forums

Scholarship Reductions...

bomb

bomb

Band
Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
3,522
Guys, what do you think of this...

If we take our 20 this year, and count 7 back to 2012 (as Ace said we can probably do in another thread), does that mean we tell the NCAA say we are only taking 13 in this 2013 class and are self-imposing 12 (25 minus 13) this year?

Is that what Al Golden might be master-minding?
 
Advertisement
Good Lord that would be a huge reduction in scholarship players, it would kill the program
 
ScubaCane said:
Good Lord that would be a huge reduction in scholarship players, it would kill the program
Click to expand...

Not at all if its just against the 25. What I am illustrating is creative accounting for something that is already happening.
 
no way we can count back 7 kids to last year's class. At the most I think we can count 2 back to last year, aside from the fact we only have 4 EE's
 
Advertisement
bomb, et al,
The coaches may have some version of this in the back of their minds. It could manifest itself like so: If we land plan A kids, then we take them, if we're down to plan B/C kids, we short-sign and count those towards the sanctions.

Another item of note, when you sign a large, highly rated class in given year, its always tough to land 4 & 5 star talent the following year. This might be the kind of thing that plays well into coach Goldens approach. Food for thought.
 
The issue with this reasoning is if we take close to 20 this year, we'll be at or close to the full 85 (unless we have a lot of post-Spring transfers). Usually, part of scholarship reductions is a yearly reduction paired with an overall reduction to the 85. For instance, USC loses 10 scholarships a year and can only have a total of 75. I would doubt the NCAA would accept our "scholarship reductions" if we didn't operate at 75-80 total scholarships.
 
Doesn't work that way.

There's no way the NCAA is going to give you credit for reducing your scholarships when you're cramming as many in as possible to get to 85. Never. Gonna. Happen. Understand the spirit of the penalty of scholarship reductions, and understand that the NCAA is hip to any shady crap disguised as "creative".

When we get the NOA, we can decide then if we want to voluntarily reduce our scholarships. You do it AFTER you get the NOA, and you do it moving forward, not retroactively. UM could determine that it will voluntarily take a reduction of 4 per year for 3 years in 2014-2016. The NCAA will then determine if they accept that self-imposition, or if they add to it.
 
SFbayCane said:
bomb, et al,
The coaches may have some version of this in the back of their minds. It could manifest itself like so: If we land plan A kids, then we take them, if we're down to plan B/C kids, we short-sign and count those towards the sanctions.

Another item of note, when you sign a large, highly rated class in given year, its always tough to land 4 & 5 star talent the following year. This might be the kind of thing that plays well into coach Goldens approach. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Unless you're Notre Dame, then you can take a highly rated class for thirty years and never do much with it. ;-)
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
Doesn't work that way.

There's no way the NCAA is going to give you credit for reducing your scholarships when you're cramming as many in as possible to get to 85. Never. Gonna. Happen. Understand the spirit of the penalty of scholarship reductions, and understand that the NCAA is hip to any shady crap disguised as "creative".

When we get the NOA, we can decide then if we want to voluntarily reduce our scholarships. You do it AFTER you get the NOA, and you do it moving forward, not retroactively. UM could determine that it will voluntarily take a reduction of 4 per year for 3 years in 2014-2016. The NCAA will then determine if they accept that self-imposition, or if they add to it.
Click to expand...

Didn't we sort of retroactively subtract 7 scholies from the NCAA mandated 31 scholies back in 1995?
It's been a few years, and I could be wrong, but I remember getting sentenced in November 1995, and I
remember we got dinged for 31 scholies, but 7 of those were already accounted for in the prior (small) class that
had signed in February.
Remember that Butch took over in late January, so he was unable to fill out that class.
I don't recall if at some point Butch or someone at the school decided not to try to fill that class with
garbage in February, so they can use the 7 scholie slots toward the punishment looming in a few months,
or if it simply worked out that way.
Thoughts?
 
Again...we can take 20 or so and still be at 80 so long as we whittle the roster down to the low 60s by attrition. That's why he is weeding out the deadwood. If its a loss of 5 per year it can be largely made up by attrition. Get rid of guys like Cain Dye Cleveland...make Thompson baseball exclusive and you are already at 62.
 
How creative was USC. I would think we may pattern are scholarship reduction philosophy like they dud
 
Advertisement
MedleyCane said:
The Franchise said:
Doesn't work that way.

There's no way the NCAA is going to give you credit for reducing your scholarships when you're cramming as many in as possible to get to 85. Never. Gonna. Happen. Understand the spirit of the penalty of scholarship reductions, and understand that the NCAA is hip to any shady crap disguised as "creative".

When we get the NOA, we can decide then if we want to voluntarily reduce our scholarships. You do it AFTER you get the NOA, and you do it moving forward, not retroactively. UM could determine that it will voluntarily take a reduction of 4 per year for 3 years in 2014-2016. The NCAA will then determine if they accept that self-imposition, or if they add to it.
Click to expand...

