Syracuse Report Coming Today | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Syracuse Report Coming Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. Operating with only 10 scholarships for 4 years (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) is going to hurt a lot more than a postseason ban for next year. Factor in that Boeheim will probably be leaving during that time frame, too. This is a pretty big punishment.

But next years team should be very good since there only losing one player and have top 10 class coming in. They now will only have to focus on one or two top recurits and talk their players into staying longer after next season. It will be tough but this is light compared to a post seaono ban. If they were banned next year likely players decommit and they would be hurting next season which would effect future recruiting.
 
No ban, but those are some pretty rough consequences. Especially for JB who treasures his win total above all else
 
Exactly. Operating with only 10 scholarships for 4 years (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) is going to hurt a lot more than a postseason ban for next year. Factor in that Boeheim will probably be leaving during that time frame, too. This is a pretty big punishment.

Ah, have to disagree somewhat. UConn was crippled because of the transfer rule, where players could play immediately. Because of the self-imposed bad, no one was going anywhere this year on Cuse due to timing. Did Syracuse really use up all of their scholarships the last 4 years? How many walk-ons on UConn "earned scholarships" this year (I think Lenehan and Guest). A postseason ban next year would have meant the Orange would have to start from scratch.

Luckily we had Shabazz who was/is arguably the most important player in UConn's storied history- so it didn't cripple us, but it could have.
 
Ah, have to disagree somewhat. UConn was crippled because of the transfer rule, where players could play immediately. Because of the self-imposed bad, no one was going anywhere this year on Cuse due to timing. Did Syracuse really use up all of their scholarships the last 4 years? How many walk-ons on UConn "earned scholarships" this year (I think Lenehan and Guest). A postseason ban next year would have meant the Orange would have to start from scratch.

Luckily we had Shabazz who was/is arguably the most important player in UConn's storied history- so it didn't cripple us, but it could have.
So what you get 13 schollys a year?

Syracuse currently has one commit and 11 scholarship players for 2016 season.

Well that is 12, they need to reduce 2, so they already have to start shuffling the roster.

It is a very big deal
 
So what you get 13 schollys a year?

Syracuse currently has one commit and 11 scholarship players for 2016 season.

Well that is 12, they need to reduce 2, so they already have to start shuffling the roster.

It is a very big deal

13 a year, yes. Scholarships are on a renewal basis so they can essentially "force out" anyone they want to after this year. If UConn needed to do that I can point a few fingers at those we don't need to bring back. It's harsh, but true.

Football works with this all the time "preferred walk-ons". You give them a spot on the team, and pay for everything else. Syracuse can find those guys to be on the end of the bench.
 
Ah, have to disagree somewhat. UConn was crippled because of the transfer rule, where players could play immediately. Because of the self-imposed bad, no one was going anywhere this year on Cuse due to timing. Did Syracuse really use up all of their scholarships the last 4 years? How many walk-ons on UConn "earned scholarships" this year (I think Lenehan and Guest). A postseason ban next year would have meant the Orange would have to start from scratch.

Luckily we had Shabazz who was/is arguably the most important player in UConn's storied history- so it didn't cripple us, but it could have.
So what you get 13 schollys a year?

Syracuse currently has one commit and 11 scholarship players for 2016 season.

Well that is 12, they need to reduce 2, so they already have to start shuffling the roster.

It is a very big deal
13 a year, yes. Scholarships are on a renewal basis so they can essentially "force out" anyone they want to after this year. If UConn needed to do that I can point a few fingers at those we don't need to bring back. It's harsh, but true.

Football works with this all the time "preferred walk-ons". You give them a spot on the team, and pay for everything else. Syracuse can find those guys to be on the end of the bench.
The walk-ons earned scholarships because of our struggles in recruiting that were from scholarship reductions in the past.

Syracuse looks like they are set up for next year, but having Boeheim out for 9 games(!) in ACC play could hurt, and they are Syracuse, so failure in March is never out of the question.

