[Jamesy]

Found the provision, from the NCAA. Source: https://theathletic.com/3321504/2022/05/...anagement/

The whole article is interesting but here's the pertinent excerpt. 

Some programs have figured out they could already do this. First-year coaches have had an obscure loophole at their disposal in recent years to run off players they don’t want and free up more scholarships. In The Athletic’s story inside the hiring of Riley on Tuesday, Antonio Morales and Stewart Mandel reported that USC’s compliance department discovered a little-known NCAA bylaw that allowed Riley and his new regime to drop 10 scholarship players from their roster this offseason.

The rule they’ve been using — 15.5.1.7 — is known as the “Aid After Departure of Head Coach” bylaw. Newly hired coaches can remove a player from their 85-man scholarship roster but keep them on scholarship as long as they stop playing. A few of those Trojans players who were cut have transferred out, but USC assistant AD for football Joseph Wood told The Athletic that seven members of the 2021 team remain enrolled and on scholarship but are off the roster.

“We obviously forced some of the attrition here,” Riley said.

College football coaches have been able to use this loophole since 2017. Who figured it out first? How many of them have taken advantage? It’s hard to say. These programs aren’t too interested in publicizing their methods for dumping players from their rosters. You’ll mostly hear about it through word of mouth from other coaches. One Power 5 head coach who used the bylaw to drop three players this spring cited several other programs in the middle of rebuilds who’ve done it as well. But if a program hasn’t gone through one of these transitions, the rule might not be on their radar. USC’s administration didn’t know about it until they began preparing for their search.

When the bylaw was first established, its intended use wasn’t to help purge players off college football rosters. The concept arose in 2009 at a time when the NCAA was trying to confront its issues in another sport. The Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group was established in 2007 to develop solutions for the concerning graduation rates and APRs in the sport. That group recommended this amendment, believing it would give men’s basketball players going through a coaching change more freedom to stay in school and graduate. They were aiming to help the players who had two or three semesters left to complete their degree and didn’t wish to transfer.

So 15.5.1.7 was adopted in the summer of 2010 as a men’s basketball-only rule. And it stayed that way until 2016, when the D-I Council’s Student-Athlete Experience Committee proposed that this exception should be allowed in all other sports. That revision went into effect in August 2017. Again, the proposal suggested this would provide more flexibility for student-athletes: “A student-athlete who wishes to remain at an institution to complete his or her degree will be much more likely to be able to do so with the opportunity to continue to receive athletically related financial aid.”

But then came another revision in 2018. The Atlantic 10 — a non-football conference — proposed that the rule should be extended to “a full year after the departure of the previous coach.” Why? Because basketball coaches often get hired in April. The A-10 believed giving players more time to decide on their continued participation was only fair and pitched this as an advancement for student-athlete well-being. The Men’s Basketball Oversight Committee actually opposed the proposal, calling it unnecessary. Football Oversight took no formal position, saying more discussion and research was needed. But every other committee supported it, and it was adopted in May 2019.

Thanks to that amendment, a college football coach hired in December doesn’t have just one offseason to flip a roster this way. They essentially have 18 months to remove players from their 85-man roster by offering to maintain their aid.

[Jamesy]

Found the provision, from the NCAA. Source: https://theathletic.com/3321504/2022/05/...anagement/

The whole article is interesting but here's the pertinent excerpt. 

Some programs have figured out they could already do this. First-year coaches have had an obscure loophole at their disposal in recent years to run off players they don’t want and free up more scholarships. In The Athletic’s story inside the hiring of Riley on Tuesday, Antonio Morales and Stewart Mandel reported that USC’s compliance department discovered a little-known NCAA bylaw that allowed Riley and his new regime to drop 10 scholarship players from their roster this offseason.

The rule they’ve been using — 15.5.1.7 — is known as the “Aid After Departure of Head Coach” bylaw. Newly hired coaches can remove a player from their 85-man scholarship roster but keep them on scholarship as long as they stop playing. A few of those Trojans players who were cut have transferred out, but USC assistant AD for football Joseph Wood told The Athletic that seven members of the 2021 team remain enrolled and on scholarship but are off the roster.

“We obviously forced some of the attrition here,” Riley said.

College football coaches have been able to use this loophole since 2017. Who figured it out first? How many of them have taken advantage? It’s hard to say. These programs aren’t too interested in publicizing their methods for dumping players from their rosters. You’ll mostly hear about it through word of mouth from other coaches. One Power 5 head coach who used the bylaw to drop three players this spring cited several other programs in the middle of rebuilds who’ve done it as well. But if a program hasn’t gone through one of these transitions, the rule might not be on their radar. USC’s administration didn’t know about it until they began preparing for their search.

When the bylaw was first established, its intended use wasn’t to help purge players off college football rosters. The concept arose in 2009 at a time when the NCAA was trying to confront its issues in another sport. The Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group was established in 2007 to develop solutions for the concerning graduation rates and APRs in the sport. That group recommended this amendment, believing it would give men’s basketball players going through a coaching change more freedom to stay in school and graduate. They were aiming to help the players who had two or three semesters left to complete their degree and didn’t wish to transfer.

So 15.5.1.7 was adopted in the summer of 2010 as a men’s basketball-only rule. And it stayed that way until 2016, when the D-I Council’s Student-Athlete Experience Committee proposed that this exception should be allowed in all other sports. That revision went into effect in August 2017. Again, the proposal suggested this would provide more flexibility for student-athletes: “A student-athlete who wishes to remain at an institution to complete his or her degree will be much more likely to be able to do so with the opportunity to continue to receive athletically related financial aid.”

But then came another revision in 2018. The Atlantic 10 — a non-football conference — proposed that the rule should be extended to “a full year after the departure of the previous coach.” Why? Because basketball coaches often get hired in April. The A-10 believed giving players more time to decide on their continued participation was only fair and pitched this as an advancement for student-athlete well-being. The Men’s Basketball Oversight Committee actually opposed the proposal, calling it unnecessary. Football Oversight took no formal position, saying more discussion and research was needed. But every other committee supported it, and it was adopted in May 2019.

Thanks to that amendment, a college football coach hired in December doesn’t have just one offseason to flip a roster this way. They essentially have 18 months to remove players from their 85-man roster by offering to maintain their aid.