Today's big meeting and possibilities for FCS football

[oldrunner]

I think this is correct.

So if that is the case, and those players lose this season can they come back next season at all? And if they can, then are they out of luck next season financially?

Ugh

Sounds to me like any players, schools or conferences opting out would mean that there would be additional RS years for effected players. That would restrict the grants available for incoming players. The teams that would gain from this are the ones that played and now have a larger pool of quality players for them to recruit. There are always winners and losers. The biggest losers in this would be the marginal players that now would not find a grant available for them. I suppose it would create a larger number of walk ons.

 

[grizindabox]

I think this is correct.

So if that is the case, and those players lose this season can they come back next season at all? And if they can, then are they out of luck next season financially?

Ugh

Sounds like the eligibility question has not been answered. But if I were to guess, even if the NCAA allows it, each conference or school can decide whether to, and even in that case, the coaches can probably pick and choose whom would get a scholarship.

 

[Brother Bear]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29601895/ncaa-division-iii-fall-championships-canceled

Fall sports championships have been canceled in NCAA Division II and Division III as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The canceled championships affects football, men's and women's soccer, men's and women's cross country, field hockey, women's volleyball and men's water polo in both divisions.

The NCAA board of governors directed each division to make its own determination on whether to hold fall championships, and both came to the same conclusion and made announcements Wednesday.

 

[grizindabox]

Sounds to me like any players, schools or conferences opting out would mean that there would be additional RS years for effected players. That would restrict the grants available for incoming players. The teams that would gain from this are the ones that played and now have a larger pool of quality players for them to recruit. There are always winners and losers. The biggest losers in this would be the marginal players that now would not find a grant available for them. I suppose it would create a larger number of walk ons.

I have not seen anything on how this would effect next season.

 

[grizindabox]

Unless I misunderstood something, doesn't their insistence on schools honoring scholarships pertain to the current year, not next year? My assumption was that even if schools cancel football, they must still honor scholarships for the current year, which would have no affect on future recruiting.

What would have an impact on 2021 is if those opting out of the season or playing for a team cancelling their season, are granted another year of eligibility. The seniors, who would be normally gone, then occupy schollies needed for incoming freshman recruits. Trickle, trickle....

But no decision on future eligibility has been made and even then, there is no guarantee of a scholarship for a player if they did return.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

I posted this previously, but the NCAA has said that each division must decide on eligibility:

"Each division must determine no later than Aug. 14 the eligibility accommodations that must be made for student-athletes who opt out of participating this fall or for those whose seasons are canceled or cut short due to COVID-19. College athletes and their families must know what their eligibility status will be before beginning the fall season."

As I said earlier, these are extremely difficult decisions. If they do not allow the student-athletes an extra year of eligibility, it will be unfair for those students whose schools or conferences decided to cancel.

Even if a team or conference decides to play, they most certainly will not complete a full season at this point. And yet, allowing everyone an extra year of eligibility is going to cause problems with roster and scholarship limits, and recruiting promises. What a mess.

 

[grizindabox]

I posted this previously, but the NCAA has said that each division must decide on eligibility:

"Each division must determine no later than Aug. 14 the eligibility accommodations that must be made for student-athletes who opt out of participating this fall or for those whose seasons are canceled or cut short due to COVID-19. College athletes and their families must know what their eligibility status will be before beginning the fall season."

As I said earlier, these are extremely difficult decisions. If they do not allow the student-athletes an extra year of eligibility, it will be unfair for those students whose schools or conferences decided to cancel.

Even if a team or conference decides to play, they most certainly will not complete a full season at this point. And yet, allowing everyone an extra year of eligibility is going to cause problems with roster and scholarship limits, and recruiting promises. What a mess.

My guess is that they will grant another year of eligibility, but most will not be offered a scholarship. They will weed players out this way and use the scholarships on incoming kids. There is no way that most college athletic departments can manage an increase in scholarships.

 

[Brother Bear]

https://www.inforum.com/bison-media-zone/mens-sports/football/6604491-For-the-FCS-focus-now-shifts-to-at-least-50-percent-of-schools-playing-football

As of Wednesday, in the FCS, that is 70 of 111 playoff-eligible teams, or 63%, that are still in.

