Wisconsin Badgers 2020-2021

[Timothy A]

Thinking about Lacey Eden as an example of how COVID and its effect on eligibility is gonna be with us for a while: in the fall of 2022, she is going to come back to the UW team as an NCAA champ and likely an Olympic medal winner ... and have four years of eligibility left and five years in which to use it. Just like your average incoming freshman.

The thought of this gives me Watts type of drools. Where's a napkin?

I had forgot Schneider said she was coming back awhile ago. I would feel REALLY good about the team if she did come back. She was on fire at the Tourney.

[Sieve1]

Thinking about Lacey Eden as an example of how COVID and its effect on eligibility is gonna be with us for a while: in the fall of 2022, she is going to come back to the UW team as an NCAA champ and likely an Olympic medal winner ... and have four years of eligibility left and five years in which to use it. Just like your average incoming freshman.

Which, in turn, affects UW’s incoming freshmen in 2022- how many will be asked to take a gap year or red shirt or just not dress for games? Part of the new reality

[robertearle]

Thinking about Lacey Eden as an example of how COVID and its effect on eligibility is gonna be with us for a while: in the fall of 2022, she is going to come back to the UW team as an NCAA champ and likely an Olympic medal winner ... and have four years of eligibility left and five years in which to use it. Just like your average incoming freshman.

And then I went out to run while still thinking about it, and things got weird. :-)

So, Eden comes back from the Olympics, and plays out her four non-COVID years of eligibility normally: 2022-23, 23-24, 24-25, and 25-26. So far, so good.

Now let's say she human, and gets injured somewhere in there. She certainly still has a 'red shirt' available to her. So that fourth year could come in 2026-27 instead.

Unless....

... she gets 'centralized' a second time in 2025-26. Now her 4th year could come in 2026-27 just because of centralization, and could come in 2027-2028 if there is both a second Olympics AND a red-shirt in there.

And it is all still within her 'window', because her normal five-year window became six due to COVID, and becomes seven because of the current centralization, and would become an EIGHT (!) year window if there is a second centralization. And the clock on that EIGHT year window only started in the fall of 2020.

Unless...

... did she actually enroll at Harvard (or wherever it was), or did she simply sit out the fall semester entirely? Meaning did the clock not start until January of 2021. What if the injury causes her to miss more than a year. Can you 'split' a year of eligibility into semesters? Could she conceivably hit the fall of 2028 with a semester remaining on her eight-year window and some eligibility still left to use?

[ARM]

Princeton.

[Timothy A]

... did she actually enroll at Harvard (or wherever it was), or did she simply sit out the fall semester entirely? Meaning did the clock not start until January of 2021. What if the injury causes her to miss more than a year. Can you 'split' a year of eligibility into semesters? Could she conceivably hit the fall of 2028 with a semester remaining on her eight-year window and some eligibility still left to use?

I recall MJ saying that she never enrolled at Princeton.

[Sieve1]

I recall MJ saying that she never enrolled at Princeton.

I have heard that none of the players at Princeton, Yale & Harvard enrolled last year to preserve eligibility, and not just in hockey.

[Cornholio]

If this is really the case and that these players did not enroll at the Ivys to preserve a year of ivy-eligibility, it really blows apart the Ivy model of the student-athlete. You would think the major point of going to an Ivy is to get the degree, and delaying one's education for the sake of retaining a year of ivy-eligibility is nonsensical. I really hope this was the athletes choice and not coaches pressuring the players into not enrolling, or worse, "admissions" not admitting the incoming freshman for this year (but instead a 'promise' that they will get in next year). I would think the smart athletes would still enroll, get their degree and if they wanted to keep playing once they graduate, transfer elsewhere to get a grad degree. The athlete would have the best of both worlds then (an Ivy degree along with using their NCAA-allotted eligibility, along with at least a start on a grad degree)

[Sieve1]

