Illinois 2022

[Friday]

I would be shocked if Ellie comes back.

[Pasquale]

I’d be shocked if she didn’t come back.

[oldmanvb]

Each D1volleyball team is entitled to 12 scholarships. From last year’s team the following signed letters of intent with the university, which I assume means they are attending on scholarship. D1 volleyball does not permit splitting scholarships between two players, unlike some other sports. As a “super senior” Cooney’s scholarship did not count towards the limit, but that exclusion is not being carried forward.

1. Collins
2. Hinton
3. Kuper
4. Brown
5. Swanson
6. Bingham
7. Whittington
8. Vrankovic
9. Barnes
10. Holzman
11. Terry
12. Nunge
13. Mosher

We have an additional 2 players, Bohm and Stephenson, who signed letters of intent in November. Assuming Kuper and Vrankovic do not return it still puts us over the scholarship limit. The only conclusion I can reach is some of the scholarships are not for four years. I’m certain Tamas can count. All this makes me wonder who may not be coming back and where scholarships may come from for the transfers we are purportedly recruiting.

Any insight would be welcome as I sure can’t figure it out. I hate the thought coaches may be pushing players out of the program.

[exit237a]

Dec 28, 2021 21:39:24 GMT -5 jma22 said:

As for Bruna, do we even know what the deal with her was this past season? Really thought she’d return at some point but there was never any news.

I don’t have any inside source or anything but my understanding is that she had offseason shoulder surgery, missed the first part of the season while rehabbing, subbed in for Nunge once briefly (at home vs. Nebraska if memory serves) and didn’t see the court again the rest of the season.  I don’t think she was at any of the three Illini tournament games- didn’t see her in video or photos.

I think she participated in full pregame warmups the entire second part of the season but Nunge held onto her spot in the lineup.

[Friday]

Dec 28, 2021 23:14:22 GMT -5 oldmanvb said:

Each D1volleyball team is entitled to 12 scholarships. From last year’s team the following signed letters of intent with the university, which I assume means they are attending on scholarship. D1 volleyball does not permit splitting scholarships between two players, unlike some other sports. As a “super senior” Cooney’s scholarship did not count towards the limit, but that exclusion is not being carried forward.

1. Collins
2. Hinton
3. Kuper
4. Brown
5. Swanson
6. Bingham
7. Whittington
8. Vrankovic
9. Barnes
10. Holzman
11. Terry
12. Nunge
13. Mosher

We have an additional 2 players, Bohm and Stephenson, who signed letters of intent in November. Assuming Kuper and Vrankovic do not return it still puts us over the scholarship limit. The only conclusion I can reach is some of the scholarships are not for four years. I’m certain Tamas can count. All this makes me wonder who may not be coming back and where scholarships may come from for the transfers we are purportedly recruiting.

Any insight would be welcome as I sure can’t figure it out. I hate the thought coaches may be pushing players out of the program.

It is rare for a DS to get 4 years.  It is not uncommon for hitters to not get 4 years.  3 years - sure.  

Also Tamas got a gift the other day - could be an AC or more than likely a transfer so might need to pencil that spot in too.

[ted_heise]

Dec 28, 2021 23:14:22 GMT -5 oldmanvb said:

Each D1volleyball team is entitled to 12 scholarships. From last year’s team the following signed letters of intent with the university, which I assume means they are attending on scholarship. D1 volleyball does not permit splitting scholarships between two players, unlike some other sports. As a “super senior” Cooney’s scholarship did not count towards the limit, but that exclusion is not being carried forward.

1. Collins
2. Hinton
3. Kuper
4. Brown
5. Swanson
6. Bingham
7. Whittington
8. Vrankovic
9. Barnes
10. Holzman
11. Terry
12. Nunge
13. Mosher

We have an additional 2 players, Bohm and Stephenson, who signed letters of intent in November. Assuming Kuper and Vrankovic do not return it still puts us over the scholarship limit. The only conclusion I can reach is some of the scholarships are not for four years. I’m certain Tamas can count. All this makes me wonder who may not be coming back and where scholarships may come from for the transfers we are purportedly recruiting.

Any insight would be welcome as I sure can’t figure it out. I hate the thought coaches may be pushing players out of the program.

