WBB Former #1 Ranked Recruit Lauren Betts¥update bets to UCLA

[skydog0784]

Good news all things considered, even for Shateah in order to get some PT and grow her game I would think.

And best of luck to Shateah. We'll be following your career; once a Hawk, always a Hawk!

 

[Chuck C]

Pillow fight!

 

[peacehawk]

Least surprising news ever.

 

[AuroraHawk]

Chad Leistikow sent a text message yesterday detailing information that he received from the Iowa Athletic Department. Ava Jones can be placed on a medical scholarship and, so long as she remains on the medical scholarship, she does not count against the team's 15 scholarship limitation. While on medical scholarship, Jones could not practice with the team or play in games. Jones could, however, serve as a student assistant coach, travel with the team and sit with the team during games. Once she is medically cleared to play, the medical scholarship is over and her scholarship would count against the team's 15 scholarship limit.

Assuming that Leistikow is reporting accurately and assuming that reports of Jones being nowhere close to competing on the basketball court next season (if ever), one would think that Jones could be placed on medical scholarship and Iowa would have a scholarship available for someone transferring in . . . might be a perfect "one and done" opportunity for someone with one year of eligibility left.

Given Shateah Wetering's decision to enter the transfer portal, it would appear that Bluder may actually have the ability to add up to two more players for next year's team - while Ava Jones sits out on a medical scholarship.

 

[libertyhawkeye]

Chad Leistikow sent a text message yesterday detailing information that he received from the Iowa Athletic Department. Ava Jones can be placed on a medical scholarship and, so long as she remains on the medical scholarship, she does not count against the team's 15 scholarship limitation. While on medical scholarship, Jones could not practice with the team or play in games. Jones could, however, serve as a student assistant coach, travel with the team and sit with the team during games. Once she is medically cleared to play, the medical scholarship is over and her scholarship would count against the team's 15 scholarship limit.

Assuming that Leistikow is reporting accurately and assuming that reports of Jones being nowhere close to competing on the basketball court next season (if ever), one would think that Jones could be placed on medical scholarship and Iowa would have a scholarship available for someone transferring in . . . might be a perfect "one and done" opportunity for someone with one year of eligibility left.

Given Shateah Wetering's decision to enter the transfer portal, it would appear that Bluder may actually have the ability to add up to two more players for next year's team - while Ava Jones sits out on a medical scholarship.

Thanks for that info. I'll also point out, if Iowa adds a big in the portal like Betts (star with multiple years remaining), there's an increased chance another scholarship could open.

 

[skydog0784]

Chad Leistikow sent a text message yesterday detailing information that he received from the Iowa Athletic Department. Ava Jones can be placed on a medical scholarship and, so long as she remains on the medical scholarship, she does not count against the team's 15 scholarship limitation. While on medical scholarship, Jones could not practice with the team or play in games. Jones could, however, serve as a student assistant coach, travel with the team and sit with the team during games. Once she is medically cleared to play, the medical scholarship is over and her scholarship would count against the team's 15 scholarship limit.

Assuming that Leistikow is reporting accurately and assuming that reports of Jones being nowhere close to competing on the basketball court next season (if ever), one would think that Jones could be placed on medical scholarship and Iowa would have a scholarship available for someone transferring in . . . might be a perfect "one and done" opportunity for someone with one year of eligibility left.

Given Shateah Wetering's decision to enter the transfer portal, it would appear that Bluder may actually have the ability to add up to two more players for next year's team - while Ava Jones sits out on a medical scholarship.

That's what I'm talking about! Betts and Morrow are at the top of the wish list. That is a preseason #1 team right there. Make it happen Lisa!

 

[BraydonRoberts5]

Chad Leistikow sent a text message yesterday detailing information that he received from the Iowa Athletic Department. Ava Jones can be placed on a medical scholarship and, so long as she remains on the medical scholarship, she does not count against the team's 15 scholarship limitation. While on medical scholarship, Jones could not practice with the team or play in games. Jones could, however, serve as a student assistant coach, travel with the team and sit with the team during games. Once she is medically cleared to play, the medical scholarship is over and her scholarship would count against the team's 15 scholarship limit.