If this is really the case and that these players did not enroll at the Ivys to preserve a year of ivy-eligibility, it really blows apart the Ivy model of the student-athlete. You would think the major point of going to an Ivy is to get the degree, and delaying one's education for the sake of retaining a year of ivy-eligibility is nonsensical. I really hope this was the athletes choice and not coaches pressuring the players into not enrolling, or worse, "admissions" not admitting the incoming freshman for this year (but instead a 'promise' that they will get in next year). I would think the smart athletes would still enroll, get their degree and if they wanted to keep playing once they graduate, transfer elsewhere to get a grad degree. The athlete would have the best of both worlds then (an Ivy degree along with using their NCAA-allotted eligibility, along with at least a start on a grad degree)

I agree with all of your points. However, a few ivy student athletes we know personally felt that since their schools were not in person (in the fall) they didn’t want to pay Ivy tuition for online Zoom classes AND lose a year of eligibility. So there was a financial/tuition factor as well.

[Cornholio]

It was not just the ivys where a lot of students decided that the cost-benefit of paying 'in-person' rates for an 'on-line' school was insane. Oddly, I think the colleges themselves wrote their own obituary by insisting that the 'same quality' education (reflected in the tuition price) could be delivered "on-line". I personally know a lot of students who are forgoing the expense of traditional college and going on-line for much cheaper. Getting the same degree yet the flexibility of being anywhere at much lower costs. Employers are not looking down on the "on-line" degree anymore either.

[robertearle]

I have heard that none of the players at Princeton, Yale & Harvard enrolled last year to preserve eligibility, and not just in hockey.

"Enrolled last year" is only half the issue or question. They could have been enrolled and taking classes, and counted last year as a 'red shirt' year. They only 'preserved' eligibility in the same way a red-shirt would do; they do not get an extra COVID year.

But in Lacey Eden's case, NOT enrolling means that "the clock" on the number of years she has to use up here eligibility did not start. A student at an Ivy that was enrolled in 2019-2020 or earlier had their 'clock' running last year whether they were enrolled or not, because their 'clock' started when the *first* enrolled. The 'clock' only stopped for those who took part in playing last year; that was part of the inducement to get them to play, so only those who played get the 'benefit'.

-----------

More generally, we're looking back and evaluating knowing how the year turned out; that there was something of a 'normal' schedule played and a 'normal' tournament etc. When they made their decisions - student and schools - nobody knew that was going to be the case. Things might have gone much worse. And if things had, the 'evaluation' of the decisions might look quite different, in terms of having been a 'good' or 'bad' choice.

[ARM]

They could have been enrolled and taking classes, and counted last year as a 'red shirt' year.

At least for the Harvard students, the issue is that the school doesn't have "red shirt" concept. Didn't players like Pucci and Gedman run into that issue while injured -- meaning, they couldn't be enrolled that year or the Harvard clock would run?

[HockeyGuy362]

Turns out HockeyGuy362 did have the information correct. Maybe next time he won't be questioned about "how" he knows...

Thanks for the note, appreciate it.

[robertearle]

At least for the Harvard students, the issue is that the school doesn't have "red shirt" concept. Didn't players like Pucci and Gedman run into that issue while injured -- meaning, they couldn't be enrolled that year or the Harvard clock would run?

The Ivy League, apparently recognizing that (some of) their students would be doubly screwed by them not playing, is granting their 2020-21 seniors a one-time exception to that 'clock' because of COVID.

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.co...t-eligibility/

But that still means their undergrads whose NCAA clock had already started running get doubly screwed; they miss out on the NCAA COVID extension of the eligibility clock, and they don't get the one-time waiver from the Ivy League. If you were an Ivy League undergrad enrolled in 2020-2021, you got to watch the rest of the NCAA turn the regular four years of eligibility in a five year window into five years eligibility in a six year window, while your college career became three years of play in a four year window.

I would not be happy...

[ARM]

If you were an Ivy League undergrad enrolled in 2020-2021, you got to watch the rest of the NCAA turn the regular four years of eligibility in a five year window into five years eligibility in a six year window, while your college career became three years of play in a four year window.

I would not be happy...

If you are on target to graduate in four years, you could get your Ivy degree and then move to another school for a final year of eligibility as a grad student. But, yes, the decision is beyond unfair.

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Thanks for the note, appreciate it.

You are welcome...Although I should be thanking you for your info on the US roster before it was released.