I would hate that too, but I have some doubts it's actually playing out that way--at least not in most cases.  I saw reported earlier this month that John Cook had stated his intention to honor commitments made to incoming freshmen.  My inference is that this would be scholarship offers.  I'm pretty sure those offers (and any others made through 2019 and sometime into 2020) would have been made based on a projection of what would be available with existing scholarships and normal playing eligibility.  Now that the limit of 12 is back in force, the extra year of eligibility for players who were on teams for the 2020 season causes a shortfall, and something has to give (stating the obvious).  Add on to that the likelihood that the scholarship offers in place before the extra year was granted did not account for extra years, and it seems pretty clear that those players with an extra year of eligibility should expect they may not be given an extra year of scholarship.

Last year was relatively easy in this regard, because the schools that could afford it just provided additional scholarships.  This year hard decisions have to be made, but it doesn't to me seem fair to think any coaches would be pushing players out.  They may well be saying, "You are more than welcome to continue as part of the team, but we do not have an additional year of scholarship available, so you will be on your own for funds if you do come back."  That certainly is not encouraging them to stay, but it's also not pushing them out.

[oldmanvb]

The B1G's stated policy is all athletic scholarships are for four years and can only be taken away for academic or misconduct reasons. I recall when Brandy Connelly signed her letter of intent it was stated in local papers the scholarship was for her 1st, 2d and 4th years. My guess is a letter of intent specifies which years are covered by the scholarship, but at least in the B1G those years cannot be pulled for athletic performance reasons. At the same time, recruiting is a negotiation competition between schools and the better a player the more leverage they have to obtain additional years. For example, if Megan Cooney (or Kuper) had another year of eligibility but could play only if on scholarship it would be hard for Tamas to not figure out some way to get her money. The NCAA also has a policy regarding situations in which a player can receive an academic scholarship if certain grade and test score criteria are met. I read on another thread Cook has one starter on academic scholarship, opening another athletic scholarship. My daughter's D3 coach somehow found non-need based scholarships for some of her players. All of which leads to the conclusion that being a D1 volleyball coach is not for the faint of heart and more than simply volleyball skills are necessary.

One conclusion is some players entering the transfer portal are going to be disappointed.

All having been said, I certainly hope we are able to keep all our players and additional scholarships will be available for transfers with the skills and ability we need. As in so many things this is a function of available money which is in significant part a function of a school's commitment to a program. What a shock, the rich get richer.

[rogero1]

Dec 29, 2021 11:00:32 GMT -5 oldmanvb said:

The B1G's stated policy is all athletic scholarships are for four years and can only be taken away for academic or misconduct reasons. I recall when Brandy Connelly signed her letter of intent it was stated in local papers the scholarship was for her 1st, 2d and 4th years. My guess is a letter of intent specifies which years are covered by the scholarship, but at least in the B1G those years cannot be pulled for athletic performance reasons. At the same time, recruiting is a negotiation competition between schools and the better a player the more leverage they have to obtain additional years. For example, if Megan Cooney (or Kuper) had another year of eligibility but could play only if on scholarship it would be hard for Tamas to not figure out some way to get her money. The NCAA also has a policy regarding situations in which a player can receive an academic scholarship if certain grade and test score criteria are met. I read on another thread Cook has one starter on academic scholarship, opening another athletic scholarship. My daughter's D3 coach somehow found non-need based scholarships for some of her players. All of which leads to the conclusion that being a D1 volleyball coach is not for the faint of heart and more than simply volleyball skills are necessary.

One conclusion is some players entering the transfer portal are going to be disappointed.

All having been said, I certainly hope we are able to keep all our players and additional scholarships will be available for transfers with the skills and ability we need. As in so many things this is a function of available money which is in significant part a function of a school's commitment to a program. What a shock, the rich get richer.

Please cite the source where B1G policy is 4 years for scholarships. Unless this is a recent change, I recall Hambly giving a DS a schollie her last two years much like the Connelly arrangement.
If a B1G coach can get a player on an academic schollie, more power to them. As a former two- year school coach, we tried to get our student-athletes on academic schollies as much as possible to pay for school (as we were limited to only a total of 24 credit hours for in-district students).

[oldmanvb]

I did not say that they were guaranteeing four years of scholarship, just that whatever scholarship is awarded will be guaranteed for four years. This is the article I was referencing.

www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11666316/big-ten-guarantees-four-year-scholarships-student-athletes

I don't know how the policy has been implemented. Putting on my lawyer hat and parsing the words, it does not say that they are guaranteeing four year scholarships, just that whatever scholarship is awarded will be guaranteed for four years. In my thread I referred to Brandi Donnelly receiving a scholarship for her 1st, 2d and 4th years. Some years ago Brucks made the same observation.

volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/47776/ucsb-roster-crazy-formico-listed?page=5

I no longer have the research chops or the energy to explore the actual B1G athletic scholarship policies, but the ESPN article and Brucks seem to support the conclusion that whatever scholarship is awarded will be good for four years.

