Read the comments for an interesting look at how Bama fans view oversigning.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Read the comments for an interesting look at how Bama fans view oversigning.
Man - they are looking at actually cutting 8 players or more. How's that work? Aren't they given a 4 year scholorship? Just force 'em out? Ugly; dirty.
some schools explicitly offer 4 year scholarships, but most schools offer 1 year renewable scholarships.
Schollies are reviewed year-to-year. This is how Saban abuses the system...
Niccolò Machiavelli would be proud of Coach Saban.
Seriously, I like how the author says it is not fair to kids to speculate who gets cut, but seems to think that the system in place is fair. Cant hese kids go where they want, or can Saban also block who they transfer too?
The author seemed against it. He states this in the article.
I've been a vocal opponent of the oversigning.com crowd for a while
The editor of that blog (i.e., their version of Brian) had this to say:
Scholarship limits are designed to limit student-athlete opportunities in the name of competitive balance. Those who laud scholarship limits while suggesting that oversigning is harmful to student-athletes are hypocrites.
Interesting take, but absolutely misguided. And it got enough thumbs-ups to become green.
because everybody knows that schools, notably St. Saban's Memorial Hospital do this. The kids have to know (if for no other reason than opposing recruters saying this), HS coaches know, and if parents spent 5 minutes researching they would also know.
Since it's a given that Alabama will cut 3-10 players every single year, kids are taking their chances and they know it.
The reason why I have such a hard time with oversigning is that despite kids know this happens, yet sign anyway, is that their ego thinks "this could NEVER happen to me" but when it does and they get cut, they're forced to go somewhere else that they can get playing time. Meanwhile, teams like Bama can hoard recruits knowing full well that they can just creatively get rid of them. It allows them to continue competing for the interests of the Hand's of the world when they don't have room that legitimate teams don't have.
You think Hoke wouldn't like to recruit a bigger class of 15 or so next year if he had a legal way to do so? Oversigning is unfair to the teams doing it right as well as to the kids that get cut who have a legit opportunity to start at a big name school not called Ala-fucking-bama if they knew ahead of time what would happen to them.
If Bama didn't oversign, then the kid who eventually gets cut would never have signed at Bama and would have gone elsewhere anyway.
The kids are not screwed. They take a shot at Bama knowing that 3-10 kids in their class will be cut in the next 4 years. Then if they are cut, they go elsewhere and play/ finish school/ whatever they would have done.
This is unfair from a competitive standpoint, but it's not unfair for the student athletes. Hey, it's not like a degree from Bama is impressive :)
How is this not unfair?
If you're saying a University has the right to evaluate and has the option to "cut" any athlete on a yearly basis, why isn't the student-athlete afforded the same option to transfer freely on a yearly basis?
Can you imagine the competitive balance there'd be if any Bama second-stringer were freely allowed to transfer to another school to start immedidately? Not practical, I know.
Good point. BTW, do you live in 진주?
so do their coaches and their parents. They all know about the transfer rules. Yet, they still decide to attend Alabama even though they very likely have scholarship offers from other major college football programs.
I don't know if Saban is giving them a wink, wink, we will never cut you kid (which would be very unfair and scummy).
It's like somebody telling me, you can attend Harvard, have a 10% chance of being cut (which results in sitting out a year or you can go to Yale where they will always have space for you. Pick!
I don't get your analogy.
We're talking about "student-athletes" here. Key word being "student." Retention of scholarship should be more tied to academic performance than athletic. The system you ascribe to would be more akin to a semi-pro farm system. If the sole criteria for retaining your scholarship is a certain level of performance on the field, how is it fair that the University retains the right to a player as long as it wants but the player isn't allowed to test free-agency?
