canes Insight
2013-85 players (Senior class is 18) (4 declare early) leaves team with 63 players. With 22 Scholarship available team can be at 85 players again

2nd example - Team Canes Insight
2013 - 85 players (Senior Class is 24) (5 Declare early) (3 transfers) leaves team with 53 players. With 22 Scholarships available team could only have a max of 75 players
if 2014 had a large graduating class, early entries or transfers it would really hurt the team because of the inability to back fill players that graduated, transferred or declared early.

So it really depends on how large the senior class is.

This

 

[DiegoCane]

This. It's the 4 years that really hurts us. That's an awful long time to deal with scholly limits. IF, say, that rumor were true then

This year, we can have 85 athletes
In 2014 we could have 82 athletes
In 2015 we could have 79 athletes
In 2016 we could have 76 athletes
In 2017 we could have 73 athletes!!

Usually with these scholarship reductions, they don't allow you to make up for attrition either, so chances are we would be in the 60's.

So we're trying to build for the future, but with only 73 athletes on scholarship in 2017 we literally would have no depth at all. Then, in 2018, we would have to sign a MONSTER class, bringing in 35+ kids.

2018 would be a repeat of last year.

It basically screws our program for a long time moving forward.

Pretty sure this is completely wrong

I'm pretty sure it's right, ace.

No, there are many factors. The limits would be 3 less scholarships available per year from 25. So they'd have 22 scholarships per year to offer. Then they'd probably be limited to a total of 82 scholarship players per year for the 4 years. If we bring in the max per year for 4 years then we'd have 88. So at no point would we be forced to 73 by the sanctions.

That's not how it works. At least, it's not how it's worked for any other school that got hit with scholly reductions.

If we get hit with 12 over 4 years, that means that in year 4, we're down 12 schollies from the max of 85. It ALSO means, like you say, we can sign a max of 22 per year (while not going over the total cap), so we wouldn't be able to make up for attrition.

Yeah I'm pretty sure you are wrong. They set a year number and a total number.

If what you are saying is true, PSU would be playing with 45 scholarship players at the end of sanction which is completely wrong. Post #54 is right from everything I know.

 

[GonzoCane]

Stunning the OP and the whole process/length of this. Sha-pie-ro will do his stretch and be out and this thing won't be resolved. No wonder why Golden can't bring himself to say the four letter word. Unreal.

 

[3FW]

That is correct. The NCAA provides a per year number and a cannot exceed number. In PSU case it was 10 for 4 and 65. Can someone explain how that works? You really need to make sure you have a full allotment of 1st year players when that starts.

 

[miamimike]

Whatever the sanctions are we need to accept them and never look back.

Absolutely not! Big surprise gamineal liked your post. Troll and Troll.