CSNbbs

So seen around a lot of talk about seniors from this year getting a special extra year of eligibility given the NCAA tourney getting cancelled etc.

What do you guys think?

Not just seniors IMO. All players on the roster for sports that had their seasons interrupted should get a waiver on this year. Meaning you don't burn a redshirt or a year of eligibility.

Would teams be given extra scholarship spots? You also have new recruits coming in, which would put teams over the scholarship limit if the seniors returned.

(03-12-2020 08:39 PM)BraveKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Would teams be given extra scholarship spots? You also have new recruits coming in, which would put teams over the scholarship limit if the seniors returned.

Yeah, I'm supportive of everyone getting an extra year, but I don't know how you handle the incoming freshmen. Extra scholarship slots? Is that only for the schools that can afford it (mostly the Power 5)?

(03-12-2020 08:39 PM)BraveKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Would teams be given extra scholarship spots? You also have new recruits coming in, which would put teams over the scholarship limit if the seniors returned.

I would say give everyone, not just seniors, an extra year of eligibility, but no additional scholarship spots for the schools. So a player might be eligible, but his team may not want him anymore. "Eligible" shouldn't mean "guaranteed" roster spot, because it never does.

The college rodeo teams on scholarships are effected by the cancellations as well. Some like Central Washington, Southern Utah, Dixie State, Fresno State and Cal Poly are in states with a lot of that viruses going around. There are P5 schools, some G5, some FCS, several D2, a couple of D3, some NAIA and a bunch of NJCAA/CC without other sports are hit.

(03-12-2020 08:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2020 08:39 PM)BraveKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Would teams be given extra scholarship spots? You also have new recruits coming in, which would put teams over the scholarship limit if the seniors returned.

I would say give everyone, not just seniors, an extra year of eligibility, but no additional scholarship spots for the schools. So a player might be eligible, but his team may not want him anymore. "Eligible" shouldn't mean "guaranteed" roster spot, because it never does.

That would force coaches to choose either saying no to fifth year seniors who want to return, or taking scholarships away from other players to give them to fifth year seniors.

One way out of that dilemma would be a rule for next school year only that states that fifth year seniors are eligible but cannot be given any athletic scholarship, full or partial. That would take care of how to allocate scholarships, but would have the problem that it limits the returning fifth year senior opportunity to those who can afford to attend for a year as a walk-on.

Not for sports that simply had their playoffs interrupted. Now baseball and track might be something different.

I'd say yes for seniors. Have scholarship requirements only with teams with returning starters. If a current senior for some reason wants to transfer then classify the seniors as a grad transfer and count as a regular player. I'm curious on how this affects the transfer market this year. Their might be less loss to the draft this year as there isn't a tournament run that helps a players stock.

Some schools did finish their basketball season, didn't make or already eliminated from conference tournament. How do these scholarships get paid for? Would extra spots on teams get created? There will be playing time issues. Baseball has a lot of partial scholarships, being they aren't that many to begin with. I'm sure there is a good number of out of state players that are on scholarship and without a scholarship they can't afford out of state tuition, dorms, etc.

I think Baseball players should get an extra year, seeing as most of their season was cancelled, and as mentioned above, a lot of them are on partial scholarships anyways.

The only senior Syracuse had was a walk-on. If you allow seniors another year, some teams will have only 13 scholarship players while others will have 14, 15, 16 or even more players.

Sentimentally, absolutely - these kids did not have an opportunity to finish their careers on the biggest stage of college basketball: March Madness. Administratively, I have a hard time envisioning a way to not only allow all of these seniors an extra year, but also allow the incoming batch of freshmen scholarships spots as well. The power conferences for sure would find ways to accommodate and pay for it, but for other leagues/programs, not so much. Does the NCAA expand the roster size for one season? With the immediate transfer eligibility, would there be even more movement?

It's a tough time for all, no doubt. However, we do need to recognize that all of these student-athletes did not have an entire season, half a season, or even a quarter of a season taken away from them. It is/was a two-week stretch, some of whom it might have been one game, others it could be up to seven games. They still were given the opportunity to play a majority of their senior/last seasons.