I think the point he is trying to make is that this can be resolved without additional rules if parents and students made smart decisions and wouldn't let coaches like Saben get away with this. But the reality is that too many of these parents and students thu\ink so highly of themselves that they think they won't be one of the guys that get "cut".
these high school kids understand this? You see the way many commit then decommit after saying their original school was the perfect place. I don't believe it. We were all high schoolers and I had no clue what I was doing. These kids might have a little more of a clue due to the internet and all, but totally understanding that at any given moment you could lose your free ride to someone the coaches like better. Especially after that same coach told you how great he thought you were and how his university needed you. Um... no. They have no clue.
Mostly because it's not like these kids are given objective information about this. They might here about oversigning and stuff, but then they get in-home visits from coaches who probably lie and/or distort reality to their faces. When you're 16/17 and a coach from a big-name program promises you the world, it's a little difficult for a few (SO FEW) news articles to make you second-guess them.
Firstly, I don't believe for a second that when a recruit goes on official visits, he or she conducts PhD-level research with full statistical analysis of their chosen figures of merit.
Like most college-bound kids, they likely figure out which coaches they like, if they're getting fired anytime soon, and just generally feel the vibe of the university.
I'm not about to name names, but there have been several high-profile recruits in recent years that have said some truly uninformed things about the qualities of a few schools.
Secondly, that's a nice bit of illiteracy you have there. All I really said was that coaches who meet one face-to-face and at least appear to have a genuine interest in one's future are infinitely more convincing than a few news articles, especially to an adolescent. I have no clue how you pulled that impressive straw man out of my first comment.
I'm guessing that any player offered by Alabama thinks he's the Second Coming. I wonder if they are realistically considering the odds of this happening to them.
I would love to see an article showing the recruiting ranking of the people Saban is going to cut and then blast this knowledge to recruits so that they really know what they're getting into. I don't think they're stupid but I do think that they think they're all going to be starters and that simply isn't the case. Maybe they just don't care and they'd rather operate in a semi-professional capacity but they should knowingly make that choice.
I wonder if D. Hand knows that he is "taking" someone's scholarship? I think I opened myself up for a negbang, but I had to ask it.
I was odd seeing how casual the conversation was regarding the need to "cut" players from a scholarship. It had the seriousness of predicting the 2 deep in the spring.
The problem isnt kids knowing about it, imho, it's what the coaches are selling these kids. I'm sure very few kids committed their future to Alabama after the coaches told them "you're just a depth guy, we're probably gonna cut you in a year or two." They likely lure these kids in with bullshit promises and lies about their bright future, then pull the rug out from under them when someone better comes along.
He has a point - scholarship limits really don't benefit the athletes, and should be changed. Where he goes wrong is in saying "therefore, it's totally okay to screw over a few kids every year". Even if the kids go in eyes wide open, oversigning still results in a few totally unnecessary bad outcomes for the kids that get cut. The only reason to oversign is to gain an advantage at the expense of screwing with the lives of young athletes, so it's scummy, full stop.
It would be simple to fix over signing, maintain competitive balance, and provide more opportunities for athletes: simply set a hard cap on new scholarships (say 25) per year with no limit on total scholarships. Then there would be no incentive to cut a player.
This is the right solution, but creates huge title IX problems. The two dozen or so schools that are turning a profit wouldn't mind, but I doubt the rest of FBS would go along with it.
There's plenty of big five conference members that wouldn't be happy about an added 40 scholarships or so.
It only causes Title IX issues if you don't also bump the number of female athlete scholarships. Scholarships aren't that expensive in real dollars for a school, especially when we're talking about incrementing scholarships in existing sports - most colleges could easily absorb a couple dozen extra male and female students.
That said, if total # of schollies is still a big concern, simply set the yearly signing limit at a level that with "normal" attrition would result in roughly the same number of scholarships you have today.
Another advantage of the hard cap on new scholarships but no upper limit on total is that it normalizes the 5th year for non-NFL prospects - keeping a depth player on board for a 5th year wouldn't hurt the competitiveness of the team, so you'd have a lot less "firm handshakes". The upshot is that guys knowing they'll be 5th years could take more "real" classes and be more academically prepared when they exit football.