The 50% rule and the required testing protocols were the two biggest takeaways from the Board of Governors mandate for Bison athletic director Matt Larsen. The first take is obvious; if any more FCS conferences decide to close shop (it’s already six of 13), getting to that 50% level could be tough.

And going from recommended testing requirements to now being mandatory could be a financial stress some schools may not be able to afford.

“We’ve already had six conferences push to spring, we’re close to that 50% already,” Larsen said. “You lose another conference or two and you quickly fall under that. The other piece is the testing piece. There are a lot of elements to that, from cost, availability or being able to meet the 72-hour turnaround time for positive tests. In different parts of the country, there are probably different results for all three of those things.”

Are you in or are you out?

The Missouri Valley Football Conference Presidents Council is meeting Thursday morning, which was an originally scheduled meeting. All of the Valley schools appear to be in with Southern Illinois and Missouri State having already begun practicing.

NDSU begins Friday. A couple of Bison players took to Twitter on Wednesday to express their frustration over the process.

“The delays on these decisions are getting ridiculous,” said NDSU backup quarterback Noah Sanders, “they need to stop playing with the players heads, we have zero control, it’s like we are zoo animals. It’s not even about physical health at this point, they are messing with our heads.”

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

I posted this previously, but the NCAA has said that each division must decide on eligibility:

"Each division must determine no later than Aug. 14 the eligibility accommodations that must be made for student-athletes who opt out of participating this fall or for those whose seasons are canceled or cut short due to COVID-19. College athletes and their families must know what their eligibility status will be before beginning the fall season."

As I said earlier, these are extremely difficult decisions. If they do not allow the student-athletes an extra year of eligibility, it will be unfair for those students whose schools or conferences decided to cancel.

Even if a team or conference decides to play, they most certainly will not complete a full season at this point. And yet, allowing everyone an extra year of eligibility is going to cause problems with roster and scholarship limits, and recruiting promises. What a mess.

My guess is that they will grant another year of eligibility, but most will not be offered a scholarship. They will weed players out this way and use the scholarships on incoming kids. There is no way that most college athletic departments can manage an increase in scholarships.

You are probably correct. No matter how it's handled, there are likely going to be a lot of disgruntled athletes who are either cut completely or asked to continue to play with less or no scholarship.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I posted this previously, but the NCAA has said that each division must decide on eligibility:

"Each division must determine no later than Aug. 14 the eligibility accommodations that must be made for student-athletes who opt out of participating this fall or for those whose seasons are canceled or cut short due to COVID-19. College athletes and their families must know what their eligibility status will be before beginning the fall season."

As I said earlier, these are extremely difficult decisions. If they do not allow the student-athletes an extra year of eligibility, it will be unfair for those students whose schools or conferences decided to cancel.

Even if a team or conference decides to play, they most certainly will not complete a full season at this point. And yet, allowing everyone an extra year of eligibility is going to cause problems with roster and scholarship limits, and recruiting promises. What a mess.

My guess is that they will grant another year of eligibility, but most will not be offered a scholarship. They will weed players out this way and use the scholarships on incoming kids. There is no way that most college athletic departments can manage an increase in scholarships.

Assuming they play and this is correct, it will present an interesting challenge for college coaches. Say a senior starter opts out and gets another year. He wants to play another year, but his scholarship is supposed to go an incoming frosh, and the senior can't afford to go out of pocket. Could the coach give the scholarship to the proven starter? I'm guessing no, since it's been promised to the incoming player. Is there a workaround involving private scholarship funds for "holdover/walk-on" players? I know the NCAA is pretty strict on private scholarship money as a means to get around scholarship limits, but maybe this would be different.

 

[PlayerRep]

My guess is that they will grant another year of eligibility, but most will not be offered a scholarship. They will weed players out this way and use the scholarships on incoming kids. There is no way that most college athletic departments can manage an increase in scholarships.

