B1G ADs: Satellite camps not a problem, other recruiting issues (oversigning) more concerning
I would love to see the oversigning issue resolved! Level that playing field across the NCAA. Saban, Meyer, and many others can finally be held accountable.
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/05/b1g_ads_satellite_camps_not_a.html
While I don't like oversigning, I'm also not sure how you can define it.
Coaches regularly sign players because they know that others will be transferring. Are they not allowed to encourage those players to explore their options? How do you distinguish between encouraging and forcing?
I know it is a tough rule to enforce with clarity, but the B1G handles it very well. In addition, the 4 year scholarship sure does help instead of the 1 year renewable scholarships.
I'd like to see a hard limit on the number of scholarships that can be given out every year.
You assign a hard cap, and that's it. Can't sign more than that, whatever that it. I think this is something the B10 got right.
It's a simple fix. All teams can award 24 five-year scholarships a year (including a redshirt year if desired). Period. No team cap. Then the motivation is for coaches to develop the players they have and keep them healthy and out of trouble, not find excuses to drop the ones that aren't panning out as hoped.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
True. There's always some form of that pressure, even now. One thing to help is to make the scholarships 5-year regardless of injury. Don't let the coaches hold it over their player's heads. If it were up to me, the scholarships would be for life. I think players that don't go pro should have as long as they need after their eligability is up to study whatever they want to study. Let stars take lighter workloads (in something they actually pick without pressure to pick an easy field) and if they go pro for a couple years, let them come back and finish what they started.
Then you have to hope that the medical staff is not asleep on the job. Or if a player is hurt and the coach threatens to pull the scholly (which they would have less motivation to do), then give the player an option of getting an outside medical opinion before the player's scholly can be yanked.
How do transfers and walk-ons who you want to give a scholly count?
Both would count as one of your 25 guys you add that year. Neither of these happen often enough to worry about too much. If there is a transfer who could contribute, it would be well worth one of your 25, and walk-ons would typically work like they do now - when you can't fill your 25, you can give one to a walk-on.
Current Players+ Signed Recruits or = Scholarship Limit
There could also be a per year limit for new scholarships. Set it at 25. That will at least curtail some of the excesses. In the past 4 years Texas A&M gave out a whopping 115 scholarships, including 40 in 2013. South Carolina had a total of 106 with 30 each in 2012 and 2015. Georgia had a total of 103 with a high of 34 in 2013.
I may be wrong, but I think that limit already exists. SEC teams just take 35 commits and figure out how to get down to 25 before the Aug 1 deadline.
It is a damn shame that the media, namely ESPN, can't wake the eff up and see this camp issue for what it is; it is about exposing kids in various parts of the country to other coaching staffs at a very low cost - the cost of the 1 day camp. It is not easy for kids and famalies to pay for unofficial visits AND why does ESPN, ESS EEE SEE's lap dog, not focus on the oversigning and the bad treatment of these young kids as if they were pieces of meat.
schedule some Las Vegas BIG/SEC AD fight and be done with it?
just because it's Obama. The meme fits, don't harsh my mellow for no reason.
How about you get an extra scholarship for every early entree or transfer you have? That way you deal with it now instead of later on after you've recruited. For example your school is at 85 scholarship players with 15 seniors, you have 4 transfers and one early entree to the NFL. Next year you get 20 scholarships to recruit with. Repeat yearly.
Wait, would that not encourage coaches to encourage their non-producing players to transfer? I thought that is what we are trying to avoid?
For years certain schools have played fast and loose with the rules. There are serious bad consequences for the scholarship athletes when they get jerked and shuffled around at the convenience of these offending schools. That does real harm to the education and well-being of these athletes.
Way to go B1G! Call them on their stuff. It does no harm to the high school athletes who attend these camps of their free will and hope to learn skills and get noticed in their sport.
When Coach Harbaugh gets creative and competitive, the cheater coaches and AD's start crying.
not having scholarship limits at all.
How about bumping up the cap to say 100, but making them for a guaranteed 4 years, with the 5th year being optional?
I think Title IX put an end to unlimited FB scholarships. You can only have so many Womens badminton teams.
title IX.
Why can't teams recruit as many people as we can afford? I don't care that SW Indiana A&T can't compete if there wasn't a limit, they can't compete now. This would eliminate coaches "cutting" kids. It would give the players a chance to get better coaching and some will make great improvements that they would not have had a chance to get at some directional school thats football team is around to take beatings and pay for Womens field Hockey.
I agree completely, but I also like the parity that has evolved that allows for most Power 5 conferences to be more than just "Big 2 and Little 8" type places. Still, the Power 5's could all afford it so why not?
"I know they're problematic for a lot of other leagues, and in the end I'm sure something will come down in terms of regulation," Minnesota's Norwood Teague said. "They're new, for the most part, and when something new like that happens they'll probably get (tightened up)."
Well, they are largely only problematic because those other conferences let it be a problem, or rather, have restrictions that other conferences do not. I would hate to see the SEC win this one in the end, of course - the removal of social media as an outlet seemed like a half-hearted "make nice" move, but still a net loss for conferences wishing to bar such camps. I agree with the Big Ten ADs - there are far bigger fish to fry, as it were.
Its nice to see the BIG growing more of a backbone