****, I wrote this in another thread, but I think, I hope, that this shows just how toothless the "9 scholarship reduction" was.
Ok, I THINK I understand this. Bear with me.
USC etc got reductions, but they were not only against the 85 cap but per class as well. THAT is the thing that really hamstrings a program. You can't oversign to make up for attrition.
Staying at a 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. USC was limited to SPECIFIC class sizes of something like 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.
WE SKATE1!!!