Assuming they play and this is correct, it will present an interesting challenge for college coaches. Say a senior starter opts out and gets another year. He wants to play another year, but his scholarship is supposed to go an incoming frosh, and the senior can't afford to go out of pocket. Could the coach give the scholarship to the proven starter? I'm guessing no, since it's been promised to the incoming player. Is there a workaround involving private scholarship funds for "holdover/walk-on" players? I know the NCAA is pretty strict on private scholarship money as a means to get around scholarship limits, but maybe this would be different.

There will be time to hold some scholarships, or pull back some offered scholarships, or even renege on scholarships that have been verbally accepted. I think teams would want to offer scholarships to proven good players who say they are committed to returning for the fall of '21? This would be easier to do if the season is cancelled. For opt outs, I could see the coach wanting to go with players who showed their commitment by not opting out. In the case of an unhealthy and at-risk player, then a coach would probably be more sympathetic. FBS is different with the 4-year scholarship commitment requirement, but I wouldn't feel much loyalty for the opt-outs who seemed to opt out for reasons other than health reasons.

P.S. I could see the workaround extra schollie money working for a year, if allowed. Hey, boosters, got some extra money for a year to offer to Akem, Toure, etc.

 

[grizindabox]

My guess is that they will grant another year of eligibility, but most will not be offered a scholarship. They will weed players out this way and use the scholarships on incoming kids. There is no way that most college athletic departments can manage an increase in scholarships.

Assuming they play and this is correct, it will present an interesting challenge for college coaches. Say a senior starter opts out and gets another year. He wants to play another year, but his scholarship is supposed to go an incoming frosh, and the senior can't afford to go out of pocket. Could the coach give the scholarship to the proven starter? I'm guessing no, since it's been promised to the incoming player. Is there a workaround involving private scholarship funds for "holdover/walk-on" players? I know the NCAA is pretty strict on private scholarship money as a means to get around scholarship limits, but maybe this would be different.

Who says the scholarship has to come from the incoming Frosh...they could cut any scholarship player.

 

[grizindabox]

Craig Haley
@CraigHaley
Getting bleaker for an FCS fall season. Schools will struggle to meet testing protocols when you factor in what's needed for all fall sports.

 

[kemajic]

Assuming they play and this is correct, it will present an interesting challenge for college coaches. Say a senior starter opts out and gets another year. He wants to play another year, but his scholarship is supposed to go an incoming frosh, and the senior can't afford to go out of pocket. Could the coach give the scholarship to the proven starter? I'm guessing no, since it's been promised to the incoming player. Is there a workaround involving private scholarship funds for "holdover/walk-on" players? I know the NCAA is pretty strict on private scholarship money as a means to get around scholarship limits, but maybe this would be different.

There will be time to hold some scholarships, or pull back some offered scholarships, or even renege on scholarships that have been verbally accepted. I think teams would want to offer scholarships to proven good players who say they are committed to returning for the fall of '21? This would be easier to do if the season is cancelled. For opt outs, I could see the coach wanting to go with players who showed their commitment by not opting out. In the case of an unhealthy and at-risk player, then a coach would probably be more sympathetic. FBS is different with the 4-year scholarship commitment requirement, but I wouldn't feel much loyalty for the opt-outs who seemed to opt out for reasons other than health reasons.

P.S. I could see the workaround extra schollie money working for a year, if allowed. Hey, boosters, got some extra money for a year to offer to Akem, Toure, etc.

Still a limit of 63.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Assuming they play and this is correct, it will present an interesting challenge for college coaches. Say a senior starter opts out and gets another year. He wants to play another year, but his scholarship is supposed to go an incoming frosh, and the senior can't afford to go out of pocket. Could the coach give the scholarship to the proven starter? I'm guessing no, since it's been promised to the incoming player. Is there a workaround involving private scholarship funds for "holdover/walk-on" players? I know the NCAA is pretty strict on private scholarship money as a means to get around scholarship limits, but maybe this would be different.

Who says the scholarship has to come from the incoming Frosh...they could cut any scholarship player.