But it's not just additional scholarship dollars. If you assume 25 a year results in about 105 football scholarships a year, that means 20 extra scholarships to be added to women's athletics. Maybe this can be addressed to a degree by upping scholarship limits for individual women's sports, but those are already pretty high. What it likely means is adding at least one more entire sport.
Then set the limit at 20 scholarships / year or 17, or 22, or continue to not renew many 5th year scholarships, or whatever it takes to keep the average number of scholarship football players ~85, if Title IX is your big worry.
The "more scholarship slots" is not the primary goal of the "firm cap on new scholarships" approach. The main point is to end the unfair advantages of oversigning, and stop the bait-and-switch being pulled on 18 year olds trading a guranteed scholarship at a B1G school for a semi-guaranteed tryout at Bama/LSU. This is accomplished just as well regardless of the specific cap number.
I don't know the Title IX implications, but I love the 25 scholarships/year idea. In fact, not only would it limit the incentive to cut players, it would increase the incentive to graduate players. Want to make sure that you don't have to burn redshirts on special teams? Be sure that you keep those backup upperclassmen around. Want to avoid any desperate depth issues? Same solution.
The problem is, nobody "lauds" scholarship limits. I don't see anyone writing a blog post about how great scholarship limits are to the sport; simply that it's the rule that almost everyone follows and those who don't follow it use a loophole that can damage a kid's future. Way to a void the actual topic at hand.
This is a very, very weak argument. Schools like Michigan (and its fans) that don't like oversigning would love to have unlimited scholarships because it would eliminate the oversigning quandary. Schools like Indiana State (and its fan) that can't afford unlimited scholarships love oversigning because it brings in transfers. It also allows them to take more flyers so they can find diamonds in the rough. One of the biggest oversigners a few years ago was Troy, which was a successful team at the time, by the way.
The person he's arguing against doesn't exist.
Bama fans are very bad at being human beings...
One can easily criticize over-signing WITHOUT lauding scholarship limits.
The exact same view could be taken to Bama paying players. "Bullshit. Restrictions on extra benefits to players are designed to limit student's compensation in the name of competitive balnace for those schools that can't afford it. Criticizing giving Bama players BMWs while lauding restrictions on extra benefits is hypocritical."
Shorter version of the editor's response: "Fuck you. Roll Tide."
I don't laud scholarship caps. But if such caps exist, taking advantage of a 17/18 yo's ego and feelings of inconvincability all while knowing there's a 10%+ chance you're going to give him the boot down the line is straight up dick.
while we employ a strategy that both undercuts competitive fairness and further harms student athletes.
Anyways, it's only one of the grey areas being exploited. I'm pretty convinced that these schools are using creative labels to side step coaching limits.
I mean is it really Alabama's fault that they employ a janitorial staff that can also give players pointers on analyzing an opponent's three point stance and the play tendencies that tend to accompany it?
most important part of the discussion. Some of the 'Bama fans are Monty Python fans. I have a newly discovered respect for them.
I was thinking the same thing
I was thinking, "They know how to spell Monty Python in GIS?"
Because we had three students (Ash, Furman, and Rawls) all announce transfers, and I was thinking: the fact that we just do it less is no argument that we're any better.
But then I remembered that Ash, Furman, and Rawls will all graduate, so we honored the 4 year (3-year in Rawls' case) scholarship. I imagine they would rather go elsewhere to see more playing time, but it is also possible they received a firm handshake. However, I see UM as having held up its end of the bargain: 4-year scholarship and/or graduation, with graduation being the more important.
Shaky moral high-ground: still ours
They ain't come here to play school, man.
Or is it purely their choice knowing they won't play much?
As in, if Josh Furman wanted to spend his last year at Michigan, would they uphold his scholarship still or say no? I do not know the answer to that, I want to hope they'd let him, but I do know that at Bama there is no choice.
However the difference is that regardless of who instigated the transfer talk Michigan gave them the opportunity to leave with a degree.
