(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  UConn up 12-2.

Yikes.

Pitching just isn’t there this year.

Yep. Just winning the CAA and getting into the NCAAT seems like the goal this year.

The outlook gets way better if Alexander gets healthy. JMU said she was day-to-day (I think this was about last Monday), so hopefully she’ll be good to go by CAA play. Gotta figure that if she’s healthy then the plan will be for her to pitch about two thirds of our conference games.

The outcomes so far this weekend reflect a team not having their two excellent pitchers from last year and struggling to find replacements. Hopefully this turns around.

The Duke hang an 8 spot on Sienna in the bottom of the first. 3 home runs in the inning by the Dukes. Top of the second 8-0 Dukes!!

No sign of CiCi so I guess she is still out.

Brian

Dukes beat Cal 10-3 to take both games today!

Brian

I think I saw CC limping around after a home run in one of the games this weekend. Not sure when we will see her back, but we need her at 100% in order for her to be the ace of this staff.

(03-09-2020 07:17 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  I think I saw CC limping around after a home run in one of the games this weekend. Not sure when we will see her back, but we need her at 100% in order for her to be the ace of this staff.

Absolutely. That said, the way the other 2 pitchers have started pitching, I'll feel pretty good about the 3 of them once they're all healthy.

Sorry to create a zombie thread, but WHSV is reporting that Kate Gordon, Odicci Alexander, and Madison Naujokas planning to return next year.

https://www.whsv.com/video?vid=569710772

(04-16-2020 10:07 PM)DukeDogNation Wrote:  Sorry to create a zombie thread, but WHSV is reporting that Kate Gordon, Odicci Alexander, and Madison Naujokas planning to return next year.

https://www.whsv.com/video?vid=569710772

Ohhhhhhhh heeeeeeellllll yyyyyyeeeeeesssss!

Woohoo!

Thanks for sharing that.

That would mean that the only seniors we lose from this year's roster are Natalie Cutright, who was a part time starter/designated player, and Cambry Arnold, who didn't play this year and I think was reported to be looking to transfer.

(04-17-2020 07:58 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  That would mean that the only seniors we lose from this year's roster are Natalie Cutright, who was a part time starter/designated player, and Cambry Arnold, who didn't play this year and I think was reported to be looking to transfer.

I think I have seen this discussed on here, and heard on the radio....

So I guess that means the NCAA would have to allow extra scholarships next year, which would cost schools more in a time they are receiving greatly reduced revenues.

(04-17-2020 08:27 AM)Dukester Wrote:  I think I have seen this discussed on here, and heard on the radio....

So I guess that means the NCAA would have to allow extra scholarships next year, which would cost schools more in a time they are receiving greatly reduced revenues.

I'm not sure on the ability to offer more scholarships, but I do know that schools aren't required to offer the returners scholarships. Some schools have already come out and said that they will not be offering scholarships to students. (I need to find the school, but I think it was a B1G school. UMaine already said coaches will be held to the same scholarship budgets.

It was Wisconsin who said they aren't doing it.

(04-17-2020 08:43 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  It was Wisconsin who said they aren't doing it.

That's who it was! It sounds like they're not even going to allow seniors from the spring to return at all.

Great news! Hope this luck spills over to the girls lacrosse team as well.

This may have been discussed already, but with returning eligible seniors and a glut of players with the incoming freshmen class, are teams going to be allowed to have a higher number of scholly players next year?

(04-17-2020 11:39 AM)2Buck Wrote:  This may have been discussed already, but with returning eligible seniors and a glut of players with the incoming freshmen class, are teams going to be allowed to have a higher number of scholly players next year?

I believe there is financial relief for the upcoming year to accommodate Seniors wishing to use their last year of eligibility but if I read it correctly it will not include any future years. Since the eligibility relief is for all classes it will make it a management nightmare for the next several and will greatly impact those incoming Freshmen classes.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...d-covid-19

The way I interpret this is basically these players will have a second redshirt if they've already used one. Much the same as having a medical redshirt, but in this case you will not need an injury shortened season in order to qualify. This does not affect scholarship limitations. There simply will be fewer freshman athletes on a full ride.

(04-17-2020 12:35 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  The way I interpret this is basically these players will have a second redshirt if they've already used one. Much the same as having a medical redshirt, but in this case you will not need an injury shortened season in order to qualify. This does not affect scholarship limitations. There simply will be fewer freshman athletes on a full ride.

That's what seems a little unfair to me. Keeping the cap of number of scholly players is going to cause freshmen to lose a year of covered education. This could really factor into recruiting, programs with lots of returning seniors may have weak classes. IDK, maybe keep the cap on the number of scholly players that can participate but still allow schools to cover the cost of freshmen not playing (like a red shirt).

Guess I might be confused and/or making this more complicated than it is. Programs that had talented seniors will benefit from getting another year vs younger programs, but are freshmen really getting hosed by this?

(04-17-2020 01:32 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 12:35 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  The way I interpret this is basically these players will have a second redshirt if they've already used one. Much the same as having a medical redshirt, but in this case you will not need an injury shortened season in order to qualify. This does not affect scholarship limitations. There simply will be fewer freshman athletes on a full ride.

That's what seems a little unfair to me. Keeping the cap of number of scholly players is going to cause freshmen to lose a year of covered education. This could really factor into recruiting, programs with lots of returning seniors may have weak classes. IDK, maybe keep the cap on the number of scholly players that can participate but still allow schools to cover the cost of freshmen not playing (like a red shirt).

Guess I might be confused and/or making this more complicated than it is. Programs that had talented seniors will benefit from getting another year vs younger programs, but are freshmen really getting hosed by this?

This is the problem from the get go with this whole thing.

This is a unique situation and yes it sucks for seniors but I think it is better to just move forward and ahead. No matter what someone is going to get screwed.

Why do seniors get another year......why not Juniors/Soph/Fresh who lost a year as well. Why punish the incoming freshmen who already had their HS Senior seasons ruined.

There is no perfect answer but this offer of giving seniors another year just creates many issues.

If they want to do this I think the rule via NCAA should be, any seniors that want to come back for spring sports can BUT they are not scholarship eligible. That way the programs do not get screwed in future years from a scholarship perspective.

(04-17-2020 01:32 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 12:35 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  The way I interpret this is basically these players will have a second redshirt if they've already used one. Much the same as having a medical redshirt, but in this case you will not need an injury shortened season in order to qualify. This does not affect scholarship limitations. There simply will be fewer freshman athletes on a full ride.

That's what seems a little unfair to me. Keeping the cap of number of scholly players is going to cause freshmen to lose a year of covered education. This could really factor into recruiting, programs with lots of returning seniors may have weak classes. IDK, maybe keep the cap on the number of scholly players that can participate but still allow schools to cover the cost of freshmen not playing (like a red shirt).

Guess I might be confused and/or making this more complicated than it is. Programs that had talented seniors will benefit from getting another year vs younger programs, but are freshmen really getting hosed by this?

Some seniors will be hosed, some freshmen will be hosed. When we kept Cardon Johnson around for a sixth year a freshman got hosed. The same for Semenov staying around, a freshman got hosed. We let Justin Thorpe go under the same conditions, this hosed the senior but benefited a freshman.