Recruits 2006 - the Offseason thread

[DeltaOne81]

So, figured it was time for a new thread on this.

And I'll start it out with a question. Does anyone know why Heisenberg lists Davenport as a junior despite only having one year of acaemics behind him, yet lists Fontas as a junior, despite having played two years at UML and being at Cornell all this year?

I mean, I guess I can understand Davenport being denied sophomore status for taking the year off if the Ivies really want to be mean about it, but then how would Fontas get junior status when the guy has been in school. That leaves two weird situations: Fontas potentially graduating despite being a 'junior', and Davenport having not graduated, nor having even been in school four years, but no longer eligible to play.

[calgARI '07]

I'm pretty sure Davenport will be a sophomore.

[Dpperk29]

I think Fontas' situation is that next year he will have 2 seasons of eligibilty left, but will be a senior academically, so it's grad school for him probably

[calgARI '07]

Fontas is going to be a big X-factor on how next year's team performs.  Even with losing McKee and Moulson, I still think the biggest position(s) that the team will have to replace is the 2/3 center position left vacant by Abbott and Pegoraro and Iggulden in 04-05.  Fontas is the type of guy who can be a really effective third line center because he has good size and skating ability and is known for his defensive strengths.  If he can step right into that role and be great defensively against the opposition's top players and be a big faceoff presence and penalty killer, I think that could go a very long way in next year's team having success.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote calgARI '07]I'm pretty sure Davenport will be a sophomore.[/quote]

I hope so. Its seems pretty hard to me to tell a guy he's a junior when he only spent one year in school. I mean I'd understand if he went elsewhere or just stopped playing, you could refuse to grant the extra year of eligibility, but its a hard argument to make when the guy isn't even in classes. Hopefully you're right, just tell Heisenberg

[The Rancor]

[quote DeltaOne81]

I mean, I guess I can understand Davenport being denied sophomore status for taking the year off if the Ivies really want to be mean about it, but then how would Fontas get junior status when the guy has been in school. That leaves two weird situations: Fontas potentially graduating despite being a 'junior', and Davenport having not graduated, nor having even been in school four years, but no longer eligible to play.[/quote]

though he did not play this year in college, his 4 year clock was still ticking acording to NCAA rules. he is a hockey junior, with only 2 seasons left to play uless he can get a retroactive redshirt, which he won't.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote The Rancor]
though he did not play this year in college, his 4 year clock was still ticking acording to NCAA rules. he is a hockey junior, with only 2 seasons left to play uless he can get a retroactive redshirt, which he won't.[/quote]

Well, but, you have 5 years to use your 4 years of eligibility.

If Davenport doesn't get a 'red shirt' (non-medical of course, unless there's a different) for not even being in college, then why would Fontas get one for chosing to transfer? It seems like not even being in school at all would be about the best reason to use your 4 eligible years in a 5 year time frame.

[The Rancor]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote The Rancor]
though he did not play this year in college, his 4 year clock was still ticking acording to NCAA rules. he is a hockey junior, with only 2 seasons left to play uless he can get a retroactive redshirt, which he won't.[/quote]

Well, but, you have 5 years to use your 4 years of eligibility.

If Davenport doesn't get a 'red shirt' (non-medical of course, unless there's a different) for not even being in college, then why would Fontas get one for chosing to transfer? It seems like not even being in school at all would be about the best reason to use your 4 eligible years in a 5 year time frame.[/quote]

i did not know you had 5 years to play 4. what if you are a 2 sport player? can you use them consecutively?

[Robb]

Aha.  I've posted this before, but had never been able to find a source.  From The 1996 revision of the Ivy Manual, Part V, A-1-b:

Subject to V-A-2 below, all students are expected to use their years of varsity eligibility in a particular sport during the first four seasons of that sport (even though they may be formally enrolled in a five-year program), provided the student is enrolled as a full-time student during each of those seasons.

And Part V-A-3-a:

A student shall not represent an institution in intercollegiate competition after a period of five calendar years from the first date of matriculation at any university, college or junior college without specific approval of the Ivy Group (Council/Policy, 1978).