Assuming that Leistikow is reporting accurately and assuming that reports of Jones being nowhere close to competing on the basketball court next season (if ever), one would think that Jones could be placed on medical scholarship and Iowa would have a scholarship available for someone transferring in . . . might be a perfect "one and done" opportunity for someone with one year of eligibility left.

Given Shateah Wetering's decision to enter the transfer portal, it would appear that Bluder may actually have the ability to add up to two more players for next year's team - while Ava Jones sits out on a medical scholarship.

The problem is that if they moved Ava to a medical scholarship, she could never play for Iowa. Leistikow's text said that if she did play, her scholarship would be retroactively added to Iowa's limit for the seasons she was on a medical scholarship.

Let's assume the following: Iowa moves Ava to a medical scholarship and adds two transfers. Iowa is at the scholarship limit for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 but not over it, so there's no issue.

But now let's assume Ava can play again in 2025-2026 and wants to. If she played for Iowa at that point, then her scholarship would count for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. Iowa couldn't do that because that would put them retroactively over the limit for both years.

Ava clearly wants to play again. Frankly I imagine the potential of playing again will be a key motivation for her during her recovery. If Iowa moves her to a medical scholarship and fills her slot, it is essentially saying "if you play again, it won't be for Iowa". I don't think Coach Bluder would do that to her.

 

[hawx]

The problem is that if they moved Ava to a medical scholarship, she could never play for Iowa. Leistikow's text said that if she did play, her scholarship would be retroactively added to Iowa's limit for the seasons she was on a medical scholarship.

Let's assume the following: Iowa moves Ava to a medical scholarship and adds two transfers. Iowa is at the scholarship limit for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 but not over it, so there's no issue.

But now let's assume Ava can play again in 2025-2026 and wants to. If she played for Iowa at that point, then her scholarship would count for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. Iowa couldn't do that because that would put them retroactively over the limit for both years.

Ava clearly wants to play again. Frankly I imagine the potential of playing again will be a key motivation for her during her recovery. If Iowa moves her to a medical scholarship and fills her slot, it is essentially saying "if you play again, it won't be for Iowa". I don't think Coach Bluder would do that to her.

I assume that's how it is written to prevent abusing medical scholarships but is that really how the rule works? Seems like it eliminates any reason to ever use it for any team that is trying to be successful and uses all their scholarship slots

 

[ChiPackHawk]

The problem is that if they moved Ava to a medical scholarship, she could never play for Iowa. Leistikow's text said that if she did play, her scholarship would be retroactively added to Iowa's limit for the seasons she was on a medical scholarship.

Let's assume the following: Iowa moves Ava to a medical scholarship and adds two transfers. Iowa is at the scholarship limit for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 but not over it, so there's no issue.

But now let's assume Ava can play again in 2025-2026 and wants to. If she played for Iowa at that point, then her scholarship would count for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. Iowa couldn't do that because that would put them retroactively over the limit for both years.

Ava clearly wants to play again. Frankly I imagine the potential of playing again will be a key motivation for her during her recovery. If Iowa moves her to a medical scholarship and fills her slot, it is essentially saying "if you play again, it won't be for Iowa". I don't think Coach Bluder would do that to her.

Clearly a tough decision and that's why she as the administrator of the program is paid the big bucks. As unbelievably lenient the NCAA has been in recent years, I find it very difficult to believe that a petition could not be made in this case to not have any of the medical scholarship years be retroactive. Making it simple, it seems pretty ridiculous that Iowa could be somehow penalized by honoring a scholarship to someone who through no fault of their own actions was injured, and worked to return. If no leniency is given, then the program is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[BraydonRoberts5]

I assume that's how it is written to prevent abusing medical scholarships but is that really how the rule works? Seems like it eliminates any reason to ever use it for any team that is trying to be successful and uses all their scholarship slots

I agree it's written that way to prevent abuse. To the extent it hurts Iowa in this case, I would say how many times has there been a situation like Ava's? Usually when an injury occurs you know relatively quickly whether someone will ever play basketball again. Ava's circumstance is unique in that it might take years to answer that question.