It's a hypothetical for simplicity. I'm fairly confident you know how those zany things work.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

There will be time to hold some scholarships, or pull back some offered scholarships, or even renege on scholarships that have been verbally accepted. I think teams would want to offer scholarships to proven good players who say they are committed to returning for the fall of '21? This would be easier to do if the season is cancelled. For opt outs, I could see the coach wanting to go with players who showed their commitment by not opting out. In the case of an unhealthy and at-risk player, then a coach would probably be more sympathetic. FBS is different with the 4-year scholarship commitment requirement, but I wouldn't feel much loyalty for the opt-outs who seemed to opt out for reasons other than health reasons.

P.S. I could see the workaround extra schollie money working for a year, if allowed. Hey, boosters, got some extra money for a year to offer to Akem, Toure, etc.

Still a limit of 63.

Of athletic scholarships.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Hey, I just thought of this (and I'm sure I'm not the first one): If players can profit off their name/likeness now, we wouldn't even need to do a scholarship fund for holdover players. Just get together and pay their tuition in exchange for a one-line testimonial about how the Mo Club has the best burgers in town. I'm only half joking.

 

[Hammersmith]

There will be time to hold some scholarships, or pull back some offered scholarships, or even renege on scholarships that have been verbally accepted. I think teams would want to offer scholarships to proven good players who say they are committed to returning for the fall of '21? This would be easier to do if the season is cancelled. For opt outs, I could see the coach wanting to go with players who showed their commitment by not opting out. In the case of an unhealthy and at-risk player, then a coach would probably be more sympathetic. FBS is different with the 4-year scholarship commitment requirement, but I wouldn't feel much loyalty for the opt-outs who seemed to opt out for reasons other than health reasons.

P.S. I could see the workaround extra schollie money working for a year, if allowed. Hey, boosters, got some extra money for a year to offer to Akem, Toure, etc.

Still a limit of 63.

Pretty sure this was mostly decided in the spring when those sports were canceled. Or at least a precedent was set. Scholarship limits will be temporarily expanded to allow for seniors to return for a final year of eligibility. The limits will be set on a case by case basis, and a school will not be required to offer a scholarship.

For example:
School A has 10 seniors that were on their final year of eligibility. They decide to offer scholarships to 5 of them and the players accept. For the following season, School A is allowed 68 scholarships.

Also, everyone on the team during the pandemic gets a one-year extension to their five-year clock. But the scholarship limit extensions are only available for the immediately following season. There still will be some logjam, but it will be spread over two or three seasons, not one.



Again, this hasn't been officially declared for the 2020 fall season, but it's what was used for the 2020 spring sports, so there's precedent.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-i-council-extends-eligibility-student-athletes-impacted-covid-19

 

[grizindabox]

Still a limit of 63.

Pretty sure this was mostly decided in the spring when those sports were canceled. Or at least a precedent was set. Scholarship limits will be temporarily expanded to allow for seniors to return for a final year of eligibility. The limits will be set on a case by case basis, and a school will not be required to offer a scholarship.

For example:
School A has 10 seniors that were on their final year of eligibility. They decide to offer scholarships to 5 of them and the players accept. For the following season, School A is allowed 68 scholarships.

Also, everyone on the team during the pandemic gets a one-year extension to their five-year clock. But the scholarship limit extensions are only available for the immediately following season. There still will be some logjam, but it will be spread over two or three seasons, not one.



Again, this hasn't been officially declared for the 2020 fall season, but it's what was used for the 2020 spring sports, so there's precedent.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-i-council-extends-eligibility-student-athletes-impacted-covid-19

For most schools the costs of additional scholarships will be prohibitive.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Assuming they play and this is correct, it will present an interesting challenge for college coaches. Say a senior starter opts out and gets another year. He wants to play another year, but his scholarship is supposed to go an incoming frosh, and the senior can't afford to go out of pocket. Could the coach give the scholarship to the proven starter? I'm guessing no, since it's been promised to the incoming player. Is there a workaround involving private scholarship funds for "holdover/walk-on" players? I know the NCAA is pretty strict on private scholarship money as a means to get around scholarship limits, but maybe this would be different.

Who says the scholarship has to come from the incoming Frosh...they could cut any scholarship player.

Exactly. And with FCS’s ability to split scholarships, we could see even more of that. But at the end of the day, if a kid is available that will improve the team, he’s gonna get an offer at the expense potentially of someone currently on scholarship.