On the Clock
In a previous post, we responded to Alabama fans that were outraged by our March to 85 piece by giving them a homework assignment. The assignment was for them to bring us a BCS school that needs to shed more than 6 scholarship commitments between now and August when the NCAA will required that all teams have their rosters down to 85 players. It took a little bit of time, but we finally had a reader post a list of schools that he claims are over the limit and needs to shed players.
Here's the list from the Alabama fan:
"You want other programs? Here ya go….
LSU currently has 91 players on scholarship (Need to cut 6)
Miami currently has 91 players on scholarship (Need to cut 6)
Texas A&M currently has 90 players on scholarship (Need to cut 5)
Washington currently has 88 players on scholarship (Need to cut 3)
Nebraska currently has 87 players on scholarship (Need to cut 2)Texas was at 88 players on scholarship, had 2 transfer, and now needs to cut 1 more."
Okay, so where do we start? First, let's get a table of the recruiting numbers for each of these schools in one place so we can easily look at them together here. This is everything from 2002 - 2010; we'll narrow this down to the numbers we need for this investigation a little later in this post.
On The Clock
| Teams | Conf. | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | Total | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSU | SEC | 26 | 28 | 26 | 13 | 26 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 29 | 224 | 24.89 |
| Miami | ACC | 24 | 24 | 28 | 17 | 22 | 19 | 33 | 19 | 28 | 214 | 23.77 |
| Texas A&M | B12 | 23 | 24 | 28 | 25 | 23 | 18 | 24 | 28 | 23 | 216 | 24 |
| Washington | PAC10 | 21 | 27 | 23 | 13 | 22 | 27 | 26 | 19 | 31 | 209 | 23.22 |
| Nebraska | B12 | 21 | 19 | 20 | 32 | 22 | 27 | 28 | 20 | 21 | 210 | 23.33 |
| Texas | B12 | 28 | 18 | 20 | 15 | 25 | 24 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 192 | 21.33 |
Done.
Now, how do we figure out who went over the limit this year by accepting more signed letters of intent then they had room for given the number of scholarship commitments they had on National Signing day? The math is really simple, but finding the actual roster numbers for the previous year online can be difficult, which is why we are asking you, the fans of these schools, to participate and help us determine if your team went over the limit. We could do it on our own if all of these teams has a sweet online depth chart application like Notre Dame has available here; make sure you click on Roster Chart when you open the link (side note - if we had any sense at all we would build an application like this to house roster data for all 64 BCS schools and then charge a fee to access it - but as it is we barely have enough time to keep up with blog and our real lives).
Regardless, we have the number of players signed to each recruiting class (see table above), therefore, all we need now is to know exactly how many players were on scholarship on National Signing Day. Typically, this is the previous year's total number of scholarship players (which will vary from school to school because not all schools are always at 85 every year) minus graduating seniors with no eligibility left and minus juniors who have declared for the NFL draft by the deadline on January 15th. We refer to this number as the "recruiting budget."
Until we can get those numbers, let's just look at how many players each school has signed over the last 5 years. We're going to subtotal 2007 - 2009 and then add 2010 to that number and call it the subtotal for 2007-2010. We are also going to show you the 2006 numbers, which would represent the 5th year senior classes for these schools. It is very likely that each of these schools will have a few 5th year guys on their roster.
On The Clock - Numbers for 2006 - 2010
| Teams | Conf. | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | (07-09) | 2010 | (07-10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSU | SEC | 26 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 76 | 29 | 105 |
| Miami | ACC | 22 | 19 | 33 | 19 | 71 | 28 | 99 |
| Texas A&M | B12 | 23 | 18 | 24 | 28 | 70 | 23 | 93 |
| Washington | PAC10 | 22 | 27 | 26 | 19 | 72 | 31 | 103 |
| Nebraska | B12 | 22 | 27 | 28 | 20 | 75 | 21 | 96 |
| Texas | B12 | 25 | 24 | 20 | 20 | 64 | 22 | 86 |
For comparisons sake, now let's look at a few teams that we have investigated in the past and that we know are not over the limit.