 

[AuroraHawk]

The problem is that if they moved Ava to a medical scholarship, she could never play for Iowa. Leistikow's text said that if she did play, her scholarship would be retroactively added to Iowa's limit for the seasons she was on a medical scholarship.

Let's assume the following: Iowa moves Ava to a medical scholarship and adds two transfers. Iowa is at the scholarship limit for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 but not over it, so there's no issue.

But now let's assume Ava can play again in 2025-2026 and wants to. If she played for Iowa at that point, then her scholarship would count for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. Iowa couldn't do that because that would put them retroactively over the limit for both years.

Ava clearly wants to play again. Frankly I imagine the potential of playing again will be a key motivation for her during her recovery. If Iowa moves her to a medical scholarship and fills her slot, it is essentially saying "if you play again, it won't be for Iowa". I don't think Coach Bluder would do that to her.

Thanks for clarification . . . I interpreted his "retroactive" comment to involve a situation where a person is medically cleared during the season and that the player would count against the scholarship limit retroactively to the start of the season.

If what you posted is accurate (and I have no reason to believe that it is not accurate), then I stand corrected. The "retroactive" application doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me unless it is designed to prevent a team from "stashing" several injured players on the roster and protecting them for a year or years at a time.

 

[hawx]

I agree it's written that way to prevent abuse. To the extent it hurts Iowa in this case, I would say how many times has there been a situation like Ava's? Usually when an injury occurs you know relatively quickly whether someone will ever play basketball again. Ava's circumstance is unique in that it might take years to answer that question.

Agreed Ava's situation is rare but if someone tears their ACL and you put them on medical scholarship, you cannot add another player on scholarship for a year so what does it even do for you? Is that a women's bball specific rule or is it similar for all men's/women's sports?

 

[littlez]

Least surprising news ever.

I’m not going to say anything.

 

[BraydonRoberts5]

Thanks for clarification . . . I interpreted his "retroactive" comment to involve a situation where a person is medically cleared during the season and that the player would count against the scholarship limit retroactively to the start of the season.

If what you posted is accurate (and I have no reason to believe that it is not accurate), then I stand corrected. The "retroactive" application doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me unless it is designed to prevent a team from "stashing" several injured players on the roster and protecting them for a year or years at a time.

I believe the intent of the rule is to protect athletes with "permanent" injuries. In the past I recall situations where teams might cut a player with a permanent injury because that player would still count towards the scholarship limit if they didn't.

With this rule, the University still keeps the athlete on scholarship, but it doesn't disadvantage their team to do so.

The reason the rule is so rigid is it is only meant to apply to cases where there isn't a question about whether a player will return. The NCAA doesn't want teams shifting players with ACL injuries to the medical scholarship because they will return in a year or two.

 

[BraydonRoberts5]

Agreed Ava's situation is rare but if someone tears their ACL and you put them on medical scholarship, you cannot add another player on scholarship for a year so what does it even do for you? Is that a women's bball specific rule or is it similar for all men's/women's sports?

I don't believe universities shift players with ACL injuries to the medical scholarship. They can redshirt due to the injury, but they still count for the scholarship limit.

I believe the medical scholarship rule applies to all sports.

 

[hawx]

I don't believe universities shift players with ACL injuries to the medical scholarship. They can redshirt due to the injury, but they still count for the scholarship limit.

I believe the medical scholarship rule applies to all sports.

Ah that's what I was missing. Thanks for the info

 

[ichawk24]

This article has a great explanation of the Medical Retirement rule as applied to an OSU running back from 2017.

Long story short, you are retiring from the game. If you want to return, you are forced to transfer. You can't just be stashed on the Medical Retirement list for 2 years and come back.

Thomas Tyner’s Medical Retirement Situation Explained

Clarifying NCAA rules on Medical Retirements and how they impacted Oregon State & Oregon

www.buildingthedam.com

 

[ichawk24]

Can someone point me to the rule on roster size limit for women’s basketball? It’s clear that scholarship limit is 15 but I can’t find anything definitive on roster size limit.

I cannot find an NCAA rule that explicitly states the limits.

But I have found several sites about being recruited to play ncaa hoops that list the scholarship limit as 15, but the average roster size is 16. Some have lines about going over the limit.

