Roster size question

[Vowelguy]

It was my understanding that there could be only 15 *scholarship* players, but you could have additional non-scholarship players on the squad. (There may also be a limit of 15 who can travel to road games.)

Eg, I recall that Marci Czel was going to be the 16th player on the 00 or 01 team, but someone transferred.

 

[Scotter]

There were never 16 players able to play, but there were 16 players on the team on 00-01 including 15 players on athletic scholarships plus Czel who wasn't on an athletic scholarship.

5 Senior: Ralph, Abrosimova, Schumacher, Rigby, Czel
5 Juniors: Bird, Cash, Williams, Jones, and Walters
1 Sophomore: Johnson
5 Freshman: Taurasi, Battle, Conlon, Valley, Moore

Walters was still hoping to be able to play again when the 00-01 season began, and was definitely still on an athletic scholarship.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I tried to read the NCAA manual but it was beyond me. I think you are correct.

 

[OHusky]

FWIW, Toledo was granted a waiver and will have 16 players on schollie this season. The waiver stipulated they will only be allowed 14 the next year. Seems they offered a full compliment of schollies to incoming recruits and then one of their star players, a senior, got injured and took a medical redshirt. So rather than forcing Toledo to rescind the schollie offer to a recruit, the NCAA granted the waiver. But this is quite unusual.

 

[pap49cba]

Happened on this from the Vanderbilt website....

"All 16 members of the 2012-13 Vanderbilt women's basketball team are on campus for the summer, with the first session of summer classes having started earlier this week."

LINK

 

[JS]

It was my understanding that there could be only 15 *scholarship* players, but you could have additional non-scholarship players on the squad.

Basically correct. The limitation is on the number of "counters" who receive athletic financial aid during a year.

Certain players are non-counters, such as in injury situations or players who receive solely academic financial aid under standards applicable regardless of athletics.

But the academic scholarship type of non-counter loses that status when she engages in an intercollegiate varsity game -- unless she has already completed a year of full-time enrollment with at least a 3.0 /4.0 grade point average.

 

[Vowelguy]

Thus the argument that having more than 15 players means that someone is getting *forced off* the team is false.


(Of course, for the financially strapped, losing a scholarship is nearly equivalent to being forced out.)

 

[stamfordhusky]

Basically correct. The limitation is on the number of "counters" who receive athletic financial aid during a year.

Certain players are non-counters, such as in injury situations or players who receive solely academic financial aid under standards applicable regardless of athletics.

But the academic scholarship type of non-counter loses that status when she engages in an intercollegiate varsity game -- unless she has already completed a year of full-time enrollment with at least a 3.0 /4.0 grade point average.

Normally injured players are still counters - unless they are deemed to be unable to ever play again. As for financial aid, the key element is whether a player was recruited or not. If she was not "recruited", then a player can receive need-based aid or an academic scholarship and never become a counter. If a player was recruited, however - which by NCAA rule means more than one phone call from coach to player/parents; or an official visit; or an arranged off-campus meeting - then need-based aid, or in many cases an academic scholarship, will turn a player into a counter.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Thus the argument that having more than 15 players means that someone is getting *forced off* the team is false.

(Of course, for the financially strapped, losing a scholarship is nearly equivalent to being forced out.)

Yes a team can non-renew a scholarship and force the player out that way. Most schools would view that as unethical but some will do it.

In any event, the NCAA would never approve a 16th scholarship simply because a team committed to too many incoming scholarship players. That would only happen if they had signed the "correct" number of new players, only to have a senior get injured and want to return for a 5th year.

 

[doggydaddy]

Thus the argument that having more than 15 players means that someone is getting *forced off* the team is false.


(Of course, for the financially strapped, losing a scholarship is nearly equivalent to being forced out.)

Really? Is that what you were going for?

No, it doesn't change the arguement at all. Like you said in your qualifying statement, a player can certainly stay and pay their own way. But who would do that when they were on scholarship the previous year? And would get less playing time based on who was coming in?

No matter how you try to spin it, for the players that decide to leave UNC, in THIS situation, they appear to be forced out on some level and can't be happy about that.

18 players do not fit into 15 scholarship slots. If they get a verbal from Russell, it's 19.

Two have left, I believe. Now it's 16 for 15. One more will have to make a change in their status, either transferring or paying their own way.

 

[Vowelguy]

Again, you made the argument that it is "completely different" from the UConn men.
There a player went off scholarship and remained on the team.
A UNC player could do the same.

Nowhere do I say either situation is ok.

 

[doggydaddy]

Again, you made the argument that it is "completely different" from the UConn men.
There a player went off scholarship and remained on the team.
A UNC player could do the same.

Nowhere do I say either situation is ok.

That is not what happened at UConn. That is what was discussed. But Dummond, the incoming player, paid his own way.

I'm not even sure what your point is except to find something wrong with what I post.

Drummond did the right thing

 

[Vowelguy]

I'm not even sure what your point is except to find something wrong with what I post.

I see. So your philosophy is that if someone post's something that is incorrect, we shouldn't correct it?

(1) "I can't remember a men's team that had a full roster and added players."
(2) "And you can't have more than 15 players on a roster."

 

[doggydaddy]

I see. So your philosophy is that if someone post's something that is incorrect, we shouldn't correct it?

(1) "I can't remember a men's team that had a full roster and added players."
(2) "And you can't have more than 15 players on a roster."

Of course not. I corrected you twice about the UConn men and Drummond.

(1) I said "players". That is plural. Uconn added one player and made it work with the incoming player paying his own way. It's not near the 15 slots and 18 players that we saw with UNC.

(2) Ooops. I left off the word "scholarship" in making that statement. Thanks for your gentle correction.

 

[speedoo]

FWIW, Toledo was granted a waiver and will have 16 players on schollie this season. The waiver stipulated they will only be allowed 14 the next year. Seems they offered a full compliment of schollies to incoming recruits and then one of their star players, a senior, got injured and took a medical redshirt. So rather than forcing Toledo to rescind the schollie offer to a recruit, the NCAA granted the waiver. But this is quite unusual.

When it comes to redshirts and injuries, the NCAA can be reasonable.. But in no other area, IMO.

 

[stamfordhusky]

FWIW, Toledo was granted a waiver and will have 16 players on schollie this season. The waiver stipulated they will only be allowed 14 the next year. Seems they offered a full compliment of schollies to incoming recruits and then one of their star players, a senior, got injured and took a medical redshirt. So rather than forcing Toledo to rescind the schollie offer to a recruit, the NCAA granted the waiver. But this is quite unusual.

Toledo could not have rescinded a scholarship offer to a recruit, since all of them had already signed letters of intent - which are binding contracts. Their only options, if the NCAA hadn't given them a waiver, would have been to non-renew the scholarship of a player already on the team or else to not allow the redshirt senior to return for a 5th year. Both bad options.