Not happening, but would you support giving all Senior College Players a 1 year extension?

[ssckelley]

So, having an opinion is OK for you...but if I have one I care too much. uh...ok.

I refer to my earlier post. You'd be screwing over 4 classes of kids because 1 class missed somewhere around 2-3 games on average. Seems out of balance. Which means the NCAA may very well do it.

I hate to see March Madness cancelled...it's my favorite sporting event of the year. It sucks big time. I can only imagine how the players feel. But it is what it is.

Yeah but who cares? Those other classes get to go out as normal. If anything the quality of the basketball improves. Probably only a handful of seniors would even return and they will still have the same amount of under classmen that will be leaving early. It's a net win for those that like college basketball.

The impact on Iowa is minimal. If Kreiner came back he'd take away some minutes from Nunge and Pemsl.

 

[tksirius]

 

[chucktownhawk]

No more Pemsl/Kriener, but yes for Jbo.

 

[kicker22]

You're forgetting something. The underclassmen are ALSO losing the rest of this season. They are getting the same lesson as the Seniors. Do they get the same benefit then of extra eligibility? If not the "solution" disproportionately screws over one group. What about Seniors who's teams are already out? Do they deserve another year? The term "Pandora's box" comes to mind. If you're going to overload rosters with too many players...recruiting and transfers now come into play. Maybe "cluster f***" would be a better term.

The fallout from the virus is a tough life lesson...nothing that could really be done about it. A misguided solution afterwards is bad policy which can be avoided. Curiously enough...that's another potential lesson in the making.

The loss of playing time over an entire season, vs loss of 3 games (an average...many Seniors will lose none, most 1 or 2...only a rare few more than 3 or 4. Hardly an equitable solution.

I guess I see it differently then simply the loss of a few games. The beautiful thing about March Madness is that its an experience that is so much more than just another game, especially if your coming from a conference that may only get 1 team in. I totally understand the Pandora's Box argument, but if I'm playing on a roster regardless of whether I'm a senior or a freshman and we either secured a bid or got so close only to have it taken away the way it was, then I'd want that senior that's put everything he's had into the program for 4 years to get the opportunity to go out on his own terms rather than seeing his season end the way it did.

I do however agree with you, as I said in another post, about who this opportunity would be available to as you don't want to "reward" seniors with an extra year of eligibility by applying this to programs like ISU or UNC that simply wouldn't have made it.

 

[kicker22]

So, having an opinion is OK for you...but if I have one I care too much. uh...ok.

I refer to my earlier post. You'd be screwing over 4 classes of kids because 1 class missed somewhere around 2-3 games on average. Seems out of balance. I'm not big on "solving" one problem by creating another one.

I hate to see March Madness cancelled...it's my favorite sporting event of the year. It sucks big time. I can only imagine how the players feel. But it is what it is.

So you give the players that "want it bad enough" the opportunity to pay for that extra year of eligibility or to use this year as a redshirt if they haven't burned it. You'll have some that chose to pursue other avenues or move on with their lives.

I don't see how creating that opportunity "screws over the 4 classes of kids" because those kids still have to earn their playing time. I guess based on that logic it screws them over no more than it would to bring a grad transfer or transfer into the program as that cuts into the opportunity to secure playing time. The other non-seniors and incoming freshmen would then still have the opportunity to redshirt (if they still could) or earn their minutes just like they would any other year.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

So you give the players that "want it bad enough" the opportunity to pay for that extra year of eligibility or to use this year as a redshirt if they haven't burned it. You'll have some that chose to pursue other avenues or move on with their lives.

I don't see how creating that opportunity "screws over the 4 classes of kids" because those kids still have to earn their playing time. I guess based on that logic it screws them over no more than it would to bring a grad transfer or transfer into the program as that cuts into the opportunity to secure playing time. The other non-seniors and incoming freshmen would then still have the opportunity to redshirt (if they still could) or earn their minutes just like they would any other year.