NCAA Women's Basketball Scholarships: Limits, Teams, Rosters

Everything you need to know about women’s basketball scholarships—and how to get one. View women's basketball scholarships by division.

www.ncsasports.org

Division Level	Number of Teams	Total Athletes in Division	Average Team Size	Scholarships Limit Per Team	Scholarship Limit Type
NCAA D1	349	5,588	16	15	Headcount
NCAA D2	311	4,826	15	10	Equivalency

How many scholarships are there for D1 women’s basketball?​

• Division 1 women’s basketball scholarships per team: 15
• Total number of D1 women’s basketball teams: 349
• Average team size: 16

We won’t sugarcoat it—NCAA Division 1 scholarships are hard to come by. Only 1.2% of high school athletes will compete at this level. Each Division 1 women’s basketball program can award 15 headcount scholarships. Division 1 basketball scholarships are full rides and cover all college costs, including tuition, housing, books, etc. After the 15 scholarships have been awarded, additional athletes on the team and considered walk-ons and aren’t eligible to receive athletic aid.

 

[khael-hawk]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I've been told, and they could have been wrong, that a maximum of 15 players can dress for any given game and is the only real "roster limitation" in either men's or women's college basketball.

 

[BioHawk]

That retroactively wording is stupid. How about, that player can't play for that season and the scholarship doesn't count against the maximum for that season? Then, the next season if the player is ready to go, they can re-activate the scholarship and it now counts against the total. The only abuse that could occur then is a player who has a "deactivated" scholarship won't be playing that specific year. Even if they "could have" played but maybe wouldn't be full speed, it's not really abusing them because the player didn't participate.

Eh, whatever, it's the NCAA. Their rules only apply fairness when it is convenient. And even then half the time they are just flat out ignored.

 

[squeezebox]

That retroactively wording is stupid. How about, that player can't play for that season and the scholarship doesn't count against the maximum for that season? Then, the next season if the player is ready to go, they can re-activate the scholarship and it now counts against the total. The only abuse that could occur then is a player who has a "deactivated" scholarship won't be playing that specific year. Even if they "could have" played but maybe wouldn't be full speed, it's not really abusing them because the player didn't participate.

Eh, whatever, it's the NCAA. Their rules only apply fairness when it is convenient. And even then half the time they are just flat out ignored.

it made a ton of sense prior to transfer and NIL. This would be a mechanism to stash players and claim an injury. Now, it's a bit different.

 

[kceasthawk]

This article has a great explanation of the Medical Retirement rule as applied to an OSU running back from 2017.

Long story short, you are retiring from the game. If you want to return, you are forced to transfer. You can't just be stashed on the Medical Retirement list for 2 years and come back.

Thomas Tyner’s Medical Retirement Situation Explained

Clarifying NCAA rules on Medical Retirements and how they impacted Oregon State & Oregon

www.buildingthedam.com

Which is basically what we said in the beginning of this thread. If Ava goes on a medical, she won't be playing for Iowa ever, unless Lisa doesn't fill that spot....

 

[ichawk24]

That retroactively wording is stupid. How about, that player can't play for that season and the scholarship doesn't count against the maximum for that season? Then, the next season if the player is ready to go, they can re-activate the scholarship and it now counts against the total. The only abuse that could occur then is a player who has a "deactivated" scholarship won't be playing that specific year. Even if they "could have" played but maybe wouldn't be full speed, it's not really abusing them because the player didn't participate.

Eh, whatever, it's the NCAA. Their rules only apply fairness when it is convenient. And even then half the time they are just flat out ignored.

The wording is in place because Alabama football and others abused it. You could put 10 players on Medical Retirement every year while waiting for them to develop or their starting spot to open up. Suddenly the 85 scholarship limit is now 95.

 

[ichawk24]

Which is basically what we said in the beginning of this thread. If Ava goes on a medical, she won't be playing for Iowa ever, unless Lisa doesn't fill that spot....

I know. Then there were like 100 intervening posts saying "just put her on medical scholarship for a year or two".