I agree that if a coach can find academic scholarships to supplement athletic scholarships good for him or her.  I assume the financial aid people reduce the actual cost of athletic scholarships by reducing the portion paid by the athletic department with other aid such as Pell Grants.  

[volleyaudience]

Dec 29, 2021 12:43:06 GMT -5 rogero1 said:

Dec 29, 2021 11:00:32 GMT -5 oldmanvb said:

The B1G's stated policy is all athletic scholarships are for four years and can only be taken away for academic or misconduct reasons.

Please cite the source where B1G policy is 4 years for scholarships. Unless this is a recent change, I recall Hambly giving a DS a schollie her last two years much like the Connelly arrangement.

My recollection based on only my memory:

1. IMO we are talking about the power five policy agreements of 2015.

2. The policies only bind the 60 some schools in the power five.

3. As oldmanvb alluded, they are to protect the scholarship used to lure the player to the school.

4. The policies apply to scholarships associated with a signed formal NLI prior to the student enrolling.

5. If the player signs some scholarship agreement that is not an formal NLI, the policies on scholarships being four years do not apply.

6. If the scholarship is formally granted later after they are a student, the policies do not apply.

(I do not remember if the loop hole applies after they enroll or after they complete their freshman year.)

[ted_heise]

Dec 29, 2021 14:10:58 GMT -5 volleyaudience said:

Dec 29, 2021 12:43:06 GMT -5 rogero1 said:

Please cite the source where B1G policy is 4 years for scholarships. Unless this is a recent change, I recall Hambly giving a DS a schollie her last two years much like the Connelly arrangement.

My recollection based on only my memory:

1. IMO we are talking about the power five policy agreements of 2015.

2. The policies only bind the 60 some schools in the power five.

3. As oldmanvb alluded, they are to protect the scholarship used to lure the player to the school.

4. The policies apply to scholarships associated with a signed formal NLI prior to the student enrolling.

5. If the player signs some scholarship agreement that is not an formal NLI, the policies on scholarships being four years do not apply.

6. If the scholarship is formally granted later after they are a student, the policies do not apply.

(I do not remember if the loop hole applies after they enroll or after they complete their freshman year.)

All very interesting, but I don't see how it has any relevance to the situations in which players have played four years on scholarship and are now considering a fifth year of eligibility.  Maybe I'm missing something.

[oldmanvb]

As I understand, when a player comes back for a 5th year now that the exclusion has been eliminated any athletic scholarship she may be given will count against the team's maximum of 12 scholarships. If they are going to play on scholarship the scholarship has to come from someplace. The school is limited to 12 scholarships. The athletic scholarship cannot be taken from someone who signed a letter of intent when in high school if she was promised an athletic scholarship for next year, including incoming freshmen who signed a letter of intent in November.

The bottom line is the 5th year of eligibility adds to the number of women seeking athletic scholarships. It is a zero sum game. Give the athletic scholarship to a 5th year of eligibility player and someone else will not receive it. The B1G policy (and apparently the policy of all the schools in the power 5) prevents a coach from taking a guaranteed scholarship from someone and awarding it to the 5th year eligible player.

This whole discussion started because I was puzzled about where our volleyball scholarships are going to come from next year. I'm still puzzled. Diana Brown and Taylor Kuper I think are the only two of our players who would be using a 5th year of eligibility. Kuper does not appear to be returning and Brown presumably will be attending graduate school on an academic scholarship. (Purely a guess on my part) It would appear the only other source for scholarships will be vacancies created by the original letter of intent signed by the athlete. That is what I was asking about.

[Friday]

Unless someone leaves, they probably won't be on scholarship. If they have schooling left to do and will be on campus anyway, they may decide to play since they will be paying anyway. IF they don't have schooling to do, then it may not be worth it to take additional classes and pay for school just to play one more year. They could also be waiting to see if anyone leaves and that frees up a scholarship. So we probably won't know if they are coming back until sometime next semester when the other scholarship players determine their future plans.

[oldmanvb]

If someone is going to transfer and enroll, what is the date of the start of second semester?

[Pasquale]

Spring semester starts January 18.