OT-Bama Fans on Oversigning
Read the comments for an interesting look at how Bama fans view oversigning.
http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2014/1/27/5349996/2014-roster-lookahead-the-number-crunch
January 28th, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
Holy cow. I don't think Bama fans have ever given anyone a reason to think they care about anything but the W's.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:10 AM ^
flat out get it. They know its wrong. Some get it, but still try to justify it away through creative philosophy. But then there's this guy:
"Who's Saying Oversigning Is Harmful To Student Athletes?
It’s Just A Loophole In The Scholarship Limits."
Moran.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^
The most depressing part to me is the people on that board that either know, or admit to feeling like maybe, it is bad/dirty/mean and just don't care. The mindset seems to be: it is ugly, but it is the way it is so we might as well use it. I am disappoint.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:13 AM ^
This guy gets high marks for creativity anyway, except "sleight", for eff sakes. Anyway, one of the many takes on Roll Bama Roll went as follows:
"Being a state school, Alabama has Eleventh Amendment immunity to its contracts. Scholarships are not one year contracts as previously asserted – they can be reneged on at any time by the school – even in the middle of a semester. Here’s the slight of hand:
- Grant student A a full scholarship (pay their bill quickly)
- Right after student A’s bill is paid, pull their scholarship claiming legal immunity to contracts signed (but as the bill is already paid, this is a retraction of a scholarship in name only).
- Declare student A as a walk-on "
The point here is, of course, that now this hypothetical student does not count against the limit, so it seems like this commenter would simply prefer a more colorful form of dishonesty more than anything.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
EDITED: Nevermind; misread the comment. But I will say the NCAA probably doesn't care about the 11th Amendment/sovereign immunity waivers in how it counts scholarships.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:15 AM ^
Look until the NCAA itself mandates the end of this practice it is going to continue unabated whether it upsets our delicate moral sensabilities or not. To me this is like the old "honor box" of candy they used to bring in and leave in our office. All it took was one guy to put buttons or slugs in the honor box and take candy without really paying and then pretty soon nobody was paying because they realized nobody else was. Alabama is that guy right now.
Alabama and other SEC are taking full advantadge of a loophole that allows them to have an extreme competitive advantadge over the schools that don't do this. So either the NCAA tells them to stop and ends the practice OR we join them OR we stand on the moral high ground and watch the gap in talent widen between the conferences.
Bitching about it isn't working. And they aren't going to stop.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^
Exactly, it will continue until there are specific rules that address it. Plain and simple. Until that happens some teams like Bama will run with it. Football is King, winning is King.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:51 AM ^
Is that dickhead that passes traffic on the shoulder in a traffic Jam. Everybody see it, hates it, but he gets to work faster doesn't he?
January 28th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
He is soooooo much more hated than that guy though. As least by me.
I would more equate him to "that dickhead [in a convertable Porche, getting a BJer from who you thought was your girlfriend] that passes traffic on the shoulder in a traffic jam [whilst flipping everyone the bird and oversigning commits]."
January 28th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
If the NCAA was really concerned with all their member institutes they would put an end to this as it creates an unfair competitive balance. My question is how doesn't basically cutting 8-10 players per year drop them below the APR standard aka the time Saban decides to move on.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^
Well, if you pull a Les Miles, the guy's never on your team and can't count toward APR. And I don't believe Medical Scholarships count against APR.
Also, doesn't the APR hit depend on the academic eligibility status of the player when they transfer? In other words, the APR hit for losing an Academic All-American is less than the APR hit for someone who flunks out.
January 28th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^
Creatively using the rules in this fashion aids the creation of dynasties, which makes the media happy. Everyone wins, except a few players who have to JUCO or sit out a year until they can play FBS ball again.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:19 AM ^
that it appears oversigning.com has stopped tracking the numbers. By the looks of the website, they haven't updated anything since 2011.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 9:21 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
I believe our dear leader here at mgoblog has suggested an annual scholarship limit instead of the overall cap at 85. I feel like that's the best solution to this issue. There's no incentive to cut players loose when you don't get any extra scholarships to make up for it. If you want to take academic risks and the kids don't qualify, you're out of luck for that roster spot. If you want to sign a bunch of JuCo players for immediate help at a depleted position, well, enjoy your two years because you don't get those scholarships back once those kids are gone. If a kid gets "hurt" (as opposed to, you know, actually hurt,) there's no reason to pretend it's worse than it actually is just to squeeze him out. His spot is his spot, whether he's on the field or not.
Not only is this better for the kids, but it restores a bit of competitive balance, ie the schools that have higher academic standards on signing day are more likely to retain larger rosters, and some of the blue chip kids that are "risky" academically will wind up at lesser programs because the powerhouse schools will be hesitant to risk the roster spot (so when they actually do stick at a school, those mid-tier programs have a couple more impact players.)
It's a win for the kids, a win for the academic-leaning programs, a win for the ethical programs and coaches, a win for the mid-tier programs, and even a win for academics at the football-first schools (you know, if anyone actually cares about that sort of thing.)
The solution seems so obvious to me that I'm almost surprised the NCAA hasn't implemented it, except for the fact that I'm used to the NCAA being awful at everything.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
but initially I like your idea. The only problem is to get everyone to follow those new rules. I have no doubt in my mind that Bama would find a way to get an unfair advantage with this program as well. Nick Saban will always find a way to build a better mouse trap.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:03 AM ^
Well, some programs will always try to bend the rules. But on paper the annual cap seems to me to be a much harder rule to circumvent. I mean, the moment signing day is passed, there's no way to force any future signings backward into that number (provided the NCAA makes it a hard limit and doesn't build a bunch of exceptions into the rule.) So if it's done right, you don't have all of the same room to creatively fudge numbers by moving people around with backsigning, grayshirts, medicals, academic non-qualifiers, etc. Each class is self-contained, and there's no going back to fix mistakes.
Now do I believe it will ever happen as I've laid it out there? Of course not. Because many of those in power want to be able to continue to practice their corruption.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:02 AM ^
to those that find themselves buried on the depth chart at school A with almost no chance to transfer to school B in search of PT.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
The only real downside I can see to this is walk-ons. Some of the best behind the scenes videos we get to see are when they are rewarded with a scholarship for years of hard work. This system would not leave any room to award a vacant scholarship to someone already paying their own way.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
Certainly an issue to be discussed. I suppose the easiest answer that comes to mind is that walk-ons are considered grouped into that same class with the scholarship guys, and any schlarships that open up based on a kid transfering, getting hurt, etc could be awarded ONLY to a walk-on from that same class year.
Obviously, there'd have to be some vigilance agains this system being abused ("Come to school X, pay your way for a year, and then we'll give you a scholly when someone flunks out of school!") So some kind of limit for how many of these type of scholarships can be transfered may also be a good idea. Also they could perhaps set a rule that allows some scholarships to be switched to walk-ons (injured players, guys that transfer in good academic standing,) but not others (kids that leave for academic reasons, legal issues, etc.)
Yes, clearly there is room there for abuse, but I still don't think nearly as much room as in the current system.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
While this would surely go a long way towards eliminating players' being "cut" from the team, it's still all too easy to exploit. If you set an annual scholarship limit of 25, schools could simply create an environment where 5 or 6 years becomes the norm to graduate a player, allowing them to have 125-150 scholarship players at a time.
And you can't simply place a 4 year cap on the scholarships because so many talented student athletes legitimately take a red-shirt and need a 5th year to develop.
Of course, as we've seen with a record amount of underclassmen declaring for the NFL, the Alabamas of the world will have a hard time retaining top talent for even 3-4 years, let alone 5-6. So now we'll see top programs actually fielding teams with less scholarship athletes than lower tier programs. Does this create parity? Maybe.
But let's not forget how Title IX plays into this. Those same lower tier schools that might have exploited the rule by having an excess of 100 scholarship players at a time will struggle to afford having that many players on scholarship because it will involve creating additional scholarships for female student athletes.
This is making me dizzy...
January 28th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
Well, a lot of schools already use five years as a standard practice. MSU gets a lot of credit for the extent to which they redshirt players, for example. As for six years, that virtually never happens unless a kid redshirts once and then gets a season-long injury in his 5th year. That's awfully rare, and not going to be a gateway to 150-man rosters of scholarship players.
There is a risk to taking the strategy of just redshirting everyone, too. First off, a lot of kids aren't going to sign with a school if they won't be allowed to play right away. Early playing time is something a lot of blue chippers look for. Second, if you're running an elite program, you're going to send a lot of kids to the pros. Say Alabama tries to redshirt everyone. Now you're effectively only getting two seasons out of a lot of kids. Say this rule was in place today. Do you want to risk redshirting Jabril Peppers, missing out on his impact on next year's team, and then lose him after his junior year anyway? I don't.
The Title IX question is a great point. But I have two responses:
1. A lot of mid-to-lower level programs already don't sign up to their limit for this very reason. The schools with less money are always at a disadvantage, whether we're talking scholarships or facilities or you name it. Nothing that is going to change in regards to scholarship limits is going to provide a cure here, unless we just generally drop the number of scholarships allowed across the board for the sport of football.
2. Quite frankly, a lot of poorly funded schools ought not be carrying football programs to begin with. Not everyone is Alabama or Texas or Michigan. For a lot of smaller programs, football is a black hole that sucks money from athletic departments for no good reason. The team isn't competitive, no one comes to the games, it's just not worth it financially. In most cases, these are already athletic departments that are struggling to field teams in women's sports or the non-football, non-basketball men's sports. If Title IX issues push them to drop football, 1. It's par for the course and is already happening, 2. That might not be a bad business decision anyway for a lot of these schools that can't really afford football to begin with.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:35 AM ^
Cognitive Dissonance.
They support Alabama. Alabama oversigns.
They aren't going to stop supporting Bama, so they rationalize oversigning.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^
It would be fascinating to me to sit in on a Bama recruiting pitch. I wonder if its "hey you have to play up to snuff, love competition and not get injured every year (implicit, you might get cut)" or "this is one big family mom, and we will take care of your son for four years as if he were our own." I tend to think the latter is what is said but that is completely unsubstantiated.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 9:47 AM ^
And they will not stop until forced to do so.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^
Florida has been against this practice, at least their president. Possibly Tennessee also.
I simply don't get how the Fing NCAA allows this practice to happen.
Pure BS.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^
They had 84 scholarship players in 2013.
18 seniors leaving, which means they could sign 19 without attrition. They currently have 33 commits, and to my knowledge haven't had transfers yet. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in Knoxville come August when they have 95-100 guys.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^
Anyone notice that Tennessee indicates over 30 recruits on their list this year?
January 28th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^
They had a ton of attrition from the Kiffin era, and the SEC doesn't have a 25-player per-year limit, only the 85-player overall limit.
A&M had a similar size class last year or the year before, something around 33-35 recruits.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the 25-per-class rule from the NCAA?
January 29th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
It's in the conference. The SEC actually put in a rule (seems like in 2012) but they allow up to 5 to back-count. I'm not really sure how they're doing this within the rule guidelines...
January 28th, 2014 at 1:06 PM ^
They figured out a new loophole called blue shirting.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^
"I've been a vocal opponent of the oversigning.com crowd for a while, but to be honest, when the numbers start to get this loose, our position starts to creep towards being untenable."
Translation -- "Wow, Nick is really pushing it here. Even the Amen Corner of 'Bama apologists are running out of things to say. Good thing the NCAA doesn't care."
January 28th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
Don't have enough points to start a post, but ESPN reporting on their frontpage that Northwestern players are trying to join a labor union.
Interesting timing considering the January NCAA meetings.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10363430/outside-lines-northwest…
January 28th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
I seem to remember the Big Ten going to the honoring four year scholarships unless the student athlete does something to deserve being kicked off of the team. In response to this (understandably so since players would seemingly choose a guaranteed four year scholarship over a one year scholarship), I thought the SEC was going to go to this guaranteed scholarship. Does anyone else remember this conversation from about a year ago? Apparently they are not going to this format based on what Bama continues to do.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
"It's a war out there gentlemen. We're overmatched. They have more tanks, guns, planes... so we're gonna have to be smarter than them. We're going to have to be more disciplined. We are going to have to work harder and faster. To WIN."
-His Dudeness (just now)
January 28th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
In the comment section there seems to be some rumormongering that Dee Hart is transferring to a Florida school (FAU, UCF, and USF are all mentioned).
With the ridiculous talent they seem to be recruiting at RB every year, and considering his injury history at Bama, this isn't a total shocker, but CUMONG MAN. Ugh, what could have been...
January 28th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
Great article. Thanks for sharing. Really interesting to see how they look at issue. I am sure both fanbases have people that only think of winning. But honestly how can anybody be pro-oversigning. It is just plain wrong. The student athletes get screwed. I know they realize it is a business, but this is such a joke.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
To take the persons name out of this conversation and replace it w/ scholarship is a shame. These are kids that had coaches recruit them, that had coaches sit in their living rooms and say we want you for the next four years. Sure they are considered to be 4 one year scholarships but that's not based on over signing. It's based on whether or not that person does what is expected of them in the class room and off the field. If you pull the trigger on a kid then that's your decision as a coach, as a staff and as a university. If he doesn't end up being what you expected on the field to freaking bad. These coaches are making millions of dollars and assistants are 6 figures at least, there is no doubt about their future if they don't pan out. The university buys out their contract and they are set To tell a kid he's out a scholarship that YOU OFFERED him is down right dirty. Hoping for an injury that takes a kid off the roster is just sick. When I saw NW football players filed to become part of a Labor Union I cringed, but seeing this crap makes me think these kids really do need to protect themselves from the vultures.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
How is it harmful? A kid has been in the program for two or three years. He hasn’t seen the field and has clearly been passed on the depth chart by someone younger. Coach sits him down and advises him that it would likely be in his best interests to transfer to another school where he has a better chance at seeing the field, and even helps him find a landing spot. What an asshole that coach is, eh?
-Their Editor of the Blog
It really is football and nothing else down there
January 28th, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^
scound
January 28th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
who haven't graduate yet and have kept their nose clean then you might as well just drop the "student" out of "student athlete" and start cutting them checks.
Just because you haven't cracked the two deep doesn't mean you're not an asset to the team and cutting them prior to them graduating is the biggest slap in the face of them all.
The fact that this is still occurring is another reason why the NCAA needs to go. Their model simply doesn't work. It's time for the big four or five to take their ball and leave. Do their own thing and let the rest of them figure it out for themselves.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
It's just amazing to me that Alabama, a school that can basically get the pick of the litter regardless, feels a need to do this. I would expect some crappy program trying to fill depth to oversign, but not the top program in the country. Alabama would still be really good if it respected the 85-man limit, just maybe not the best team every single year.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^
If you follow business or politics, you often find the people most responsible for rigging the system in their favor are the very same that were already doing extraordinarily well in the old system.
I don't want to get too philosophical on a sports forum and start discussing whether this is right or wrong, good or bad. But it's certainly not surprising.