Note: Medical scholarship doesn't exist

 

[Franisdaman]

It certainly solves the "how can Iowa add a player with multiple years of eligibility while at the roster limit for the next two years" dilemma.

Actually I don't believe it does.

Correct me if I am wrong , but if Iowa adds a player with multiple years eligibility and if Caitlin comes back for a 5th year, Iowa would be over the 15 player limit for 2024-2025 and would need a player to transfer.

Where things currently stand with Wetering leaving:

2024-2025 Roster (15 on Scholarship)​

Point Guard (4)​

Seniors – Caitlin Clark

Juniors – none

Sophomores – Kennise Johnson-Etienne

Freshmen – Callie Levin, Taylor Stremlow

Shooting Guard (2)​

Seniors – Kylie Feuerbach

Juniors – Taylor McCabe

Sophomores – none

Freshmen – none

Small Forward (2)​

Seniors – Sydney Affolter

Juniors – none

Sophomores – none

Freshmen – Teagan Mallegni

Power Forward (3)​

Seniors – none

Juniors – Jada Gyamfi, Hannah Stuelke

Sophomores – Ava Jones

Freshmen – none

Center (4)​

Seniors – AJ Ediger, Sharon Goodman, Addison O’Grady

Juniors – none

Sophomores – none

Freshmen – Ava Heiden

​

 

[Franisdaman]

The problem is that if they moved Ava to a medical scholarship, she could never play for Iowa. Leistikow's text said that if she did play, her scholarship would be retroactively added to Iowa's limit for the seasons she was on a medical scholarship.

Let's assume the following: Iowa moves Ava to a medical scholarship and adds two transfers. Iowa is at the scholarship limit for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 but not over it, so there's no issue.

But now let's assume Ava can play again in 2025-2026 and wants to. If she played for Iowa at that point, then her scholarship would count for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. Iowa couldn't do that because that would put them retroactively over the limit for both years.

Ava clearly wants to play again. Frankly I imagine the potential of playing again will be a key motivation for her during her recovery. If Iowa moves her to a medical scholarship and fills her slot, it is essentially saying "if you play again, it won't be for Iowa". I don't think Coach Bluder would do that to her.

Once again, the NCAA rules make zero sense. Ugh....

 

[Reymundo]

This article has a great explanation of the Medical Retirement rule as applied to an OSU running back from 2017.

Long story short, you are retiring from the game. If you want to return, you are forced to transfer. You can't just be stashed on the Medical Retirement list for 2 years and come back.

Thomas Tyner’s Medical Retirement Situation Explained

Clarifying NCAA rules on Medical Retirements and how they impacted Oregon State & Oregon

www.buildingthedam.com

Not so sure. Article references a waiver procedure which may be applicable.

 

[HawkFan1986]

View embedded media

If they need help carrying the bag to Betts I will gladly volunteer! Make it happen Hawks!

 

[squeezebox]

I nearly want Betts to come to Iowa to go on a NC run, but almost as much I just want this to be wrong.

 

[BraydonRoberts5]

Actually I don't believe it does.

Correct me if I am wrong , but if Iowa adds a player with multiple years eligibility and if Caitlin comes back for a 5th year, Iowa would be over the 15 player limit for 2024-2025 and would need a player to transfer.

Where things currently stand with Wetering leaving:

2024-2025 Roster (15 on Scholarship)​

Point Guard (4)​

Seniors – Caitlin Clark

Juniors – none

Sophomores – Kennise Johnson-Etienne

Freshmen – Callie Levin, Taylor Stremlow

Shooting Guard (2)​

Seniors – Kylie Feuerbach

Juniors – Taylor McCabe

Sophomores – none

Freshmen – none

Small Forward (2)​

Seniors – Sydney Affolter

Juniors – none

Sophomores – none

Freshmen – Teagan Mallegni

Power Forward (3)​

Seniors – none

Juniors – Jada Gyamfi, Hannah Stuelke

Sophomores – Ava Jones

Freshmen – none

Center (4)​

Seniors – AJ Ediger, Sharon Goodman, Addison O’Grady

Juniors – none

Sophomores – none

Freshmen – Ava Heiden

​

The dilemma I was thinking of was "can Iowa really add a transfer this year if it would already be over the scholarship limit for 2024-2025 with that player added".