But I think you are really underselling the recruiting impact this decision is going to have. Losing 3 scholarships a year for 4 years plus being limited to having only two off-campus recruiters for the next two years is a recruiting deathblow. You essentially have to hit a home run with each and every recruit you get for the next four years. I don't see Syracuse being able to overcome that.
 
The walk-ons earned scholarships because of our struggles in recruiting that were from scholarship reductions in the past.

Syracuse looks like they are set up for next year, but having Boeheim out for 9 games(!) in ACC play could hurt, and they are Syracuse, so failure in March is never out of the question.

But I think you are really underselling the recruiting impact this decision is going to have. Losing 3 scholarships a year for 4 years plus being limited to having only two off-campus recruiters for the next two years is a recruiting deathblow. You essentially have to hit a home run with each and every recruit you get for the next four years. I don't see Syracuse being able to overcome that.


One can only hope.
 
In all likelihood, UNC will also lose at least a NC, which has never been done before.

That might actually be worse than a postseason ban.
 
Anybody else catch Bilas talking about this on SC a few minutes ago? I thought his commentary, while kind of scattered, was on point. I'm paraphrasing here, but he was basically saying that this punishment doesn't matter in the long run. They'll cut the scholarships from the end of the bench and anybody who watched the games will still know that Boeheim/Cuse won them, regardless of what the record book says. Said sports people remember who gets suspended for games, but sports fans not so much. Claims this is typical NCAA, sentence someone to a brief public shaming and move on. Will not send a message, will not cause teams and schools to start doing things the "right way", and really holds no bearing on Syracuse or any school moving forward. The meat of what he was saying, however, was in relation to what actually happened. Does anybody know, specifically, what happened here? Says nobody will ever know that, as the NCAA clouds everything in mystery. The punishment, in all likelihood, does not fit the crime. Also questioned: if these sanctions are in relation to the timeframe they're claiming, how is it that the NCAA subtly offered grace for the 02-03 season when they won a championship?

If I find the clip, I'll post it.
 
The walk-ons earned scholarships because of our struggles in recruiting that were from scholarship reductions in the past.

Syracuse looks like they are set up for next year, but having Boeheim out for 9 games(!) in ACC play could hurt, and they are Syracuse, so failure in March is never out of the question.

But I think you are really underselling the recruiting impact this decision is going to have. Losing 3 scholarships a year for 4 years plus being limited to having only two off-campus recruiters for the next two years is a recruiting deathblow. You essentially have to hit a home run with each and every recruit you get for the next four years. I don't see Syracuse being able to overcome that.
This is the key thing, you can say Cuse only plays 7 or 8 guys so it does not matter, but that is a completely ignorant way to look at it.

With this many scholly, you cannot over recruit, and you have to basically be perfect with who those schollys go to.
 
This is the key thing, you can say Cuse only plays 7 or 8 guys so it does not matter, but that is a completely ignorant way to look at it.

With this many scholly, you cannot over recruit, and you have to basically be perfect with who those schollys go to.

I don't buy this argument. As your bench gets longer, you pull in less talented kids. Because the top kids all want to play right away.

High school kids know exactly what a school has at their position. They will go to Syracuse because they will be somewhat thin.

Maybe it hurts with one or two glue guys. That's it.
 
I don't buy this argument. As your bench gets longer, you pull in less talented kids. Because the top kids all want to play right away.

High school kids know exactly what a school has at their position. They will go to Syracuse because they will be somewhat thin.

Maybe it hurts with one or two glue guys. That's it.
1 or 2 glue guys, is huge if you want to compete for a title.

This would have lead us not to take Kromah and Amida last year.

Where would we be without those guys?
 
1 or 2 glue guys, is huge if you want to compete for a title.

This would have lead us not to take Kromah and Amida last year.

Where would we be without those guys?

No, no, no. You can't do that. UConn was on probation and lost scholarships. Even last year we were down scholarships. And won the national title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
49
Guests online
764
Total visitors
813

Forum statistics

Threads
164,012
Messages
4,378,569
Members
10,171
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom