What Does This Mean for Big East and Marquette

[MulliganMusings]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10817368/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-lays-goals-five-conference-subdivision

Not sure if anyone saw the account of Mike Slive's (former CUSA Commissioner while MU was a member and current SEC Commissioner) speech where he outlined a new NCAA Subdivision to be comprised of the 5 largest football playing conferences. I really don't have a big problem with this if it is confined to football but my concern is that it's only a matter of time before it is expanded to basketball since it's the only other major revenue generating sport. If that takes place does Marquette step up to play with the large public universities? Clearly MU has shown, through its spending, a commitment to fielding an excellent Division I hoops squad but once again, as it did in destroying was was the Big East, I have to wonder if football will destroy college basketball.

[Phantom Warrior]

If I read this correctly, Slive is not talking only about football players. He kept referring to "student-athletes."

If schools in the five conferences can increase the amount of financial support they provide to athletes in all sports, this will significantly tilt the so-called "playing field" heavily in favor of those conferences.

If a basketball player can receive X amount of financial support from schools in this self-regulating new sub-division but only Y amount of financial support from all other schools, and X is significantly higher than Y, then it will be game over for basketball, soccer, volleyball, and all other sports at schools in the Big East, AAC, MVC, etc. They simply will not be able to compete...unless they have the option through the NCAA of voluntarily matching what the "equity conference" - how ironic is that term! - can provide.

The NCAA will have to permit schools in other conferences to offer the same level of benefits as the "equity schools" do, or other schools will not be able to recruit the caliber of athlete necessary to compete.

[Nukem2]

I would take it that the 5 conferences would have to agree to the "minimums" he speaks to. Would guess that those outside the Big 5 would have the option to follow suit if they wished. Hopefully......................

[Goose85]

I really can't stand this whole 5 conference thing. So within the last few years tv deals have increased to the point that they now need to pay players and try to keep the money all for themselves. Really, Duke, Kentucky, Indiana, Washington State, Syracuse, Kansas, etc need to pay their football players?

What if the MAC, Mountain West, AAC or CUSA says, ok we will pay the same amount as the big boys, do they get to join the new subdivision?

If not, then I hope the other 5 FBS conference schools and the FCS conferences all decide to not play the 5 big boys in football for a few years. That would end up costing each of the big 5 one home game per year, and those 'buy' games every year now become home and home with the other big 5 boys. Less bowl elligible teams too.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

I honestly don't care how it affects football, I don't watch college football, but with that being said what happens to basketball? There is likely a ton to be worked out, but I guarantee that the Big East, A10, AAC, and MW have no voice in this whole gig. Will they be given the option to pay player like the Big 5 later? If not you might as well start hosting games at the AL because Marquette will become a D2 school essentially. If they do allow payment I see it being a non issue because Marquette will be able to keep up with the others for Basketball, however some of these other schools will drop down real quickly as they won't want to invest or won't be able to keep up.

One of my biggest concerns in there is opening the doors to agents, that could get ugly really quickly. I have a feeling coaches are going to hate that more than anything, suddenly these kids have agents and are making all sorts of demands... I think you will see some of the top tier coaches look at the NBA if available because they won't want to deal with it.

[TheSultan]

If I read this correctly, Slive is not talking only about football players. He kept referring to "student-athletes."

If schools in the five conferences can increase the amount of financial support they provide to athletes in all sports, this will significantly tilt the so-called "playing field" heavily in favor of those conferences.

If a basketball player can receive X amount of financial support from schools in this self-regulating new sub-division but only Y amount of financial support from all other schools, and X is significantly higher than Y, then it will be game over for basketball, soccer, volleyball, and all other sports at schools in the Big East, AAC, MVC, etc. They simply will not be able to compete...unless they have the option through the NCAA of voluntarily matching what the "equity conference" - how ironic is that term! - can provide.

The NCAA will have to permit schools in other conferences to offer the same level of benefits as the "equity schools" do, or other schools will not be able to recruit the caliber of athlete necessary to compete.


I would guess that the Big 5 are leading this push, but that if other conferences are open to meeting their standards that they would be welcome to join. I think this is a very good thing. More support, more guidance, etc. to help student athletes is a good thing. Programs that can't afford to be at that level simply shouldn't be.

[Phantom Warrior]

Would it be a school by school decision or a conference decision (say majority rules)?

If all 10 BE schools had the option to follow suit, and it was a school-by-school decision, how many would? If it's a conference decision, would there be enough schools on board to make it happen?

Just think of all the scholarship athletes, male and female, in all the sports. How many are there at MU, for example. Plus, many athletes have partial scholarship, half, third, fourth, fifth, and so on. How would they be affected?

This could get very, very interesting, not to mention very, very, very expensive. There are more than 350 D-1 basketball programs. How many non-equity schools could afford to match what the schools in the five power conferences can do? My guess is not very many.

[Nukem2]

Would it be a school by school decision or a conference decision (say majority rules)?

If all 10 BE schools had the option to follow suit, and it was a school-by-school decision, how many would? If it's a conference decision, would there be enough schools on board to make it happen?

Just think of all the scholarship athletes, male and female, in all the sports. How many are there at MU, for example. Plus, many athletes have partial scholarship, half, third, fourth, fifth, and so on. How would they be affected?

This could get very, very interesting, not to mention very, very, very expensive. There are more than 350 D-1 basketball programs. How many non-equity schools could afford to match what the schools in the five power conferences can do? My guess is not very many.
Could be very interesting. I would agree that it would almost have to be on a conference basis with may the BE A10,AAC, Mtn. West, CUSA as possible conferences that might "sign up".... Still, the $$$$ across a spectrum of sports.

[Goose85]

Is the assumption that all athletic departments in the Big 5 conferences make money, or should I say are on the plus side every year?

What happens to tv contracts if viewership or revenue begins to drop (are there renegotiation points in the contracts)?
What happens if attendance drops for football?
What about those schools that can't charge a high seat license, or can't charge a lot for tickets?

We know football drives the bus, but what about schools that don't put 70,000 or more in the stands each Saturday. Here are a few that drew less than 45K per game last year from the Big 5 (could be others, it was a quick check). Are all of these athletic departments making money? They might be, I don't know.

Duke 26K per game
Wake 28
Wash St 29
BC 33
VAndy 35
Kansas 37
Syracuse 38
Colorado 38
Northwestern 39
Maryland 41
Oregon St 42
Illinois 43
Indiana 44

[IWB]

And how many of those teams would be averaging that many if it weren't for the visiting teams? (Northwestern)

[Goose85]

And how many of those teams would be averaging that many if it weren't for the visiting teams? (Northwestern)

And free student tickets.

[TheSultan]

Is the assumption that all athletic departments in the Big 5 conferences make money, or should I say are on the plus side every year?

What happens to tv contracts if viewership or revenue begins to drop (are there renegotiation points in the contracts)?
What happens if attendance drops for football?


What if a meteor hits the stadium tomorrow?

Look, what you are talking about may happen. But those are long term issues that can be resolved well into the future.

[Goose85]

My point is that I don't think the majority of athletic departments are making money. If you add expenses and see a decrease in any revenue stream, my guess is bye bye sports like Men's baseball, track, etc. Even a school like Texas, without some of their major donors, may very well not make money.

[TheSultan]

My point is that I don't think the majority of athletic departments are making money. If you add expenses and see a decrease in any revenue stream, my guess is bye bye sports like Men's baseball, track, etc. Even a school like Texas, without some of their major donors, may very well not make money.


I think all of the Big 5 athletic departments are making a lot of money. Are they all profitable? Who knows, but that could because of building projects and other costs that the institution "assigns" to athletics.

[Goose85]

Here is an interesting article on the University of Texas, who seems to be the leader in all things athletic revenue / spending.

In 2012-2013
Operating Revenue: $165.7 million (of which $37.4 million were from donations)
Operating Expenses: $146.8 million

Without donations, Texas would have been in the hole $18.5 million.

The article also states that Texas is among the few nationally that get no revenue from student fees or state sources.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/01/30/university-of-texas-longhorns-athletics-revenue-expenses/5062161/

[TheSultan]

But I don't understand your point here. Donations are part of revenue. That's like saying without ticket fees or without media rights fees, UT athletics would be in the red. Well of course.

It's not as though those donations are simply going to disappear. It is a recurring source of income.

[Nukem2]

But I don't understand your point here. Donations are part of revenue. That's like saying without ticket fees or without media rights fees, UT athletics would be in the red. Well of course.

It's not as though those donations are simply going to disappear. It is a recurring source of income.Of course, donations can fluctuate quite a bit for some schools depending upon success on the FB field (and BB court for some ).

[TheSultan]

Of course all income can fluctuate. But 2012-13 wasn't exactly a stellar year for Texas athletics and they still cleared $20M in profit.

And my guess is that most of those donations were for the points to purchase tickets. So IMO those are going to be fairly steady. (BTW, the 80% deductibility of those donations may disappear in the next couple of years. Fair warning.)

[IWB]

How much came from the Longhorn Network? That is something that most other schools do not have. So while Texas may have cleared $20mil, those numbers start to peel back for all other schools.

I have freaking had it with the Big 5 conferences. The majority of them lose money, but they are fighting for a split that they can't afford because they don't want to share a dime with the rest of the schools, God forbid one of them make it to a BCS game. Remember, the Big 5 are the ones that created the BCS to cater to themselves. Then, when the smaller schools broke through, they changed the rules.

The biggest reason why I am so fed up with the Big 5 conferences is that they keep throwing the NCAA under the bus. Wow, that's great - bitch about the NCAA. Bitch that they don't let you do what you want, bitch that they have too many rules, bitch that they are understaffed, but it is you football schools that peeled back from the NCAA - the NCAA does not get $1 dollar from college football. Maybe if the NCAA got 1/10 of 1% of the football contracts they could adequately staff themselves to deal with you.

Sorry that schools like Boise State, Air Force, Army, Navy, Cincinnati, Fresno State and Northern Illinois break into the rankings once in a while. Quit trying to hoard every dime or you will kill off what you have.

[Goose85]

My point with sharing the information on Texas is that Texas had the most revenue of any college athletic program, and still needed a huge level of donations to balance the budget and come out on top.

If Texas is that alpha dog revenue wise, how are schools that draw far fewer fans and have far fewer donations making money?

If athletic departments are all so profitable, why did Maryland drop sports or Wisconsin drop mens baseball, etc?
Sure some level of donations can be counted upon, but when one MU donor held off it quickly became an issue.

[TheSultan]

How much came from the Longhorn Network? That is something that most other schools do not have. So while Texas may have cleared $20mil, those numbers start to peel back for all other schools.

I have freaking had it with the Big 5 conferences. The majority of them lose money, but they are fighting for a split that they can't afford because they don't want to share a dime with the rest of the schools, God forbid one of them make it to a BCS game. Remember, the Big 5 are the ones that created the BCS to cater to themselves. Then, when the smaller schools broke through, they changed the rules.

The biggest reason why I am so fed up with the Big 5 conferences is that they keep throwing the NCAA under the bus. Wow, that's great - bitch about the NCAA. Bitch that they don't let you do what you want, bitch that they have too many rules, bitch that they are understaffed, but it is you football schools that peeled back from the NCAA - the NCAA does not get $1 dollar from college football. Maybe if the NCAA got 1/10 of 1% of the football contracts they could adequately staff themselves to deal with you.

Sorry that schools like Boise State, Air Force, Army, Navy, Cincinnati, Fresno State and Northern Illinois break into the rankings once in a while. Quit trying to hoard every dime or you will kill off what you have.



There is one logical fallacy in your post.

The BCS did more for the smaller schools than the previous system ever did. Do you think Boise, Northern Illinois, etc. get into Fiesta and Orange Bowls without the BCS? Nope.

Seriously, those teams do not draw the eyeballs to the television sets. They do not draw the fans to the games. Why on earth should they get a more equitable share of the revenue?

[Goose85]

I understand what you are saying here Sultan, but I don't agree.

I don't think it is fair to give payouts based on the perceived interest in a particular school (before even knowing who those schools are) that earned the right to play in the same game.

I also think the bowl game attendance for non BCS members in BCS bowl games has been as good or better in many cases, so I'm not sure I agree with that premise.

What you are saying is that it is fair to pay bigger schools more to play in the same games. So with that logic, the NCAA tourney could say schools from the Big 5will earn tier level one credits, and all other NCAA participants will earn tier level two or three credits for playing in the tourney.

Exposure for maybe one small school each year, maybe, but the BCS also ended any chance of a small school national champ like BYU too. Without the BCS, it is possible Utah or Boise State could have been crowned national champion in one of the polls.

[Nukem2]

From cbs.com:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for--change-this-week

[Goose85]

From cbs.com:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for--change-this-week

So I guess other schools can play by the same new rules should they choose, may be up to conferences.

It will be interesting to see how they define student athlete. Does that mean full time schollie, partial schollie, walk-on, football and basketball only, etc.

The article sited an example of giving kids a bump for cost of living, and used what I'd guess is an arbitrary figure of $6,000 cost of attendance.
Big time football schools, like Wisconsin, recruit walk-ons as they can offer in state tuition and a possible future schollie (think Aberderis). I wonder if he and others will still take the walkon over a schollie elsewhere if in addition to not paying tuition, he now could get paid $6,000 bucks per year on top of the schollie. Bucky, I love ya, but Northern Ill is offering a full ride and $6k per year.

This will be interesting to see if there is a split, or if the other 5 FBS conferences step up.

[Gato78]

There also needs to be integrity in the game. Not all decisions should be made for financial reasons. This is why Congress needs to do something to address college athletics relative to taxation or exemption of profits and cessation of the conference hopping. There also needs to be something done relative to the unionization of college athletics. BTW, the Northwestern football players looking to unionize should consider they are getting a $60,000+ annual payment in the form of tuition, books, computers, room and board. That is an after tax number. The real value of their scholarship, if everything was paid in cash, would require an annual income of approximately $80,000.+

[TheSultan]

Goose the attendance and tv ratings for the bowls where non BCS schools are lower. This is why those schools were always chosen last during the BCS bowl era. And yeah I do realize that payouts can't completely be on popularity, but you have to understand the position of the big conferences. They drive most of college football and basketball's popularity. I completely understand why they feel that they should get a greater say in governance matters.

And Gato I have mentioned earlier that athletic income should be considered unrelated income and therefore taxable. However that is likely going to impact schools like Marquette as much as schools like Texas.

[Gato78]

I would rather keep the tax exemption but , oddly enough, have college sports regulated by the federal government in conjunction with the NCAA. Recruiting violations could be crimes so as to clean a lot of the shady dealings and level the playing field. Student athletes at the big schools need to quit griping and understand the value of the education they are receiving.

[Phantom Warrior]

Anybody ever see the movie "The King of Hearts"?

From what I just read in that article, the inmates will be in charge of the asylum. The five conferences and their members will skew the field so much in their favor, it will be impossible for any other schools not in these conferences to compete on equal footing.

What a crock!

[IWB]

It is a crock Phantom, especially when the "Haves" are trying to separate themselves from the "Have nots" yet include programs like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest etc in the "Haves".

[TheSultan]

I guess I don't know exactly what you and Phantom want them to do. Not accept the television money? Not to charge max prices on their seats? Not to charge full cost of attendance scholarships?

The problem with Division 1 isn't the "Power 5" and conferences like the BE that can afford to play at their level. The problem is the multitude of low level schools and conferences that have no business is Division 1 and are leaching off the popularity of the other schools.

[Gato78]

The problem is the elimination of the student-athlete model in favor of money making. College football and basketball should not be a prep level for pro sports. It should be about education and graduation. The SEC makes no apologies, the BIG EAST seems to be headed in the right direction. Most college presidents and people who are involved with, and supporting the minor league sports model, should just call it like it is and make their schools minor league programs. The college presidents can then be the pro sports owners they want to be. The changes in college athletics in the past 10 years have been ridiculous, although profitable. America has its head in the sand on this issue because football Saturdays are just too much fun. It is a joke.

[Phantom Warrior]

Sultan,

I'll be curious to read your views a few years down the road when coaches from the five conferences are recruiting basketball players and telling them, "Yeah, and your family and your FRIENDS can go to the NCAA Tournament games on our dime. And we can give you an extra $500.00 a month for expenses beyond tuitions, books, etc., and so on and so on and so on...." while MU and other Big East, AAC, and A-10 schools can not match such perks.

Do you really think that the likes of DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, Butler are going to spend the kind of bucks to support their athletes that schools in the P-5 conferences will?

Here's what I hope - that the P-5 schools lose their financial pants by spending a whole lot more money than they take in. But it probably won't happen. They have already bought college football. This allows them to buy college basketball as well. The writing, as they say, is on the proverbial wall.

Basketball at schools in the other conferences will end up kind of like the family-owned corner grocery store or the individually-owned small pharmacy very few and far between.

[ziggysfryboy]

I guess I don't know exactly what you and Phantom want them to do. Not accept the television money? Not to charge max prices on their seats? Not to charge full cost of attendance scholarships?

The problem with Division 1 isn't the "Power 5" and conferences like the BE that can afford to play at their level. The problem is the multitude of low level schools and conferences that have no business is Division 1 and are leaching off the popularity of the other schools.

look at the explosion of D1 bball schools the last few years. what, have around 30-40 schools gone D1 in the last decade? I remember a number around 315 for the max RPI and now it's up around 340-350.

Those schools, the Northwest South Dakota Tech State School of Mines and the Deaf, need to show that they can be D1 before the NCAA lets them move up from D2 or D3. There's no gatekeeper now, which lets the masses in, and in reality, the NCAA should be the gate keeper.

[TheSultan]

Sultan,

I'll be curious to read your views a few years down the road when coaches from the five conferences are recruiting basketball players and telling them, "Yeah, and your family and your FRIENDS can go to the NCAA Tournament games on our dime. And we can give you an extra $500.00 a month for expenses beyond tuitions, books, etc., and so on and so on and so on...." while MU and other Big East, AAC, and A-10 schools can not match such perks.

Do you really think that the likes of DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, Butler are going to spend the kind of bucks to support their athletes that schools in the P-5 conferences will?


MU can certainly match such perks. And if they can't, they deserve to be at a disadvantage. And if the other schools in the BE can't...well...tough sh*t. They have all doubled their television revenue from a year ago. No reason they cannot up their scholarship value by $6,000 each.

Ziggy is right. There are too many teams in D1 right now. 100 of them shouldn't be there. I wouldn't miss them if they left.

[TheSultan]

The problem is the elimination of the student-athlete model in favor of money making. College football and basketball should not be a prep level for pro sports. It should be about education and graduation. The SEC makes no apologies, the BIG EAST seems to be headed in the right direction. Most college presidents and people who are involved with, and supporting the minor league sports model, should just call it like it is and make their schools minor league programs. The college presidents can then be the pro sports owners they want to be. The changes in college athletics in the past 10 years have been ridiculous, although profitable. America has its head in the sand on this issue because football Saturdays are just too much fun. It is a joke.


I will just point out that we root for a team that spends more money on basketball than pretty much every other college in the country. One that admits basketball players that it wouldn't otherwise admit. One that provides services that no other student gets to make sure they graduate. And this board has lobbied for easier standards for Jucos, the NCAA minimum standards for continuation, and an athletic dorm.

But because we might offer full cost of attendance scholarships, (which MU offers to other students by the way), and give them the ability to seek advice from an agent, we are somehow breaking the student athlete model?

Let's just be honest here and have a transactional model that fits reality. Or go root for a division 3 program.

Really I cannot logically blame the "Power 5" for what is occurring here, because Marquette has done similar things. Marquette has jumped conferences, signed lucrative television contracts etc. We are engaging in similar behavior and will continue to do so if it is more lucrative.

[Nukem2]

I will just point out that we root for a team that spends more money on basketball than pretty much every other college in the country. One that admits basketball players that it wouldn't otherwise admit. One that provides services that no other student gets to make sure they graduate. And this board has lobbied for easier standards for Jucos, the NCAA minimum standards for continuation, and an athletic dorm.

But because we might offer full cost of attendance scholarships, (which MU offers to other students by the way), and give them the ability to seek advice from an agent, we are somehow breaking the student athlete model?

Let's just be honest here and have a transactional model that fits reality. Or go root for a division 3 program.

Really I cannot logically blame the "Power 5" for what is occurring here, because Marquette has done similar things. Marquette has jumped conferences, signed lucrative television contracts etc. We are engaging in similar behavior and will continue to do so if it is more lucrative.
Of course, one can say that MU has been living the American dream trying to be upwardly mobile as it moved from independent status to better conference(s). Far different than the power grab by the Big 5 conferences.

[TheSultan]

Well I guess however you want to spin it to feel better...

[Nukem2]

Well I guess however you want to spin it to feel better...Guess one could say the same for your view. We agree to disagree, as you are comparing apples to oranges.

[wiscwarrior]

I actually think MU is in a better position than the Big 5 football conferences if we are allowed to join the movement. We don't have to support a football team. :cool:

[TheSultan]

Exactly wisc. I agree with that statement. Instead of being hypocritical chicken littles about this, lets take a look on how these changes can benefit Marquette, it's basketball program and its student athletes.

Is giving a higher value scholarship that bad of an idea? Would giving players quality advice from an agent bad?

And one more thing. If the ACC invited Marquette to be a non football member, the majority of fans would be thrilled. Absolutely thrilled. We would join the Power 5 in an instant if given the chance.

[Nukem2]

Exactly wisc. I agree with that statement. Instead of being hypocritical chicken littles about this, lets take a look on how these changes can benefit Marquette, it's basketball program and its student athletes.

Is giving a higher value scholarship that bad of an idea? Would giving players quality advice from an agent bad?

And one more thing. If the ACC invited Marquette to be a non football member, the majority of fans would be thrilled. Absolutely thrilled. We would join the Power 5 in an instant if given the chance. Certainly student athletes would benefit. Not sure that MU or the BB program would benefit except from the standpoint that many conferences/schools would not be able to fund the changes thus rendering them ineffective in recruiting.

[Goose85]

How does this impact the other sports who can give out partial schollies?

For example, if the Badgers use the full number of schollies for the men and women teams listed, UW would have 167 men (98 FB/BB) and 137 (15 BB)women total schollies. There are a lot of schollies divided among many athletes. MU, on the other hand, would have 57 men (13 BB) and 79 (15BB) women.

Far cheaper for basketball only schools to handle than football schools, but even so probably pretty attainable for all FBS schools, and most non football D1 schools too.

Where you might see the impact is your one bid NCAA leagues like the Horizon with UWM and UWGB.
Could there be some conference changes at the lower D1 levels to allign those that want to participate fully and those that don't?

[TheSultan]

Goose with regards to impact on conference membership, that is a good issue that I hadn't thought of. I had a conversation just yesterday with a colleague from a school that recently moved to division one and this is a huge issue for them. He thinks they should drop back but their board doesn't think they will swallow their pride.

[Markedman]

So...do have this right...the Big 5 conferences would be able to pay athletes but The Big East will not have that option?

CollegeBasketbllTalk ‏@CBTonNBC now
NCAA waves goodbye to hardship waivers; ‘Big Five’ leagues a step closer to autonomy http://wp.me/p1aWjM-24Hw

[Nukem2]

So...do have this right...the Big 5 conferences would be able to pay athletes but The Big East will not have that option?

CollegeBasketbllTalk ‏@CBTonNBC now
NCAA waves goodbye to hardship waivers; ‘Big Five’ leagues a step closer to autonomy http://wp.me/p1aWjM-24Hw
The CBS.com article linked earlier in this thread suggests otherwise...?

[Goose85]

So...do have this right...the Big 5 conferences would be able to pay athletes but The Big East will not have that option?

CollegeBasketbllTalk ‏@CBTonNBC now
NCAA waves goodbye to hardship waivers; ‘Big Five’ leagues a step closer to autonomy http://wp.me/p1aWjM-24Hw

The hardhip waiver is a big deal in football, not so much basketball.

In football a large percentage of kids almost automatically redshirt frosh year.
Then, if after another year or two they find they are not moving up the depth chart they blow a year of playing time if they transfer (many started going FCS so as not not lose a year).

Sounds like now, if you redshirt your first year, then after a couple years find you are replaced by a younger player, you can transfer - sit out the year, and still have two years left (4 years of play in six year when only 5 years was allowed).

When is this to take effect? I think of a kid from IWB's pro-am Drew Windler. Redshirted his first year, then after two years new coach comes in and has a different style. Drew transfers but ends up losing a year (redshirt year, transfer year, 3 years playing in 5 year span).

Will Uthoff gain another year at Iowa?

[Markedman]

I assume this won't impact Fischer either. Both of his half years will still count as full years?