I mentioned in a Tweet (but not otherwise in the message boards yet) that this issue will be back next year if Caitlin wants to use her Covid season and Iowa adds a transfer with multiple years of eligibility. At that point, Iowa would be over the scholarship limit and would need a roster subtraction for Caitlin to stay.

I don't think it's a huge worry at this point, though, because: 1) transfers out are still fairly likely as the Wetering example shows, and 2) we'll know a lot more about Ava's health by next year. The medical scholarship could be a solution to the scholarship problem next year.

 

[ichawk24]

Odds are always against any specific player ending up at any specific school. That guy seems to be posting on gut feel.

 

[cleotishaywood]

Does Linder have insight into his claim?

 

[squeezebox]

Does Linder have insight into his claim?

He states he does in the thread.

 

[Franisdaman]

I nearly want Betts to come to Iowa to go on a NC run, but almost as much I just want this to be wrong.

View embedded media

Yeah, Betts reportedly is going to stay on the West coast

 

[squeezebox]

Yeah, Betts reportedly is going to stay on the West coast

UCLA, but until the ink is dry I'll wait.

 

[Franisdaman]

The dilemma I was thinking of was "can Iowa really add a transfer this year if it would already be over the scholarship limit for 2024-2025 with that player added".

I mentioned in a Tweet (but not otherwise in the message boards yet) that this issue will be back next year if Caitlin wants to use her Covid season and Iowa adds a transfer with multiple years of eligibility. At that point, Iowa would be over the scholarship limit and would need a roster subtraction for Caitlin to stay.

I don't think it's a huge worry at this point, though, because: 1) transfers out are still fairly likely as the Wetering example shows, and 2) we'll know a lot more about Ava's health by next year. The medical scholarship could be a solution to the scholarship problem next year.

It's an interesting jig saw puzzle, that's for sure.

The Iowa men only had 11 on scholarship last season and so far they have 11 on scholarship for the upcoming season (the limit for men is 13). It's interesting how Lisa has no problem filling 15 when Fran struggles to fill 11.

 

[AuroraHawk]

This article has a great explanation of the Medical Retirement rule as applied to an OSU running back from 2017.

Long story short, you are retiring from the game. If you want to return, you are forced to transfer. You can't just be stashed on the Medical Retirement list for 2 years and come back.

Thomas Tyner’s Medical Retirement Situation Explained

Clarifying NCAA rules on Medical Retirements and how they impacted Oregon State & Oregon

www.buildingthedam.com

I'm trained to look at rules/codes/statutes and offer opinions regarding how they should be interpreted.

The rule regarding "counters who become critically injured or ill" reads "A counter who becomes injured or ill to the point he or she apparently will never be able to participate in intercollegiate athletics shall not be considered a counter beginning with the academic year following the incapacitating illness or injury."

The "incapacitating injury or illness" rule reads, in relevant part, "If an incapacitating injury or illness occurs prior to a prospective student-athlete's participation in athletically related activities and results in the student-athlete's inability to compete ever again, the student-athlete shall not be counted within the institution's maximum financial aid award limitations for the current, as well as later academic years.

The "change in circumstances" rule reads, in relevant part, "If circumstances change and the student-athlete subsequently practices or competes at the institution where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred, the student-athlete shall again become a counter, and the institution shall be required to count that financial aid under the limitations of that by-law in the sport in question during each academic year in which the financial aid was received."

Questions:
1. Did Ava Jones become "injured or ill to the point he or she apparently will never be able to participate in intercollegiate athletics?" The answer would appear to be "yes."
2. Did Ava Jones' injury occur "prior to [her] participation in athletically related activities and result in the student-athlete's inability to compete ever again?" Again, the answer appears to be "yes."
3. Might Ava Jones' circumstances change where she could practice and participate? Again, the answer could be "yes."
4. If she is medically cleared, would Ava Jones be competing "at the institution where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred?" The answer to that question would seem to be "no."

Words and sentences are to be given effect. The "retroactive" rule - as written - would seem to apply ONLY where the the injury occurred at the institution where the athlete is returning to action. I'd argue that the injury happened in Louisville. Ava Jones was not enrolled at the University of Iowa and the injury could not have "occurred" at the University of Iowa.

