Re: Self-Imposed Recruiting Sanctions

btcane

Sophomore
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
846
Below is a re-print of a post I wrote last Dec. 20 on the Recruiting Board. It is reproduced here to try and clear up the obvious confusion on this Board.
--------------------------

Re: Self-Imposed Recruiting Sanctions

I see a lot of posters mentioning supposed 'self-imposed recruiting restrictions.' Let me make it VERY CLEAR --- there is NO SUCH THING!!!

You are getting this term [or concept] confused with 'Roster Management & Preparation, In Anticipation of Sanctions.' Again, it ain't the same -- not even close!

Again, a school CANNOT self-impose scholie reductions in hopes of avoiding future punishment. One of the main reasons is that the Gods in Kansas City would have no way of knowing how many guys you could have signed.

In a previous post I tried to explain how the EE rule works, and how it can be used to minimize the effect of anticipated scholarship limitations via sanctions. I'll try to do so again.

First, the Rule: Any student receiving a scholarship and entering at mid-year may have his scholarship counted against the previous year's cycle numbers, or the following (fall) cycle, at the election of the institution --- provided the institution did not exceed the permitted maximum number allowed in the previous cycle (usually 25 per cycle.)

Note: The usual maximum of 25 per cycle, is always limited by the overriding maximum TOTAL number permitted on the roster. [Usually 85.]

Now, for purpose of illustration only, assume we get sanctions of a loss of 5 scholies per year for 3 years, with a roster limit of 80 players. What that means is that the usually permitted numbers (explained above) are reduced per the sanctions. i. e. 20 per cycle (instead of 25), with a roster limit of 80 (instead of 85.)

This year, because we currently have less than 80 players on scholie, we can, if Al desires, award the permitted 25 per cycle, and bring our roster up to 85 players.

Now the expected sanctions come into play.

Remember, any sanctions (if received) would not take effect until the 2014 cycle year, at the earliest. Again, as in the above example, that would mean a 20/80 limit.

Now comes the concept of Roster Management in anticipation of those sanctions. If, instead of awarding 25 this year, we only award 20, then next year we will be able to award 25, instead of the 20, provided 5 of them are EEs who can be back-charged and counted against this year's cycle [again, assuming we do not exceed the roster limit of 80.]

In other words (and in summary) , for every scholie under 25 that we DO NOT AWARD THIS YEAR, that number may be added to next year's number which will be subject to possible sanctions.

Further roster management is achieved by signing JUCOs who only have 2 years and will therefore drop off the roster naturally, while allowing other guys to RS until then.

Hope this clears up the confusion. Maybe want to tack.
 
Advertisement
Golden doesn't agree with you so I don't agree with you. Also, did this really need another thread? Look at me...
 
Last edited:
That information is wrong. UM has actually self imposed scholarship restrictions in the past:

B. PENALTIES SELF-IMPOSED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own the following penalties self-imposed by the institution:
1. The number of initial athletically related financial aid awards in football that are countable under Bylaw 15.02.3 shall be reduced by seven during the 1995-96 academic year, which limits the institution to 18 initial scholarships.
2. The number of total athletically related financial aid awards in football shall be reduced by five during the 1995-96 academic year, which limits the institution to 80 scholarships.

The COI back in 1995 did not agree that that was enough and added the following:

4. The number of initial athletically related financial aid awards in football that are countable under Bylaw 15.02.3 shall be reduced as follows:
a. 1996-97 -- reduction of 13 initial scholarships, which limits the institution to 12 under current rules.
b. 1997-98 -- reduction of 11 initial scholarships, which limits the institution to 14 under current rules.

5. The number of total athletically related financial aid awards in football shall be reduced by five during each of the 1996-97 and 1997-98 academic years, which limits the institution to 80 scholarships each year under current rules.
 
Last edited:
Dapper- correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we proposing future penalties? that is, we would reduce by 7 for the next recruiting season, then the NCAA tacked on the additional 23 or whatever the # was. We hadn't cut back before we received the NOI.
 
Advertisement
Dapper- correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we proposing future penalties? that is, we would reduce by 7 for the next recruiting season, then the NCAA tacked on the additional 23 or whatever the # was. We hadn't cut back before we received the NOI.

I'm not sure what you mean with this question. I posted in other threads that the people who think we self imposed anything relative to scholarship limitations for the incoming class in 2012 are completely wrong. We took essentially a full class. If we ended up with fewer than 85 on the roster due to bad roster management in the past, that's UM's problem. For this year, UM can self impose scholarship restrictions if it chooses - whether they receive the NOA before signing day or not.

The self imposition of sanctions is done at any time before sanctions are announced - it could be before or after the NOA is received. Back in 1995, UM self imposed the scholarship reductions for the class that signed in 1995. The Public Report announcing the final sanctions was not released until December 1, 1995, just a couple of months before the second signing class to be affected by scholarship restrictions.
 
We will likely have limitations on how many we can take in a year and how many total we can have. We took a full class last year, it is that simple. Sure we lost some players but we still took a full class. We didn't self impose and Golden's comment should be taken as the team has prepared the roster or begun the process. This is more about getting numbers right and such. If we had already taking a reduction then show me those numbers from last year. We could surely do it this year but we would need to inform the NCAA of those intentions and that likely would have been leaked.
 
For the record we had 24 kids count for 2012 so if we already self imposed then we imposed 1 player.
 
Dude, hate to burst your bubble, but the Gods left Kansas City a decade ago. Indy is the not so new home.
 
Advertisement
Dapper, I think we're in agreement, I got confused by the part you quoted and thought you were arguing we did self impose recruiting ##.
 
For the record we had 24 kids count for 2012 so if we already self imposed then we imposed 1 player.

this is exactly correct.

also, wrt what the OP said. that's not a bad idea (taking 20 this year, and then signing more next year and having 5 EE's count towards the 2013 class, which would not be affected by the sanctions. not sure if allowable, but it seems legit. of course then, we'd just need to know what our overall limitation is(under the 85), and take that into consideration.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top