Massive oversigning to be banned?
Per Dr. Saturday, it looks like there is some movement to have a 28-player limit in any signing class either at the NCAA level or at the SEC level.
The SEC is considering sponsoring proposed legislation to the NCAA that would cap the number of football players a school could sign at 28. ... Several of the SEC athletic directors said Wednesday they thought the 28 limit would be endorsed by the presidents and sent onto the NCAA. Slive also said he wouldn't be opposed to the SEC adopting its own league-wide policy capping the number of players a school could sign.
omg Housnick Sabnutt
Don't stop at just the SEC. NCAA needs to act on this and stop the Alabamas' or UNCs' of college football from signing 30+ kids in a year and screwing over a half dozen kids that are half way through their college careers.
I think this is a good start and am glad the SEC is acknowledging that there is an issue there, but it doesn't change the fact that coaches will still try to jam 25 kids into a class where they only have 15 or 20 scholarships available. With or without this rule, they can still accept 25 signees, regardless of what's available.
One mitigating aspect here is that, if the limit is implemented, if a school signs a 28-player (almost typed 28-student, but who am I kidding?) instead of a 30-some-player class, there's a better chance it will be whittled down to under 25 by the time fall rolls around. As such, oversigning coaches might not quite get 25 enrollees every year, and that might reduce the cases of jamming 25 players into 15 scholarships.
The rule would work if the NCAA would accompany it with a simple provision: at no time can a roster have more than 85 scholarship players. Don't just enforce that rule during the season; enforce it during the offseason, too.
Agreed jmblue, although the loophole there is that on Signing Day and for a few months thereafter, the players that just signed the LOI don't actually have a scholarship. Not til they get to campus. A little tweaking of the accounting rules would be needed, but making the 85-limit a yearlong thing is something I've wanted for a while.
Coaches would obviously complain that it hurts their ability to compete if they can't anticipate attrition. There'd also be incentive to keep around the criminals, because they can't be as easily replaced. And there's a valid point there. "Don't sign criminals and tree stumps who can't do the classwork" would be the obvious reply.
needs to be stopped is the Troy Trojans. They're from Troy!
If for some reason you have 28+ scholarships available, you should be able to sign more than 28. I think the simple rule should be that there must be an open scholarship for each player. If you have 33 open scholarships on signing day, you can sign 33. If you have 21 open scholarships on signing day, you can sign 21. No hoping for players to be found with a pound of coke in their trunk.
It's not hoping if you know where the coke came from....
But I agree. Teams should be required to limit recruiting to the number of spots they have open. While there should be a little leeway for late departures/kids failing out, teams could provide an expected number and apply for additional allowances if a spot opened up. I doubt it will happen, but something does need to be done with massive oversignings, if for no other reason than it is simple unseemly.
The easiest solution that makes perfect sense. Good proposal. Never happen.
What about something along the lines of raising the scholarship limit to 90 but then only allowing you to sign as many players as you have open spots for. That increased count should make up for the typical attrition that happens between seasons from injury or departures.
Consequences, not rules, change behavior. People find a way around rules all the time. Heck, they even find a way around consequences sometimes--but not as often.
The pressure to win at all costs, being what it is, is the real culprit here. Emphasis seems to have drifted away from education i.e. the student in student athlete. Big coaching salaries come from winning, not graduating students. McNutt talks about establishing relationships with other coaches--hinting that there is nothing wrong with his practice because it promotes winning. As long as coaching salaries are based on winning, this will be an uphill battle and people will find a way around any rules.
If you really want college athletics to be about education, then you should just do away with scholarships altogether and make sports a true part of the student community.
Of course, there are schools out there like Michigan who will not prevent students from getting a world class education and who often create an environment for which that is encouraged. But let's be honest here. How many of our current players would have gotten into the school but for football? Same question for the Fighting Irish and other similarly situated schools. The system has never been about educational purity. It's been about not getting in someone's way at an education versus complete and total dedication to football alone. I don't feel sorry for players who knowingly commit to schools who want to win at all costs. They know what it's all about and many of them are only interested in the NFL too and not education. This is why Michigan can and will succeed in southern recruiting, because you're always going to have guys who want the education as well as getting ready to play in the NFL (which no offense Vanderbilt hardly provides).
Because I don't have any problem with coaches oversigning. Every big program is going to get their five star and high four star recruits and they'll make the team and keep their scholarships regardless. It's those other players that are at issue. I, for one, welcome the idea of having 10 guys compete for 5 spots. You're giving more people the opportunity to compete for a spot. If you only give 5 guys spots, 5 other guys don't even get a shot to compete. It's just a reflection of the real world. NFL teams aren't limited to only allowing drafted players to compete for spots. Undrafted players add competition and keep the guys drafted in the 4-7 rounds honest. As such, those guys are better off because they've already competed within. They'll be tougher when they compete against opponents.
I hope this long-winded explanation makes sense.
Here's the thing. I think part of what draws us to college sports is that they AREN'T a reflection of real life. College is a fun little bubble world you get to live in before you go into the real world, which is ugly and not that much fun. Why would we want to destroy what's left of the college experience for these guys and turn it into pro sports without the big payday? Why not just agree to honor a guy's scholarship if he does what's asked of him? I'm pretty sure scholarship recipients in other fields don't have to worry about being booted out of their programs to make room for "new talent."
here is my two sense...
lets say player x was a 2 star player who the coaches at USC see having a lot of potential, so they take a shot at him and give him a scholarship. He is on the team for the next two years but is a complete bust. Player x is riding the bottom of the depth chart and clearly is not talented enough to compete for a power house program like USC. Is it fair that the school has to honor this scholarship for four years? Dont they have a right to cut him loose so they can go after more promising players?
Players just like x are not blind when they choose to go to a school like USC. They know much better than us who is on the depth chart and the competition they are going up against. Player x took the risk when he signed with USC that he wasnt going to make it in the long run.
Next, lets look at academic scholarships. I have friends who were offered thousands of dollars to go to colleges for their grades. Some of them just werent smart enough to keep their scholarships so the college took pulled it away from them. Should the college have to honor the scholarship for the next 4 years?
Yes, the school should honor the scholarship. Not only is it the ethical thing to do, but also because the "coaches need the room for more players" argument is ridiculous. There are 85 scholarships for a sport that has 24 starting players (counting the punter and placekicker). There is no way to give everyone playing time. Some guys aren't going to play much; that's just the reality, and it's been true forever. If a coach is worth his seven-figure salary, he can find a way to win without resorting to slimy tactics like this.