I'd argue that the words "where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred" must be given meaning.

The rule could have been written as: "If circumstances change and the student-athlete subsequently practices or competes at the institution where he or she received financial aid for prior years, the student-athlete shall again become a counter, and the institution shall be required to count that financial aid under the limitations of that by-law in the sport in question during each academic year in which the financial aid was received."

But that's not how the rule was written. It has very specific words - "the institution where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred" - and rules of construction and interpretation require words to be given meaning and not ignored or read out of the the statute/code/rulebook.

I think that the U of Iowa's legal counsel / U of Iowa Compliance Department could make an awfully compelling argument that the "retroactive" rule - per the written words of the rule - does not apply to Ava Jones' situation.

 

[BraydonRoberts5]

It's an interesting jig saw puzzle, that's for sure.

The Iowa men only had 11 on scholarship last season and so far they have 11 on scholarship for the upcoming season (the limit for men is 13). It's interesting how Lisa has no problem filling 15.

For a long time Coach Bluder didn't seem to go over 13. A combination of the portal and the Covid year changed that last year. As long as the coaches can keep most players happen, there's no reason not to go to 15.

 

[Franisdaman]

Odds are always against any specific player ending up at any specific school. That guy seems to be posting on gut feel.

Jeff Linder is a beat writer for the Gazette. So, when he says "you'll just have to trust me" that Hailey Van Lith, Annesah Morrow and Lauren Betts won't be at Iowa next season, I imagine it's based on what he's hearing from his sources.

 

[Reymundo]

I'm trained to look at rules/codes/statutes and offer opinions regarding how they should be interpreted.

The rule regarding "counters who become critically injured or ill" reads "A counter who becomes injured or ill to the point he or she apparently will never be able to participate in intercollegiate athletics shall not be considered a counter beginning with the academic year following the incapacitating illness or injury."

The "incapacitating injury or illness" rule reads, in relevant part, "If an incapacitating injury or illness occurs prior to a prospective student-athlete's participation in athletically related activities and results in the student-athlete's inability to compete ever again, the student-athlete shall not be counted within the institution's maximum financial aid award limitations for the current, as well as later academic years.

The "change in circumstances" rule reads, in relevant part, "If circumstances change and the student-athlete subsequently practices or competes at the institution where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred, the student-athlete shall again become a counter, and the institution shall be required to count that financial aid under the limitations of that by-law in the sport in question during each academic year in which the financial aid was received."

Questions:
1. Did Ava Jones become "injured or ill to the point he or she apparently will never be able to participate in intercollegiate athletics?" The answer would appear to be "yes."
2. Did Ava Jones' injury occur "prior to [her] participation in athletically related activities and result in the student-athlete's inability to compete ever again?" Again, the answer appears to be "yes."
3. Might Ava Jones' circumstances change where she could practice and participate? Again, the answer could be "yes."
4. If she is medically cleared, would Ava Jones be competing "at the institution where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred?" The answer to that question would seem to be "no."

Words and sentences are to be given effect. The "retroactive" rule - as written - would seem to apply ONLY where the the injury occurred at the institution where the athlete is returning to action. I'd argue that the injury happened in Louisville. Ava Jones was not enrolled at the University of Iowa and the injury could not have "occurred" at the University of Iowa.

I'd argue that the words "where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred" must be given meaning.

The rule could have been written as: "If circumstances change and the student-athlete subsequently practices or competes at the institution where he or she received financial aid for prior years, the student-athlete shall again become a counter, and the institution shall be required to count that financial aid under the limitations of that by-law in the sport in question during each academic year in which the financial aid was received."

But that's not how the rule was written. It has very specific words - "the institution where the incapacitating injury or illness occurred" - and rules of construction and interpretation require words to be given meaning and not ignored or read out of the the statute/code/rulebook.

I think that the U of Iowa's legal counsel / U of Iowa Compliance Department could make an awfully compelling argument that the "retroactive" rule - per the written words of the rule - does not apply to Ava Jones' situation.

Well done!