Players typically move up in the pecking order with experience. (guys play more as a Junior/Senior than they did as a Frosh/Soph). This puts an artificial ceiling on that process. The slots they would/could have moved into are still full with more experienced players. On some teams it might just be 1 player (like IOWA and Kreiner)...but others have a hand full of Seniors and many of them are starters. Imagine if you're a Sophomore on a team that started 4 Seniors and they all come back. Your Junior year suddenly doesn't look so promising. The Seniors get their extra year...but largely at your expense. You've more than they did in the original scenario.

BTW... why do just the Seniors get an extra year? Every player on the team lost a year of the NCAA tourney. If you really want fairness you give every active player in 2019-20 an extra year. For 4 years rosters will be stacked. Recruiting and transfers would be quite the circus.

The retroactive redshirt idea is interesting and maybe a good compromise. If a kid still has the 5th year available allow him to use it. Some would, some wouldn't.

I get the idea of "it would be nice if...". It's a raw turn of event for these kids. As bummed as we fans are, imagine how disappointed they are. But you can't fix everything. And sometimes the "fix" creates as many new problems as the original issue.

 

[kicker22]

Simple math. More players on the roster = less playing time per player. Players typically move up in the pecking order with experience. (most guys play more as a Senior than they did as a Frosh). This puts an artificial ceiling...if you will..on that process. The slots they would/could have moved into are still full with more experienced players.

I get the idea of "it would be nice if"... it's really an unfortunate turn of event for the players. But you can't fix everything. And sometimes the "fix" creates as many new problems as the original issue.

Like I said your argument makes sense, but what's the difference in giving those seniors an opportunity to pay their way for one more season vs. that same program bringing in a grad transfer in terms of "fairness" or depriving those coming back of playing time. In my opinion it should come down to competing for roster spots and not necessarily player's earning it by putting their time into the system.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Like I said your argument makes sense, but what's the difference in giving those seniors an opportunity to pay their way for one more season vs. that same program bringing in a grad transfer in terms of "fairness" or depriving those coming back of playing time. In my opinion it should come down to competing for roster spots and not necessarily player's earning it by putting their time into the system.

Would you rather compete against 14 guys or 17, especially when the extra 3 are already ahead of you on the roster? One of which you may have been backing up, preparing to fill his spot when he graduated. You're robbing one kid of a year to give another an extra one...unless you give everybody on the roster this year a mulligan. That's the only way it's equitable.

Could very well be they give guys an option if they have a 5th year left, seems reasonable. But their playing time is coming from somewhere...and it's a guy behind them on the roster that was expecting to move up.

 

[dahlhawk]

I voted no for purely selfish reasons. Iowa only loses two seniors who are in a bench capacity. Other teams are probable losing more. Letting other teams play grad seniors is not to Iowa's advantage. That being said having a Kreiner back next year would be a nice safety net in our back line. Especially if we lose anyone or we have to play true freshman.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

They do however have remaining eligibility coming. In my opinion that has to be considered. The seniors have also put the most time and effort into the programs at that point in time.

This doesn't have to be an all or none proposition, there's a compromise somewhere in this mess that will work for the greatest number of student athletes.

Allowing players to use their unused red shirt seems like a reasonable compromise. If a player still has that 5th year in his pocket, he could have the option to use it.

 

[Ian Pike Hammer]

So, ok, seniors get another year. Garza, Weiskamp, Evelyn and Kriener all return. JBo and Nunge are back next year, along with 5? incoming freshmen. What about Till; Mama sez? Someone show me Iowa's COMPLETE roster next year please!

 

[Ian Pike Hammer]

So, ok, seniors get another year. Garza, Weiskamp, Evelyn and Kriener all return. JBo and Nunge are back next year, along with 5? incoming freshmen. What about Till; Mama sez? Someone show me Iowa's COMPLETE roster next year please!

Sorry, forgot about Patrick Mc.; throw his name in the hat too.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

They would not count against the scholarship limit if they did.

That is the only way it could work, of course. But one suggestion of "(F)rom freshman to senior, the year never happened" is kind of problematic. Other kids still have a chance to go to NCAAs. A player like Bakari Evelyn, though, would miss out on his only chance to play in it (he never played in it for Nebby 2015-16, or Valpo 2016-19). And do they wipe all stats, as well?

