It will never happen, but there are reports of teams investigating adding a year of eligibility.

(03-13-2020 07:45 AM)nogretheogre Wrote:  It will never happen, but there are reports of teams investigating adding a year of eligibility.

For spring sports, obviously.

(03-13-2020 12:51 AM)Tribal Wrote:  I don't think wanting to dance is the enemy. How we've gone about accomplishing that lately is where I've soured.

Exactly. The idea of any one thing being "THE goal" of a college athletics program is ridiculous. A program should have many goals. Winning games, and championships, should certainly be one of them, but others also rank high:

- Developing young men and women of character and academic excellence
- Providing opportunities for students to attend who might not otherwise
- Representing the university and its ideals in a first-class way in all respects, not just W-L percentage
- Providing an ongoing connection to the university for alumni and area residents
- Building community spirit and enthusiasm among students
etc. etc. etc.

Without thinking hard I can name any number of universities that have sacrificed one or more of these other goals in pursuit of "THE goal" of championships. I wouldn't send my children, or one red cent, to any of them.

Which of them should W&M emulate going forward?

UNCW tweeted out their basketball team and staff members are self quarantining for 2 weeks.

(03-12-2020 03:59 PM)NC Tribe Wrote:  This may sound like a silly concern, but what about all the schools that would have been at-large teams. Do the coaches get the bonuses they would have gotten?

Seems to the m the committee should still say who would have been in the tournament.

There is a phrase that we all know that is much overused and, in fact, is very often misused. But now is a great time to use it correctly:

I could not care less that some pampered, already overcompensated college basketball coaches might lose a bonus based on NCAAT attendance! (Just my take on it; not meant to minimize anyone else thinking that it is worth discussion).

Re the committee: they could not do that since not all tournaments had even completed yet. For example, Dayton was a lock regardless of how they did in the A-10 tournament. However, say that a team (like George Mason) who had zero chance of going were to actually win the tournament. Then their inclusion would have evicted some other team on the bubble (but not Dayton). So how could the committee claim to have the crystal ball to see such things? Also, there is no reason for the committee to do it because all it would do would be to infuriate the schools who were left out (but thought that they deserved to be in). Why would the committee bring that rancor upon itself for no reason?

(03-13-2020 07:45 AM)nogretheogre Wrote:  It will never happen, but there are reports of teams investigating adding a year of eligibility.

This is happening. Spring sport students will have another year of eligibility, with the NCAA looking for what to do with the winter students (this one will most likely be absolutely nothing.)

(03-13-2020 12:23 PM)TribePride52 Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 07:45 AM)nogretheogre Wrote:  It will never happen, but there are reports of teams investigating adding a year of eligibility.

This is happening. Spring sport students will have another year of eligibility, with the NCAA looking for what to do with the winter students (this one will most likely be absolutely nothing.)

Start the push to get Nate back for another year!

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(03-13-2020 12:32 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 12:23 PM)TribePride52 Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 07:45 AM)nogretheogre Wrote:  It will never happen, but there are reports of teams investigating adding a year of eligibility.

This is happening. Spring sport students will have another year of eligibility, with the NCAA looking for what to do with the winter students (this one will most likely be absolutely nothing.)

Start the push to get Nate back for another year!

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

The biggest problem I see with this proposal is, what are we gonna do with the signed recruits. we will have no Scollys to give them. IF course, if all we do is bring back Nate, then it would be great, since we have 2 scolly's left and still be able to get a good Point Guard!!

Seems to be momentum gathering for letting seniors in winter sports as well get an additional year. Not sure if that would just be for those whose seasons had not yet ended, but would seem to be a pretty big competitive imbalance if they didn't do it for everyone. Doubt Knight would come back though, and realistically it would not be particularly smart of him to.

Knight should definitely not return. He has the momentum going into the NBA draft. There's nothing more for him to prove.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

seems ridiculous to give winter sports students another year.

I get the short term desire but big picture there is no reason to do this.

Will make for a large number of potential grad transfers that otherwise played all 4 years.

It would be nice to have Barnes back.

Should definitly open the grad transfer market if this year doesn't count eligibility wise along with the large number of senior guys that will graduate.

It would really hurt HS seniors

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(03-13-2020 02:21 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  It would be nice to have Barnes back.

Not sure if it's in the coaches plans, but why not? See where Andy's head is at as well.

Hell, I'd even welcome back Justin Pierce if he wanted to come back. Not sure how a double transfer would work especially when working towards a graduate degree, but I'm pretty sure that they won't have a scholarship for him next year at UNC.

I haven't seen anything so far indicating that winter sports get an extra year too. Unfortunate as it may be, they finished their season

(03-13-2020 03:39 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I haven't seen anything so far indicating that winter sports get an extra year too. Unfortunate as it may be, they finished their season

I think you are right, but the college basketball blue bloods are unhappy that their seniors were denied an NCAA run. No telling how they will rule when the big boys push things.

The talk is of a one year exception that would allow a school extra scholarships for each Senior that wanted to return.
It is still a bit of a Pandora's Box, so don't know that it will actually happen (for winter sports athletes)

(03-13-2020 03:56 PM)billymac Wrote:  The talk is of a one year exception that would allow a school extra scholarships for each Senior that wanted to return.
It is still a bit of a Pandora's Box, so don't know that it will actually happen (for winter sports athletes)

Oh, OK. So they expand the scholarships so it doesn't effect the incoming class. Still, tough to do for the non high majors that have to work to secure scholarship monies for 13. Scholarships for 17 isn't easier.