|
Post by horns1 on Sept 9, 2020 11:51:42 GMT -5
I would think that means you have to be in college Fall 2020, or at least have signed your LOI as part of the 2020 signing class.
For those high school seniors who have not yet graduated, they can't even sign their LOI until November 2020. Even if some plan graduate in December and enroll in college in Spring 2021, I can't imagine they fall under the same bylaws as those Fall student-athletes currently in college.
Even if you enroll in January of 2021 aren't you a Fall Sport athlete thus falling under the blanket waiver ? Spring doesn't normally count eligibility wise since it's consider a non-championship season (normally) but it does start your clock for 4 seasons in 5 years rule so why would they be excluded from a blanket waiver all fall sport athletes are being granted for playing a fall sport in the 20-21 academic year. NCAA also granted any athlete a fall semester waiver. They are eligible to play in the spring if they did not enroll in school in the fall of 2020. I would say that if you did NOT sign an LOI prior to Fall 2020 classes, you are not part of the 2020 signing class, and not considered a 2020 Fall sports student-athlete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 11:52:15 GMT -5
Can someone please post a link to this FAQ? Thank you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 11:54:18 GMT -5
Even if you enroll in January of 2021 aren't you a Fall Sport athlete thus falling under the blanket waiver ? Spring doesn't normally count eligibility wise since it's consider a non-championship season (normally) but it does start your clock for 4 seasons in 5 years rule so why would they be excluded from a blanket waiver all fall sport athletes are being granted for playing a fall sport in the 20-21 academic year. NCAA also granted any athlete a fall semester waiver. They are eligible to play in the spring if they did not enroll in school in the fall of 2020. I would say that if you did NOT sign an LOI prior to Fall 2020 classes, you are not part of the 2020 signing class, and not considered a 2020 Fall sports student-athlete. I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying. But it shouldn’t be an LOI itself that does it. You should have to be enrolled as of Fall 2020 semester (or the equivalent quarter), regardless if you were offered a scholarship or not.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 9, 2020 11:59:29 GMT -5
Pertinent sections: Question No. 3: What does the Board of Directors' action allowing institutions to self-apply season-of-competition waivers for fall sport student-athletes permit? Answer: Institutions may self-apply season-of-competition waivers for any eligible student athlete who competes in a fall sport during the 2020-21 academic year. The effect of this action provides five seasons of competition (including the 2020-21 season) to any fall sport student athlete who competes during 2020-21. Question No. 11a: Must a fall sport student-athlete have been eligible to compete during the term in which competition took place, or was reasonably expected to take place, in order for an institution to self-apply an extension of eligibility? Answer: Yes. An institution must be able to demonstrate the fall sport student-athlete was otherwise eligible to compete either (1) during fall 2020; or (2) during a term in which the institution reasonably intended to conduct competition. ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/compliance/d1/D1GOV_COVID-19QAGuide.pdf (pages 4-5) My reading of that is that you had to have been eligible in the fall to have the 'extension of eligibility' waiver applied. That's the 5-year clock rule. It does NOT specify that about the 'season-of-competition' waiver. Here's a link to the full Legislative Action Chart. Approved a blanket waiver allowing institutions to self-apply season of competition waivers for fall sport student-athletes who compete in up to the maximum permissible amount of competition during the 2020-21 academic year as a result of the disruption and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/compliance/d1/D1GOV_COVID-19ActionChart.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 12:01:40 GMT -5
Pertinent sections: Question No. 3: What does the Board of Directors' action allowing institutions to self-apply season-of-competition waivers for fall sport student-athletes permit? Answer: Institutions may self-apply season-of-competition waivers for any eligible student athlete who competes in a fall sport during the 2020-21 academic year. The effect of this action provides five seasons of competition (including the 2020-21 season) to any fall sport student athlete who competes during 2020-21. Question No. 11a: Must a fall sport student-athlete have been eligible to compete during the term in which competition took place, or was reasonably expected to take place, in order for an institution to self-apply an extension of eligibility? Answer: Yes. An institution must be able to demonstrate the fall sport student-athlete was otherwise eligible to compete either (1) during fall 2020; or (2) during a term in which the institution reasonably intended to conduct competition. ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/compliance/d1/D1GOV_COVID-19QAGuide.pdf (pages 4-5) My reading of that is that you had to have been eligible in the fall to have the 'extension of eligibility' waiver applied. That's the 5-year clock rule. It does NOT specify that about the 'season-of-competition' waiver. Here's a link to the full Legislative Action Chart. Approved a blanket waiver allowing institutions to self-apply season of competition waivers for fall sport student-athletes who compete in up to the maximum permissible amount of competition during the 2020-21 academic year as a result of the disruption and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/compliance/d1/D1GOV_COVID-19ActionChart.pdfI appreciate you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 12:35:06 GMT -5
No offense is intended, but how does the answer to question 11a not exactly put the issue to rest? I don’t see where it leaves any room for ambiguity.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 9, 2020 12:38:29 GMT -5
No offense is intended, but how does the answer to question 11a not exactly put the issue to rest? I don’t see where it leaves any room for ambiguity. That question specifically asks about the "extension of eligibility". That's the 5-year clock. There is not a similar question about "season-of-competition". That's the one that would allow a high schooler to compete in the spring but still be eligible to compete the next four falls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 13:09:39 GMT -5
No offense is intended, but how does the answer to question 11a not exactly put the issue to rest? I don’t see where it leaves any room for ambiguity. That question specifically asks about the "extension of eligibility". That's the 5-year clock. There is not a similar question about "season-of-competition". That's the one that would allow a high schooler to compete in the spring but still be eligible to compete the next four falls. Your original interpretation is correct. High schoolers are not covered by the current waiver because they were ineligible for fall competition. That MIGHT change, but I wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 14:30:19 GMT -5