Didn't we sort of retroactively subtract 7 scholies from the NCAA mandated 31 scholies back in 1995?
It's been a few years, and I could be wrong, but I remember getting sentenced in November 1995, and I
remember we got dinged for 31 scholies, but 7 of those were already accounted for in the prior (small) class that
had signed in February.
Remember that Butch took over in late January, so he was unable to fill out that class.
I don't recall if at some point Butch or someone at the school decided not to try to fill that class with
garbage in February, so they can use the 7 scholie slots toward the punishment looming in a few months,
or if it simply worked out that way.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Can't say I remember it that way. I remember Freckles and Garcia manipulating their way around the sanctions a bit by signing guys and then allocating them to the previous season as EE's. I definitely don't remember us getting to trim the penalty by pointing to previous shortages on the roster. Long time ago, though, so I could easily be wrong.
 
DJWilliams55 said:
Again...we can take 20 or so and still be at 80 so long as we whittle the roster down to the low 60s by attrition. That's why he is weeding out the deadwood. If its a loss of 5 per year it can be largely made up by attrition. Get rid of guys like Cain Dye Cleveland...make Thompson baseball exclusive and you are already at 62.
Click to expand...

We take 20, which we probably will, and he's going to have to cut a ton of guys to get to 80. I don't see a part time starter in Dye in being one of them. And no way they give up on Thompson already. He's the 2nd best QB prospect on the roster behind Morris. If they planned to get rid of Kelvin Quit they would have done it when he quit the team last year instead of letting him come back. I don't think Alshermond is big on cutting guys. I haven't seen that from him at all. Guys we've lost have been for reasons (i.e., Fingers Finnie robbin' and stealin').

EDIT: ADDED "TO GET TO 80" at the end of the 1st sentence.
 
Last edited:
The Franchise said:
Doesn't work that way.

There's no way the NCAA is going to give you credit for reducing your scholarships when you're cramming as many in as possible to get to 85. Never. Gonna. Happen. Understand the spirit of the penalty of scholarship reductions, and understand that the NCAA is hip to any shady crap disguised as "creative".

When we get the NOA, we can decide then if we want to voluntarily reduce our scholarships. You do it AFTER you get the NOA, and you do it moving forward, not retroactively. UM could determine that it will voluntarily take a reduction of 4 per year for 3 years in 2014-2016. The NCAA will then determine if they accept that self-imposition, or if they add to it.
Click to expand...



this.

not to mention we can't count 7 towards 2012. we can count 1. and we've covered that by taking 4 EE's (1 of them counts towards 2012).

i like your guys' spirit, but there' no creative way around this. if and when the schollie reductions happen, they will start this upcoming year.
 
Advertisement
DerekDohrman said:
The Franchise said:
Doesn't work that way.

There's no way the NCAA is going to give you credit for reducing your scholarships when you're cramming as many in as possible to get to 85. Never. Gonna. Happen. Understand the spirit of the penalty of scholarship reductions, and understand that the NCAA is hip to any shady crap disguised as "creative".

When we get the NOA, we can decide then if we want to voluntarily reduce our scholarships. You do it AFTER you get the NOA, and you do it moving forward, not retroactively. UM could determine that it will voluntarily take a reduction of 4 per year for 3 years in 2014-2016. The NCAA will then determine if they accept that self-imposition, or if they add to it.
Click to expand...



this.

not to mention we can't count 7 towards 2012. we can count 1. and we've covered that by taking 4 EE's (1 of them counts towards 2012).

i like your guys' spirit, but there' no creative way around this. if and when the schollie reductions happen, they will start this upcoming year.
Click to expand...

My man, DD. Come around more often, brother.
 
Bomb: The 9 EEs with at least 7 counting back was what happened last Jan., i.e. Jan. '12. We can't do that this year. I have lost count on the number of guys that counted against the Initial Counter limit of 25. What I do know is that the 23 new scholarship players that reported to fall camp in Aug. '12 count against the '12 Initial Counter limit leaving at most 2 spots. If the remaiming 2 EEs from Jan. '12 counted against '11, then we have 2 spots to count back to now. Likewise, if only 1 of those 2 counted back last year, then 1 spot left, and if neither of those 2 counted back, then there is no room to count anyone back. As, I say, I have lost count and don't know the answer.

There are 2 models when it comes to sanctions. Consider the followimg reductions: (1) A reduction of total schollies (the 85 limit) and (2) A reduction of Initial Counters (the 25 limit). Model (A) only uses (1) and (B) uses (1) and (2). I prefer model (A) for us. I have never seen a model that uses (2) only.
 
ace said:
Bomb: The 9 EEs with at least 7 counting back was what happened last Jan., i.e. Jan. '12. We can't do that this year. I have lost count on the number of guys that counted against the Initial Counter limit of 25. What I do know is that the 23 new scholarship players that reported to fall camp in Aug. '12 count against the '12 Initial Counter limit leaving at most 2 spots. If the remaiming 2 EEs from Jan. '12 counted against '11, then we have 2 spots to count back to now. Likewise, if only 1 of those 2 counted back last year, then 1 spot left, and if neither of those 2 counted back, then there is no room to count anyone back. As, I say, I have lost count and don't know the answer.

There are 2 models when it comes to sanctions. Consider the followimg reductions: (1) A reduction of total schollies (the 85 limit) and (2) A reduction of Initial Counters (the 25 limit). Model (A) only uses (1) and (B) uses (1) and (2). I prefer model (A) for us. I have never seen a model that uses (2) only.
Click to expand...

You've never seen a punishment that only includes cuts from the 25 without cuts from the 85?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top