Not On The Clock
| Teams | Conf. | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | (07-09) | 2010 | (07-10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | SEC | 28 | 23 | 24 | 20 | 67 | 19 | 86 |
| Vanderbilt | SEC | 25 | 14 | 21 | 18 | 53 | 24 | 77 |
| USC | PAC10 | 27 | 18 | 19 | 18 | 55 | 20 | 75 |
| Stanford | PAC10 | 18 | 19 | 17 | 22 | 58 | 23 | 81 |
| Penn State | B10 | 24 | 21 | 14 | 27 | 62 | 20 | 82 |
| Ohio State | B10 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 60 | 18 | 78 |
| Northwestern | B10 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 18 | 57 | 17 | 74 |
| Notre Dame | Ind. | 28 | 18 | 23 | 18 | 59 | 23 | 82 |
And then finally, here is Alabama. Still above those on the clock and way, way above those not on the clock.
Alabama
| Teams | Conf. | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | (07-09) | 2010 | (07-10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | SEC | 23 | 25 | 32 | 27 | 84 | 29 | 113 |
(Important: It should be noted that the 2007-2010 numbers do not include the 5th year guys from 2006. Therefore, schools that are under 85 in this column are either short-handed or they have a number of 5th year guys; schools that are way over 85 either have no 5th year guys or they have a few and the numbers are even worse.)
Before everyone gets all up in arms, there is more to this than just these numbers and this is where it gets really time consuming in trying to investigate oversigning. From 2006 to 2010 a lot of things happen to the rosters, some things are legitimate and some things are not. The numbers above are the numbers signed; we still need to know who left the team and who still remains from the 2006 class, which will give us the total number of scholarship players at the end of the 2009 season. From there we can subtract the graduating seniors and early entries into the NFL. That will give us our recruiting budget for the 2010 class.
We're not asking that you guys hunt down the back story to every single transfer (although that would be nice), all we really need is the total scholarship commitments at National Signing Day, which is what we described above. Once we have those numbers we will add the number for the 2010 class and see if it is over 85.
So there it is, we have provided a nice starting point for investing the schools Alabama fans have claimed are also guilty of oversigning players. Now we just need your help to finish up the investigation. Please post anything you have here and we'll continue to discuss.
Against Oversigning
In Favor of Oversigning
Blogroll
- Atholon Sports
- CFBDataWarehouse
- CFN – College Football News
- NCPA – Website
- NCSA – Athletic Recruiting
- POPA – Parents of Players Association
- RTN – Reform the NCAA
- The Drake Group
2011 Oversigning Cup
ESPN OTL Oversigning Video
Oversigning.com on Twitter
- @GerdOzone imagine what that number would be had he oversigned at the rate of Saban/Miles/Nutt/Petrino.
- @greggdoyelcbs someone tell the NCAA to call me.
- Fwiw, I just wanted to ban oversigning, you guys.
- @BryanDFischer @andrewjbone remind me again how many guys were in that 2008 class and how many had to be cut to make room for them all.
From People on Twitter
- Alabama and Mississippi were scary places in 1950. But the grandkids are doing a bang-up job: http://t.co/OiKZzyaC
- @JoePas_Doghouse @RowlffDogg Yes, he did.
Reader Survey – Vote Today!
Loading ...Pages
Meta
Categories
- ACC
- Announcements
- Baseball
- Basketball
- Big 10
- Big 10 Expansion
- Big 12
- Big East
- Coaching
- Feedback
- History
- MAC
- NCAA
- Non BCS Conferences
- Off Topic
- PAC 10
- Quick Links
- Rants
- SEC
- SunBelt
- The Oversigning Cup
- Uncategorized
Recent Comments
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- WTF on Elliott Porter 2.0
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
May 29th, 2010 - 12:47
Why not do the same thing with these schools that you did for Alabama? If this data is so hard to find (and Saban is famous for not releasing information he doesn’t have to) then how are you so exact on Bama? Surely if you can do this for the Tide, you can repeat it for these few other teams.
May 29th, 2010 - 12:55
We were so exact about Alabama because with very little effort we found a website that outlined every single scholarship in great detail. It was an Alabama blog written by a fan that was a little concerned about the numbers. We posted it here a while back. Besides, the homework assignment was to bring us concrete numbers with proof backing up the claim that other teams need to shed more players than Alabama – all the poster did was throw out team names and a number. And lastly, part of the mission of this site is to get people talking about and investigating oversigning – we feel as though the more people we have looking into this stuff the better.