For the four year guys like Ash and Furman it doesn't really matter. It's very common, and generally viewed as acceptable, for schools to deny a 5th year to a guy who redshirted. This gives the player the opportunity to play for four years and earn a degree.
Cutting a player at any point before that is a pretty big no-no, unless you're Alabama I guess.
Every school has some turnover, it's impossible to avoid. Obviously, the turnover rate at a school that over signs like Bama is much higher than Michigan.
Actually that wasn't true for the 2008 and 2009 classes. Also if you look at SEC schools that don't over sign turnover is not lower than the schools that do over sign so it is not just conferences.
The difference is when in the year kids leave not the number that leave.
they are so use to this happening every year that they accept it as a common practice. I'm not so sure they care about the kids or the universities reputation as long as Bama football is at the top after all it is the SEC.
This is correct. Further evidence is that their former Offensive Coordinator and the team decide to part ways (wink, wink) after a sky is falling two losses.
Holy cow. I don't think Bama fans have ever given anyone a reason to think they care about anything but the W's.
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."
That's some Jaden Smith level logic right there.
How Can We See Oversigning If Our Eyes Aren't Real.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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]."
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.
How is their APR so high when they lose so many people per year?
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.
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.
that it appears oversigning.com has stopped tracking the numbers. By the looks of the website, they haven't updated anything since 2011.
You can follow them on Twitter: @themarchto85.
On my phone, no link.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
They support Alabama. Alabama oversigns.
They aren't going to stop supporting Bama, so they rationalize oversigning.
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.
He denied he was leaving the nfl for bama until he was on the Tarmac in tuscaloosa
And they will not stop until forced to do so.
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.
I live here so I looked into it earlier in December.
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.
Anyone notice that Tennessee indicates over 30 recruits on their list this year?
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.
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the 25-per-class rule from the NCAA?
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...
"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."
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.
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.
And this is why Michigan will never be like Alabama (which is a good thing). It's one thing for their insane fans to spew about "cutting bodies" and "slight of hand" roster management, but it is a bit shocking to me that it took this long for the blog to write an article that basically says, "Hey, I don't think this is wrong and the people who say it is wrong are wrong, but maybe this might be wrong."
So, I wonder what is so different about the athletes getting screwed over in *this* class?
"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)
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
How can I compete if I don't have a three-deep that isn't full of potential NFL first rounders????
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.
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.
I can't even imagine sitting here on this site discussing who's lives we should ruin. How do they sleep at night?
Just another reason I'm glad to live in the northern portion of the country. The term "Dirty South" can be used in several ways.
I currently live in the South and I can say confidently that it's quite nice. Don't get me wrong, I love the Midwest, but most people that talk poorly about the South don't have the faintest clue what they're talking about. There are issues, sure, but if you think you know how Southerners behave based on idiots on message boards then you fail to understand the nature of the internet.
Please tell me you're a rival fan trolling the site and/or I'm missing the /s.
well I, for one, welcome our new oversigning overlords.
Thank you for giving such a convincing argument.
If we look at this as a business, which lets face it, College Athletics is a business, why shouldn't colleges be allowed fire its employees? In essense, that what oversigning is. Firing its players. It happens in the real world. You don't get the job done, be it year one or 5, you can get fired. There is logic there.
But at the same time, football is not a "real" job and 95% of kids are not yet experienced enough or have the knowledge to compete with kids 3, 4,and 5 years into the program. And that's where I get hung up.
I think the NCAA should make up some formal rule about it. Allow it or don't. Period. No between the lines crap. And cap it at a low number. 3 or 5 total. And if you allow it, the kid has to be either a Junior or Senior. You can't cut freshman or sophmores. And if you cut the person from a football scholarship, the University must give the now normal student a scholarship of some sort to help the student get his degree. Because really, that's what it's about.
Now that I think about this more I don't like it at all. As much money as these guys make, they'd continue to cut players every year.
But still, part of me says if the kids a goof in the classroom but is staying eligible, and he half asses it on the field so he doesn't get PT, teams should be able to cut the person from their scholarship and give it to someone new who might try a little harder.
