OT- Oversigning jihad info at Doc Sat, re: Ole Miss

Submitted by Wolverine In Exile on May 17th, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Over on Doc Sat's Headlinin today (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Headlinin-8217-A-cold-exit-for-Bobby-Lowder-?urn=ncaaf-wp1613#remaining-content) in addition to the "Palpatine is dead!" like excitement over Bobby Lowder finally giving up (nominally) his throne at Auburn, is this lilttle nugget about oversigning extraordinare, Houston Nutt of Ole Miss:

"Not including the 2011 class, the Rebels signed a whopping 92 players to letters of intent over Nutt's first three seasons (2008-10). Less than 50 of that number remain on the current roster for 2011, a staggering attrition rate that could easily exceed 50 percent by the end of the year."

So Nutt not only signed more recruits than the 85 person limit, he did it in a three year span! And now perhaps as many as 50% of the recruits could be gone? How is this not the roadside IED to get the NCAA to do something about oversigning or putting more teeth in the APR? I know Brian wrote about APR earlier this week and maybe that is the solution, but how is Ole Miss not in the APR equivalent of hell? They were 110th in APR in 2010, and this attrition can't help the number. This to me is more egregious than Saban, since at least Saban had the decency to get a lot of his shitty players on med schollies-- I'm pretty sure the guys leaving Ole Miss aren't sticking around school to get their degrees while they recieve medical treatment if you catch my drift. 



May 17th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^

When Ole Miss becomes a perennial top ten team, the NCAA will make an example out of them.  Until then, they aren't raising a big enough red flag.


May 17th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^

An interesting counterpoint to the idea that it is their fame that keeps big schools from being busted. Though, of course, with USC and (hopefully) tOSU, that might be changing. Regardless, I think it's more likely to work the other way around: smaller schools will be more likely to get busted, and big schools more likely to get away with things unless they are truly egregious, but because they are not high profile small school violations won't make nearly as big a splash as, say, Mr. Tressel's recent alleged offenses.

Kind of a catch-22 we've set up here, eh?


May 17th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

I would recommend never using war terms when talking about sports. I understand your point, but my brother is a marine and was in the vehicle that hit one...lets just say the comparison isn't even remotely similar when thinking about that from that perspective...


May 17th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

Wow. Just wow. SEC = Super Excellent Cheaters?

How is this ok? The NCAA needs to address this because it isn't only bad for college football but ends up fucking the kids out of an education. like you said at least Saban gets them medical schollies. Nutt's kids sound like theyre just SOL.


May 17th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^

I do not think that education is an ambition that SEC coaches and prospects share out of their collegiate football experience.  There are exceptions, count them on one hand, including Alabama QB McElroy and Tebow that were strong students.  

Rather, the path followed by Mr. Newton seems more rewarding: steal laptop, cheat on tests, have a family member solicit $180k unkowingly, drink "cam cam juice", win heisman, win national chapionship, leave after a year, publicly declare yourself an icon,  no. 1 draft pick.  Simple formula that does not require education.



May 17th, 2011 at 9:58 PM ^

I would hate Cam Newton anyway, but the fact that he won all of these awards 


May 17th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

Checking down the rest of the Doc Sat update, I see the mention of the LSU-Oregon game on opening weekend. As much as The Hat has U-M connections and all, I want to see the Ducks absolutely spank LSU so that those SEC mouths will remain shut for at least a little while.


May 17th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

Signing more players than the 85 limit allows might be tricky to regulate, but what is so difficult about limiting teams to 25 players per class?  I don't understand why the NCAA is OK with conferences allowing more than 25 to sign.  And this whole nonsense about a January enrollee counting against the previous year's class should be stopped.  If you enrolled in 2011 (whether January or September), you should be part of the 2011 class - period.


May 17th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

The math seems pretty simple to me:

85 - the number of scholarship players currently planning on returning = the number of LOIs a school can sign

If you want to add some allowance for unplanned turnover / non-qualification, allow them to go:

85 - on scholarship + 3 = number of LOIs a school can sign


May 17th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^

Agreed. This is a good plan, maybe allowing a stipulation that a school can appeal for some unforeseen circumstances. Also, the LOI should guarantee a scholarship if the student qualifies; as it is right now, the LOI is only binding to the student. We should hold the institutions accountable for the ones they sign.

If a coach like Nutt then has too many players on scholarship, the NCAA should reduce scholarships available the next year at a 2:1 rate.


May 17th, 2011 at 10:09 PM ^

But how do you determine who is "currently planning on returning"?  The Sabans of the world can still find random excuses to cut guys loose.  OTOH, there is no reason for there to be any ambiguity about the size of a class allowed.  It should never exceed 25, period.  


May 17th, 2011 at 11:50 PM ^

Go with (as I recall it) ZoneLeft's proposal to have rosters finalized by May 31 or some early time, with immediate eligibility at another institution if the player is let go for non-academic/criminal reasons. That said, the 25 limit is probably the easiest solution to arrive to, even if it isn't the most perfect.


May 17th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^

Funny thing is though, that while Nutt was in AR this was never an issue. There were other issues that made Arkansans hate him (like having an affair with a local tv personality) but reruiting violations were not a problem.