Extra year of eligibility roster impact at State

[Jason Svoboda]

Just asked Twitch the question in the Kaufman thread, but figured since the board is dead, it is better served as it's own topic. As of this morning, we have one more scholarship open for the 2021-22 season. With the NCAA announcing that schools could give winter sport seniors an extra year of eligibility, any senior brought back if we were to fill the last opening would mean someone else has to be cut.

While I figured Key may just want to go start his professional career in Europe where I think he will end up having a David Moss-like career and make himself very wealthy, Twitch's scenario to come back with an upperclass Jake and Tre would have to be tempting as well.

So the question is... if we're out of scholarships, who do you vote off the island? Or do you just want the staff not to fill the last spot and keep it earmarked for Key? I don't think you can give it to Howard or Miller as both will already have had 5 for 4 and in reading the NCAA ruling, they made no mention of waiving that.

2021-22 Eligibility Chart: https://sycamorepride.com/threads/2021-2022-eligibility-chart.41768/
2020-21 Eligiblity Chart: https://sycamorepride.com/threads/2020-2021-eligibility-chart.41093/

For those not hip to the extra eligibility:

NCAA grants extra year for winter sport athletes

NCAA Division I athletes who participate in winter sports will be given another year of eligibility, and football teams will be allowed to compete in bowl games regardless of record in one-time rule changes passed Wednesday.

www.espn.com

 

[bluestreak]

Without seeing the Grad transfers play, I'd keep Key and thats it. Otherwise we are going to have trouble finding playing time for promising underclassmen.

 

[meistro]

I'd have to wait and see how things play out and how each individual plays. I'm sure the staff has already talked to Tyreke to see what he's thinking. So, underclassmen might just get hosed out of a year of playing and seniors an extra year?

 

[sycamorebacker]

I'd have to wait and see how things play out and how each individual plays. I'm sure the staff has already talked to Tyreke to see what he's thinking. So, underclassmen might just get hosed out of a year of playing and seniors an extra year?

The article I read said ALL players, not just seniors.

DI Council extends eligibility for winter sport student-athletes

Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete

www.ncaa.org

 

[sycamorebacker]

I read that all players get an extra year. This year, in effect, does not count. This is up to the schools/conferences to utilize it or not.
Does anyone know if ISU or the MVC has made a statement about it?

 

[sycamorebacker]

If we are allowed to take advantage of the rule by the conference, I guess that takes redshirting off the table. It's nice that our jucos would have 3 years to "learn" D1 ball.

 

[sycamorebacker]

Previous in incorrect. I think they are now allowed 6 yrs to complete their 5 yrs of play, so I think a redshirt year is still meaningful.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

You cannot interrupt your natural roster progression. The only player this will really apply to is Tyreke Key, in my opinion. If he wanted to come back next year, you let him.

 

[child]

That sounds about right 5 or 6 years to get out of college, that is the way to do it!

 

[sycamorebacker]

You cannot interrupt your natural roster progression. The only player this will really apply to is Tyreke Key, in my opinion. If he wanted to come back next year, you let him.

The rule I read said nothing about that. It said all players get an extra year and returning seniors would not count in your scholarship limit.
That's the way I understood it. I didn't see anything about grad transfers, though. If they say this year does not count for anything, then I would assume they get another year also.

 

[sycamorebacker]

That sounds about right 5 or 6 years to get out of college, that is the way to do it!

This year is already a "partial" year. It does not count as a full season.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

The rule I read said nothing about that. It said all players get an extra year and returning seniors would not count in your scholarship limit.
That's the way I understood it. I didn't see anything about grad transfers, though. If they say this year does not count for anything, then I would assume they get another year also.

That's incorrect. Any player that comes back counts against the scholarship limits. The NCAA cannot force mandate on its membership institutions. They simply created the waiver and then schools determine if their players take advantage or not.

 

[sycamorebacker]

That's incorrect. Any player that comes back counts against the scholarship limits. The NCAA cannot force mandate on its membership institutions. They simply created the waiver and then schools determine if their players take advantage or not.

So ISU or MVC is not taking advantage of the extra players? That could hurt us.

 

[sycamorebacker]

That's incorrect. Any player that comes back counts against the scholarship limits. The NCAA cannot force mandate on its membership institutions. They simply created the waiver and then schools determine if their players take advantage or not.

Apparently, the fall returning seniors DO NOT count on scholarship limits. It sounds like winter will be the same. Where did you get your info?

 

[Jason Svoboda]

Apparently, the fall returning seniors DO NOT count on scholarship limits. It sounds like winter will be the same. Where did you get your info?

From all the coaches and administrators that have spoken publicly about it. Go Google Barry Alvarez who basically said Wisconsin seniors need to graduate and move on -- and FBS football got a scholarship cap increase to 110 for one year. The NCAA has not, as far as I've read, bumped the basketball cap beyond 13.

As it stands now, we've got 15 scholarships committed this year (and our two signed '21 guys) against the 13 scholarship cap. With 3 seniors, that would leave us with 1 that could be brought back next year. If we gave extra eligibility to any of the underclassmen, that means their scholarships would come from the 2022 class where we would be losing 4.

Unless you've seen something on the NCAA's website that says they're bumping the 13 scholarship cap, all they've done is give coaches the team option. The downside to this is the NCAA has the one-time immediate transfer coming in January so a player like Jake could be playing for free this year, transfer and still have 2 seasons while being immediately eligible elsewhere. Coaches are running a risk of harpooning their roster if they're not managing it really carefully.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

This is another sort of thing where the NCAA should have been proactive and just bumped the cap instead of leaving it ambiguous. Go from 13 to 17 next year, down to 15 in 2022, and then back to 13 in year 3. This would give coaches and players time to deal with this, especially if COVID sticks around. Would give them extra bodies for practice, so on and so forth.

I'm sure the complaint from schools though was the extra carrying cost expense for players when they're not getting any gates or other revenues. Like I mentioned above, Barry Alvarez told his seniors to move on with their lives. If a cash flush school like Wisconsin doesn't think they can afford it, I'm not sure how we could entertain it.

 

[bent20]

As I've said before, I don't see many guys sticking around Terre Haute for a fifth or sixth year after they've completed their studies. So they get an extra year but is that gonna matter?

 

[Jason Svoboda]

As I've said before, I don't see many guys sticking around Terre Haute for a fifth or sixth year after they've completed their studies. So they get an extra year but is that gonna matter?

Well, if you were sound academically, you could essentially finish up your masters on the house.

 

[sycamorebacker]

So this means that when each of our current players complete their 4 yrs (including this year) the coaches will have the option of cutting or keeping them because each of them would have another year of eligibility. Right?

 

[Jason Svoboda]

So this means that when each of our current players complete their 4 yrs (including this year) the coaches will have the option of cutting or keeping them because each of them would have another year of eligibility. Right?

They'll have the option based on where they are against that 13 scholarship cap, yes.

There was a rumor that Calhoun (she is the chairwomen of the committee that passed the extra year waiver) had wanted only seniors to not count against the cap (and only next year) but I've not seen that mentioned anywhere outside of one of the early SI articles I read back in like May.

Since it now says all winter athletes regardless of class and they don't expressly state sports get additional scholarships, it has to revert back to the schools themselves. Remember, all athletic scholarships are one year grants-in-aid. What this could do is make the already wild college transfer market total insanity, especially since the one-time immediate eligibility kicks in January 2021.