Last year he jerked a kid's offer after he committed to Bama because a higher ranked kid said he would commit to them.
While I can understand that teams want to acquire the best talent this is the kind of thing that should give your program a black eye not elevate it to a higher level.
Not sure about 2013, but this happened:
Justin Taylor (commit for ~1 yr, 7th in their class) was told in January that he would have to greyshirt or GTFO. He had a knee injury his senior year.
Same thing with Darius Philon:
Alabama took Feb commitments from 2 4* DTs and Cyrus Jones.
What? I posted the links above... This Justin Taylor UK commit. Now it looks like he's at South Carolina State.. Playing RB. I did not follow his recruitment.
Philon was asked to delay his enrollment, as I said "greyshirt." So, if he wanted to go to school in the fall, he would have to pay his own way for a semester (not free).
Your last sentence makes you sound like an ass.
I saw someone on Scout posted a list of the top 10 schools with over 100 + signings the past 4 years and 2 of them just played in the title game. 2 other programs LSU and Bama are in the hunt or win it all every year.
These schools are cutting the kids who didnt pan out and get a shot at replacing them with better players sooner than 4 or 5 years. So our School plays the good guy role and struggles and Bama can drop a 3rd string Lineman who stinks for a 5 star every year. Sounds fair to me.
Them Northern Agitators are agitating again.
Seriously, if the kid (16/17) can't see it and the parents let their kids go to lease schools...well I don't feel bad for guys who do not get there degrees or have "big" school names on them.
I know if my children ever get into this situation as with most of us were not going to care about football before our children's needs (degree and not a piece of meat), even if the young man disagrees (just like I would of when I was young).
I'll hang up and listen.
I really don't care. Let 'em oversign.
The best argument I've heard in favor of oversigning is that almost all other scholarships can be yanked if you don't perform. For an academic scholarship, if you don't get the grades, no more scholarship. For a music scholarship, if you don't perform up to their standards, no more scholarship. So why not football?
I still don't like oversigning, but so long as the coaches are honest and upfront about what it's going to take to renew the scholarship, I don't have a moral issue with it.
Also, I think it's worth noting that SEC schools need to oversign more due to the state of public schools in their recruiting footprint. It's a sad and unfortunate truth that more kids in the South aren't going to qualify due to, among a myriad of factors, schools that don't adequately prepare them to qualify and stay qualified. That's not to say that Midwest schools are without flaws, or that all public schools in the South are garbage, but it's generally true.
At U-M, most of the major scholarships I knew about were academic-based. However, they were awarded to incoming classes after playing their entrance auditions, and by and large the best scholarships went to people who performed the best at their auditions and came in ready to play. Maintaining the scholarships was a function of grades as far as I know. Some folks kept their schollies - half-rides in some cases - for all four years, and had notable careers in Symphony Band or University Symphony Orchestra. Not all went pro, but they had paths at Michigan similar to varsity student-athletes.
The process may be different at a Colburn or a Juilliard - these top conservatories offer pure music degrees without the liberal arts requirements the flagship B1G music schools require.
I did not know that. Thanks for sharing.
That is a problem with over signing websites. They count people that don't academically qualify and some doubt count when that same player transfers in from JuCo.
Some of these comments are just insane. Yes, players leave from schools because they worry about playing time, but never 8, and when you factor in "career-ending" injuries that get them booted to DIII, it becomes incredibly murky. Of course, this being Alabama I doubt they won't be able to make the numbers work out, but this is why when I hear guys talk about wanting to play at Alabama for "education" or "family" reasons, I just laugh. Saban would boot his own kid to the curb if it opened up a roster spot.
Assuming everyone is academically qualified coming in of course right?
Is Urban using SEC practices to circumvent scholarship penalties?