So I was right, in that you're supposed to use your eligibility in your first four years, but only if you're enrolled in those years.  It's hard to glean what happens when a student takes a leave of absence, as Davenport has.  It seems to be on a case-by-case basis (there's even a template of a form to file documenting why the student took the leave, what participation, if any, he's had in the sport during the leave, etc), and there doesn't seem to be much commentary on how the eligibility decisions will be made.

From the spirit of the document, though, I'm guessing that if you went to them and said, "hi - I was sitting on the bench behind our clear #1 goalie, so I took a year off from school to play juniors because I didn't want to lose a year of eligibility.  Can I still play 3 more years?" that they'd pretty much laugh you out of the office.  It is repeated over and over and over ad nauseam throughout the document that students are expected to be making progress toward degrees and that athletics should not interfere with academics.  The #10 item on the Statement of Principles is:

Athletic participation ought never to interfere with or otherwise to distort normal academic progress toward the degree or post-baccalaureate plans for graduate work or employment.

I'm pretty sure that dropping out of school just to game the system to get a red shirt year "distorts normal academic progress."

[Liz '05]

So, basically, Davenport needs to convince them that he was struggling academically, felt that Cornell would be the right place someday, just not right then, and that the leave of absence has clarified his academic goals.  Good luck to him :-}

[DeltaOne81]

Fair enough, but why then would Fontas be given junior status as well, when we was enrolled the whole time, and transferred with the explicit knowledge that it would mean he would lose a year. I could see them both losing a year, or neither, or only Fontas (since he was enrolled), but I don't get how only Davenport could lose the year.

I guess if the key is 'participation' in the sport, then Fontas could get an exception (although he was definitely participating). But considering "provided the student is enrolled" is in the wording of the rule, I would think that would be even more important.

[Rita]

Would Fontas's situation be  different because he is a transfer student  and the NC$$ mandates that you *must* sit out a year when transferring between DI programs (unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances, like a murder). Would such a NC$$ mandate override the Ivy rules posted above by Robb?

[min]

Does anyone know if Schafer try to recruit Fontas before (but lost to UML)? Also, I wonder if expectations (from both the coaches' and fans' perspectives) are different for transfers and freshmen players. I mean, having a 110% trust in Coach Schafer, I imagine that he must have seen something in Chris Fontas's play that he knew Fontas would/could/should help the team greatly and quickly.

[pfibiger]

[quote min]Does anyone know if Schafer try to recruit Fontas before (but lost to UML)? Also, I wonder if expectations (from both the coaches' and fans' perspectives) are different for transfers and freshmen players. I mean, having a 110% trust in Coach Schafer, I imagine that he must have seen something in Chris Fontas's play that he knew Fontas would/could/should help the team greatly and quickly.[/quote]

If we were recruiting Fontas initially, we didn't make the final group. From a uscho post a while ago, mentioning his transfer to Cornell:

"Fontas is an excellent student, and picked the River Hawks over UMass, Brown, RPI, Yale and Dartmouth."

[Give My Regards]

There may be somewhat of a precedent for Davenport's situation.  Roy Kerling did not play what would have been his sophomore season at Cornell (78-79 -- I'm under the impression that he left due to academic difficulties, but I may be mistaken), and he was able to come back the next season and use his remaining three years of eligibility.  I don't know if he had to petition anybody or not.

Vinnie Auger was able to take a medical redshirt after missing an entire season due to a back injury, but he had to petition the Ivies to grant him the extra year.

I don't think leaving for juniors has any effect on college eligibility.  Todd Marr, while he was at Northeastern, left for juniors halfway through his freshman season and was able to return for his sophomore season.  He then left halfway through the season again, but after transferring and sitting out a year was able to use his remaining two years of eligibility at Cornell (though I don't know if the Ivies had to be persuaded to let him do this).

My uneducated guess is that Davenport and Cornell will have to petition the Ivies to allow him to use his entire three years, and that they will let him do so.