No offense is intended, but how does the answer to question 11a not exactly put the issue to rest? I don’t see where it leaves any room for ambiguity. That question specifically asks about the "extension of eligibility". That's the 5-year clock. There is not a similar question about "season-of-competition". That's the one that would allow a high schooler to compete in the spring but still be eligible to compete the next four falls. Since the original announcement notes that fall athletes are being granted both (an extra season, and an extra year), I will assume the answer to 11a is just using a general figure of speech to indicate both. It wouldn’t make sense to extend athletes to a six year clock without giving them an extra season, when it is assumed they will participate in the spring makeup season. The whole point is that season is expected to be shortened and irregular. Same with any fall season this year. So since neither of these seasons will be close to what they were supposed to be, it makes sense to just get an extra season and year.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 9, 2020 14:57:39 GMT -5
That question specifically asks about the "extension of eligibility". That's the 5-year clock. There is not a similar question about "season-of-competition". That's the one that would allow a high schooler to compete in the spring but still be eligible to compete the next four falls. Since the original announcement notes that fall athletes are being granted both (an extra season, and an extra year), I will assume the answer to 11a is just using a general figure of speech to indicate both. It wouldn’t make sense to extend athletes to a six year clock without giving them an extra season, when it is assumed they will participate in the spring makeup season. The whole point is that season is expected to be shortened and irregular. Same with any fall season this year. So since neither of these seasons will be close to what they were supposed to be, it makes sense to just get an extra season and year. We might be talking about different things. I’m only talking about high schoolers who graduate early and want to compete in the spring. That Q&A specifically says they wouldn’t be covered by the 5-year-clock extension. But it doesn’t explicitly say anything about it being one of their 4 seasons of competition. I’m sure Bwf’s sources are legitimate, credible compliance departments, so it might be true. But it isn’t exactly clear in that document.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 9, 2020 15:26:21 GMT -5
ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d1/compoversig/Sep2020D1COC_Sept2-3Report.pdfHere's the proposal from the Competition Oversight Committee. All fall sports get a championship with 75% of the original number of teams and all automatic bids remain. That means 48 teams for volleyball - 32 AQs and 16 at large. Proposed championship dates: April 23-25 Also noteworthy: "The committee also approved counting contests conducted in the fall term for all fall sport championships conducted in the spring thereby encouraging sport committees to consider all data available to them at the time of selections."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 15:33:17 GMT -5
Since the original announcement notes that fall athletes are being granted both (an extra season, and an extra year), I will assume the answer to 11a is just using a general figure of speech to indicate both. It wouldn’t make sense to extend athletes to a six year clock without giving them an extra season, when it is assumed they will participate in the spring makeup season. The whole point is that season is expected to be shortened and irregular. Same with any fall season this year. So since neither of these seasons will be close to what they were supposed to be, it makes sense to just get an extra season and year. We might be talking about different things. I’m only talking about high schoolers who graduate early and want to compete in the spring. That Q&A specifically says they wouldn’t be covered by the 5-year-clock extension. But it doesn’t explicitly say anything about it being one of their 4 seasons of competition. I’m sure Bwf’s sources are legitimate, credible compliance departments, so it might be true. But it isn’t exactly clear in that document. I say your interpretation of the 11a question is not correct. I gave the reason: the “extension of eligibility” phrase in the 11a question isn’t meant to be interpreted as hyper-literally as you’re trying to do. Rather, it was meant to compactly imply getting both the year and the season. Thus, your extrapolation that there is somehow a wormhole for early spring enrollees to get the spring season “for free” without an extension of their clock, is not correct. It would seem to me that any early spring enrollee that participates in the spring 2021 season, is going to have that be one of their four seasons.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 9, 2020 15:40:17 GMT -5
ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d1/compoversig/Sep2020D1COC_Sept2-3Report.pdfHere's the proposal from the Competition Oversight Committee. All fall sports get a championship with 75% of the original number of teams and all automatic bids remain. That means 48 teams for volleyball - 32 AQs and 16 at large. Proposed championship dates: April 23-25 Also noteworthy: "The committee also approved counting contests conducted in the fall term for all fall sport championships conducted in the spring thereby encouraging sport committees to consider all data available to them at the time of selections." Counting backward, a 3-week tournament and a 10-week regular season would put opening matches Friday, January 29th.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,105
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 9, 2020 15:42:55 GMT -5
ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d1/compoversig/Sep2020D1COC_Sept2-3Report.pdfHere's the proposal from the Competition Oversight Committee. All fall sports get a championship with 75% of the original number of teams and all automatic bids remain. That means 48 teams for volleyball - 32 AQs and 16 at large. Proposed championship dates: April 23-25 Also noteworthy: "The committee also approved counting contests conducted in the fall term for all fall sport championships conducted in the spring thereby encouraging sport committees to consider all data available to them at the time of selections." Bracketology could happen after all... and it could be the most intense selections of all time!
|
|
|
Post by volleav on Sept 9, 2020 15:57:33 GMT -5
So early enrollees would practice and condition only. Pretty much what they planned to do mostly anyways when enrolling early, minus "spring games".
|
|