The figures comparing for total class sizes over the past 4 years for UM vs Ohio have left me scratching my head. With Ohio already having commited 6 more schollies than UM this year. Ohio websites claim that Ohio can take 3 more (which could total as many as 25-16= 9 schollies more than UM for this year and for the past 4 years' total.* Yet, the NCAA said they should have 3 fewer total roster spots during each year of Urban's tenure.
Ohio boosters will try to create a giant smoke screen with the complexities in determining allowable class size. But I wonder: Can the wide discrepancy between Ohio and UM really be explained by the usual factors (unrenewed 5th years, early NFL departures or normal attrition)? Remember, both teams had coaching changes in the past 4 years.
Most imporantly, are such inequalities what the NCAA intended when it supposedly "penalized" Ohio? Would the threat of such "penalties" deter future cheating--or would they just encourage coaches to act more and more like Saban?
*Total recruiting class sizes so far (UM,Ohio) per Rivals
2014 (16, 22) or (16,25)**
2012 (25,25) Urban starts at Ohio
2011 (20,23) Hoke starts at UM
2011-2014 totals (88,94) or (88,97)**
**if Ohio takes 3 more and UM stands pat.
The 2011 year included in the four year period includes a widely publicized incident concerning one of Tressel’s players (not attributable to Urban certainly pertinent to Ohio).
Jackson, a wide receiver, says he was asked to transfer (by Tressel), two years into his college career.
"They had an oversigning issue," Jackson said. "They had to free up a few scholarships, and coach (Jim) Tressel told me I probably wouldn't play and maybe Ohio State wasn't the place for me."
Ohio protested that there was no oversigning in 2011 presented many admittedly complex issues. But reportedly, the website said Ohio had not yet complied with the FOIA request and appeared to “stonewall” when people started asking questions about numbers. In any case, Jackson’s coach confirmed that Tressel assured Jackson he had a 4-5 year scholarship (even though today we know that such commitments are invalid). The website like concluded:
“That commitment was broken between Ohio State and James Jackson, and while we can't track down the exact reason why the fact remains that Jackson is no longer at Ohio State and that is a shame. “
The opportunity to take a job at a place which plans to work you to your physical limit while paying you peanuts or next to peanuts but which might be the key step to leads to a great professional position is actually not unique.
Once that was the path many physicians went through. To practice medicine, one needs to complete a medical degree and do at least one year of internship somewhere (practicing under some sort of supervision - usually limited to a facility - which is why the term intern comes from - the people are interned to that hospital). For many decades (about from World War I to the early 1960's) most physicians just did that. They put in their one year and then got their license and practiced. If you wanted to specialize you needed to do more and complete a full residency of three, four, five or six years. At that time, the need for specialist was felt to be low so it was common place to trim the resident roster each year. A surgical program might take in 12 or 15 interns; cut down to 8 2nd years, 4 3rd years and ultimately 1 chief resident (4th or 5th year). Often they were paid with free room, board and a tiny stipend which would barely keep the mostly male interns in cigarettes (which they almost all smoked) . This is when a pack cost 25 cents in 1950 and about 50 cents in 1960.
This was called the pyramidal system - broad base with only a very narrow capstone. Why did people go along with this? At that time it was still easily possible to be a good doctor and have a successful practice without completing a full residency because only the specialists did that. The typical Dr. Marcus Welby did not do that. This was even a plot point on the TV show Mad Men (The husband of Joan, Don Draper's office manager, was cut from his surgical program). There were plenty of good job opportunities so people went along with it.
What changed the system is that in the late 1960's and onward, the need for specialists and growing awareness that a single year just wasn't enough to ensure even general practitioners had enough training led to our current system where now everyone basically completes a residency. It is also now very hard to get a good position without completing a residency. Not completing a residency means not being able to be board certified which means in many places inability to be on staff or on some insurance panels.
So unless there is a huge demand for professional caliber athletes, it is hard to imagine that some sort of manipulation won't go on and that kids will still agree to this uneven bargain. They all believe that they'll be the ones who'll make it and pretty much accept the risk.
Why would someone commit to Saban knowing he do his players bad like that ?