It's hard, but the easiest/best solution, unfortunately, will probably to just move forward next year and recognize this time in sports/world history as a tragic effect of a global pandemic.

(03-12-2020 09:18 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2020 08:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2020 08:39 PM)BraveKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Would teams be given extra scholarship spots? You also have new recruits coming in, which would put teams over the scholarship limit if the seniors returned.

I would say give everyone, not just seniors, an extra year of eligibility, but no additional scholarship spots for the schools. So a player might be eligible, but his team may not want him anymore. "Eligible" shouldn't mean "guaranteed" roster spot, because it never does.

That would force coaches to choose either saying no to fifth year seniors who want to return, or taking scholarships away from other players to give them to fifth year seniors.

One way out of that dilemma would be a rule for next school year only that states that fifth year seniors are eligible but cannot be given any athletic scholarship, full or partial. That would take care of how to allocate scholarships, but would have the problem that it limits the returning fifth year senior opportunity to those who can afford to attend for a year as a walk-on.

On second thought, rather than giving everyone an extra season, just do so for seniors. That would make this a one-time adjustment not something that ripples through the pipeline for four years.

And I would allow these senior+ players to be eligible for scholarships. IMO, it is not a big deal for coaches to have to decide who to give a scholarship to, they do that all the time. But again, no guarantees for these senior-extras.

There should be a waiver of scholarship limits for one year and 2019-20 should not run the clock on student-athletes in
Men's baseball
Women's softball
Men's and women's golf
Men's and women's lacrosse teams
Women's rowing
Men's and women's tennis
Men's and women's outdoor track and field
Men's volleyball and women's beach volleyball
Women's water polo

Every other sport either completed the season and post-season or completed the regular season and shouldn't get a waiver. So if Joe Smith is a senior in track who would have completed eligibility this year, Joe is done in indoor track but has a year of outdoor

(03-13-2020 09:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]There should be a waiver of scholarship limits for one year and 2019-20 should not run the clock on student-athletes in ...

Every other sport either completed the season and post-season or completed the regular season and shouldn't get a waiver.

I largely agree with this, except for the bolded part. If you were denied post-season play, then IMO you deserve more eligibility. Don't see why we would want to exclude those athletes from such a plan.

Athletes for Spring Sports should absolutely get another year of eligibility.

Winter sport athletes’ seasons were nearly over so I don’t see giving them an extra year as necessary

(03-13-2020 09:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]There should be a waiver of scholarship limits for one year and 2019-20 should not run the clock on student-athletes in
Men's baseball
Women's softball
Men's and women's golf
Men's and women's lacrosse teams
Women's rowing
Men's and women's tennis
Men's and women's outdoor track and field
Men's volleyball and women's beach volleyball
Women's water polo

Every other sport either completed the season and post-season or completed the regular season and shouldn't get a waiver. So if Joe Smith is a senior in track who would have completed eligibility this year, Joe is done in indoor track but has a year of outdoor

Agreed, except what do you do about the Seniors who won their conference tournaments? I wish they had let the conference tournaments play out with no fans.

My compromise would be to simply apply the same rules as you would for a redshirt. If you played enough games in a sport this year (such as those that played a close-to-full basketball season) that you couldn't redshirt for this season any longer, then you shouldn't get another year of eligibility (e.g. whether the NCAA Tournament was played or not would have been irrelevant with respect to your eligibility to play next year). I think that's going to be pretty easy for basketball. The grey area will be for spring sports that have already started (such as baseball) but are much earlier in their seasons.

To me, that's a logical way to handle this. If an athlete already played enough games that he/she would have used a year of eligibility regardless of whether the rest of the season was canceled, then it's inequitable to provide another year of eligibility to that athlete. In contrast, any athlete that didn't meet that standard should get the equivalent of a medical redshirt year (as that is what has effectively occurred here).

(03-12-2020 09:26 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]Not for sports that simply had their playoffs interrupted. Now baseball and track might be something different.

Agreed.