OTOH, I could certainly enjoy two more full seasons of Luka Garza!

 

[kicker22]

Would you rather compete against 14 guys or 17, especially when the extra 3 are already ahead of you on the roster? One of which you may have been backing up, preparing to fill his spot when he graduated. You're robbing one kid of a year to give another an extra one...unless you give everybody on the roster this year a mulligan. That's the only way it's equitable.

Could very well be they give guys an option if they have a 5th year left, seems reasonable. But their playing time is coming from somewhere...and it's a guy behind them on the roster that was expecting to move up.

Again I see where you're coming from, but interesting choice of wording with "robbing one kid of a year to give another an extra one". I say that because due to the uncontrollable circumstances those seniors are also being robbed of an opportunity to finish their careers the way those before them did.

I'm not saying it's fair, just as things aren't fair to anyone who has been effected one way or another by the coronavirus, or anyone playing collegiate sports this winter/spring for that matter. What I'm saying is I see nothing wrong with the NCAA granting them the opportunity to pay to play for an extra opportunity to play out their dream and get an opportunity to end their career playing in March Madness.

That said though, athletics are about competition. I agree that its harder to compete against 14 guys than it is 17. However as I posted earlier, who's to say that the player waiting in the wings for their opportunity isn't going to lose the spot (that he hasn't won yet) to a grad transfer or an incoming freshman. It happens every year and will continue to happen. Nothing about college, or the real world, is "fair". All I'm saying is that I think based on the circumstances they should get an opportunity to finish what they started, how that plays out is an entirely different story.

 

[PCHawk]

Again I see where you're coming from, but interesting choice of wording with "robbing one kid of a year to give another an extra one". I say that because due to the uncontrollable circumstances those seniors are also being robbed of an opportunity to finish their careers the way those before them did.

I'm not saying it's fair, just as things aren't fair to anyone who has been effected one way or another by the coronavirus, or anyone playing collegiate sports this winter/spring for that matter. What I'm saying is I see nothing wrong with the NCAA granting them the opportunity to pay to play for an extra opportunity to play out their dream and get an opportunity to end their career playing in March Madness.

That said though, athletics are about competition. I agree that its harder to compete against 14 guys than it is 17. However as I posted earlier, who's to say that the player waiting in the wings for their opportunity isn't going to lose the spot (that he hasn't won yet) to a grad transfer or an incoming freshman. It happens every year and will continue to happen. Nothing about college, or the real world, is "fair". All I'm saying is that I think based on the circumstances they should get an opportunity to finish what they started, how that plays out is an entirely different story.

A lot of teams were done for the year anyway. Its tough to let every senior come back when such a high percentage were done or really close to done. The ones that do come back, just because they didnt get a chance to play in the tournament, might not even qualify for the tournament next year. Then they played an entire year and still didn't get the kne experience they missed out on. Also what if a junior who would have played in the tournament this year, misses it next year? He lost out on just as much, but clearly won't get another shot. It's a shitty situation for sure.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Keep in mind, it's not only the Seniors that lost a year in the tourney. Everybody on the team did.

 

[kicker22]

A lot of teams were done for the year anyway. Its tough to let every senior come back when such a high percentage were done or really close to done. The ones that do come back, just because they didnt get a chance to play in the tournament, might not even qualify for the tournament next year. Then they played an entire year and still didn't get the kne experience they missed out on. Also what if a junior who would have played in the tournament this year, misses it next year? He lost out on just as much, but clearly won't get another shot. It's a shitty situation for sure.

It's probably not the right mentality, but I feel worse for the seniors as it's over for them and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it, other than watch their careers end prematurely. For those that have the opportunity return and come up short, they at least have the opportunity to play their way back in. The seniors don't have that opportunity. You're 100% correct though that it's a shitty situation for everyone.

 

[ssckelley]

I'm hearing that the NCAA is leaning towards giving the seniors of the winter sports an extra year of eligibility and they are working out the kinks.