From Sac's athletic site:
https://www.hornetsports.com/sports/fball/2020-21/releases/20201015i09uoy

From the Bee:
https://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/article246477230.html

Those are legitimate concerns. UCD might as well do the same. Having seen MLB games with the safety measures and no fans was just not fun to watch.

its a tough decision. I know our plan is minimal fans but it will be different.

I just can’t imagine how they manage scholarships assuming every player retains a year of eligibility and some sizable number of seniors come back for fall 2021. That’s a multi year scholarship logjam, but one that really effects this upcoming recruiting cycle.

Returning seniors will not count against the 63 next year.

Oh, strange days

But cash strapped FCS programs that will struggle to fund 63 scholarships after a year of dealing with Covid will have to figure out how to pay for the additional scholarships for the returning seniors.

...to say nothing of the cost associated with dealing with the pandemic itself....medical testing, finding space to keep players and staff at a safe distance,...medical costs when players and staff test positive, ...i assume medical insurance costs will rise, too. And all without ticket and concession revenue.

It’s not just next year it’s the next few. Right now, we have redshirt frosh, incoming frosh and a recruiting class for 2021. If spring doesn’t happen, all those guys will have 4 years of eligibility. FCS can play some games with partials but the big boys can’t. Seems like you’d have to raise the limit quite a bit next year, and gradually ease it back down to current level over a few years.

Please consider the story of Trey Lance. 6’ 4” 225 very fast runner and quick. He Will be a first round NFL draft pick. How did NDSU get this guy? Why are the Niners so very interested in getting him? Answer: he is a Colin K. And the Niners love that about him. I just wonder if the Ags could ever recruit a guy like this? Just a thought. . . .

What’s the eligibility rule for situations like this? A conference can’t have some team’s players using up a season of eligibility while others bank everyone for next year; it’s not a level playing field. All one way or the other. If a team chooses not to play the five year clock should still apply.

I agree. Greed unfortunately is at the center of this to a certain extent. Unfortunately some student- athletes out there feel entitled to play every second of eligibility rather than being grateful for the opportunities they were given to compete and possibly have their education partially paid for doing it. And so spots at the university are blocked in order to serve the vanity of some student- athletes who are putting off going into the real world.

They aren't the only ones. The universities can also be greedy if there's an opportunity to keep an exceptional player longer and profit off of them. The truth is that if it takes you 4+ years to be considered an exceptional college athlete that you're probably not as great as you think you are. How much of that is actual improvement and how much is just familiarity and taking advantage of less- prepared, younger opponents ? No way for fans to tell.

I would go further to say that the only people who should get an extra year are the ones who are losing their last year of eligibility due to COVID- 19- but only if you weren't already a 5th year senior. Everyone else still has opportunities ahead of them. I don't care if they get 4 seasons in which to compete. It's supposed to be like an assembly line- you take your classes, have your experiences, then you get out and give someone else a chance.

I also believe the 6th year of eligibility should only be given to student- athletes with truly serious hardships that prevent them from even attending classes. Injuries happen in sports- everyone knows that. COVID- 19 is really only a hardship If you or a family get it and you have to put your education on hold to deal with serious health problems/care for them. If you still get your scholarship money and get your degree that should be enough. Universities are under no obligation whatsoever to forward athletic careers. And no graduate students should be allowed to compete in NCAA sports. Graduate schools are intended to be for the top students in their fields who are looking to increase their preparation for real- world job opportunities, not for college athletes who just can't move on. No serious graduate student would have the time to practice for and compete in intercollegiate athleics- intramurals perhaps.

agree. I think if a team or league opts out of playing then you should be prepared to move on and not retain scholarships. Players still get their education. It may be unfortunate but that’s life. As you say, make room for the next cohort and hit the real world.

Did you complete your BA / BS using only 4 years athletic eligibility?

I finished in 4 years thanks to taking GE's in Summer Sessions and testing out of some pre-requisites.. Could have done 3 3/4 if some classes were available earlier. Didn't play sports, but then again some student-athletes finish in 4 or less because they do the same things (even taking some junior college classes for GE's while in HS) and don't use all their eligibility. I didn't say student-athletes have to get the boot from the school after 4 years-just that the sometimes frivolous extension of eligibility is bad for intercollegiate athletics. Student-athletes are still expected to maintain full-time courseloads and make the appropriate academic progress. Not everyone finishes in 4 years but that 5th year shouldn't be a given. No one is entitled to use 4 years of eligibility-that's a privilege that has to be earned. Remember this discussion is not limited to UCD.

Glad to see you found a topic of interest. There are so many people redshirting on the sidelines here. Did you know charliesheen is a member ? I wouldn't mind asking them how anger management went.

Took the dog for some exercise at Sac this morning. Football team conducting what I guess are off-off season practices.