So instead of whining about our alleged bias towards Alabama, go out and investigate one of the other schools and bring us back concrete numbers.
May 30th, 2010 - 15:36
He’s not exact on Alabama, either, but he does have the advantage of being able to ignore any post that debunks his bad math…
May 29th, 2010 - 14:31
I swear I’m not being a Washington homer and that I really am just trying to contribute to the information (I think we signed too many players this year as well) however… this is a list of players that were awarded scholarships as walk ons at the end of camp last year.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2009803001_scholarships_awarded_thursday.html
And then looking at the UW roster: http://www.gohuskies.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/wash-m-footbl-mtt.html
We find that Christine and Huppert are still on the roster, so that takes care of two. Additionally, we know something scout doesn’t; John Timu got injured badly.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2010798279_timu_likely_headed_to_grayshir_1.html
And is likely to grayshirt while he recovers. We also know that Auburn’s Chris Young really wants to be a Husky, but we’re not going to know on academics until the last possible second. Then the coaching staff has told James Atoe that a gray shirt was a possibility, all along. I know that the Huskies took a few players at the last second that they didn’t think they were going to have room for… namely Cooper Pelluer. As bad as it looks, it should be okay, I guess because our old coach spent more time on the golf course than on the recruiting trail?
Also, our backup QB decided to transfer. Of his own freewill. He had a year’s worth of experience which would have been REALLY nice and it leaves us with only (three) two scholarship QBs on the roster (a freshman that should be RS’d, a RS frosh, and then Jake Locker, who is in fact a walk on. Not sure if the person got that.
That is the Washington side of things.
May 29th, 2010 - 21:53
Madison,
We’re going to have to dig a little deeper to get to the bottom of this. I think the roster you have linked includes non-scholarship players. It is currently at 80 players and in looking over the roster, I only see a small handful of the 31 players that were signed in the last class. Those are probably the early entries. I dumped the roster you linked into an Excel file so I could break down the groupings. Here is what it looks like…15-Fr, 21-So, 27-Jr, and 17-Sr for a total of 80 players.
What really want to know is how many guys were on scholarship on signing day, which means we really need the 2009 roster. From there we can tag the seniors that are expected to graduate and have exhausted their eligibility, and then we can tag any juniors that declared for the NFL draft by January 15th. We’ll take those guys out of the 2009 roster and that will give us a number to subtract from 85 which will give us our recruiting budget for 2010. Then we simply compare the number signed to the budget and we’ll know if Washington went over or not.
May 30th, 2010 - 15:40
Joshua likes to delete posts that expose his poor math skills…
May 30th, 2010 - 19:53
what are you talking about?
May 29th, 2010 - 14:36
I have made no such allegation, though your response reveals this entire site as just that. You create this site to shed light on this great atrocity in the world of college football, yet you have hard numbers on only one university? I find it interesting that you don’t have the time or resources to look into a few other universities, yet were able to get the same for one with probably the tightest control over this type of information.
I have yet to read a real argument why this practice is so bad. Your whole reasoning is based on the coach not explaining that a scholarship is for one year only and eventually may not be extended. Is there any proof that Saban (or any other coach) has removed the scholarship from anyone who wasn’t told this? You then say that it creates an unfair advantage. I disagree, it may well be an advantage, but only one created by the coach who makes fair use of the rules and is able to effectively plan for the future. If the B10 and others want to restrict their institutions, that is their priority.
Lastly, has it ever occured to you that this practice actually allows more people to receive scholarships? Saban is more likely to offer a scholarship to a player who is borderline if he has room – knowing that if the player doesn’t develop enough he can transfer it to another player in a few years. This borderline player would at least get a chance at Bama, whereas at OSU, he would likely never even see a follow-up visit.
May 29th, 2010 - 15:09
Interesting last point you make, catch. I’m not agreeing that this is good or bad, just observing that it’s a different view on the issue.
May 29th, 2010 - 20:31
This is a anti-oversigning issue not a anti-Alabama issue. Alabama is the low hanging fruit because they are the biggest offender. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.
May 30th, 2010 - 12:28
It only allows more people to get scholarships at the schools in question. If those same “bubble” players went straight to another school they’d still get their scholarship (one would imagine), but they’d have much more continuity and stability in the achieving their degree instead of having to worrying about transferring, moving areas, etc.
As for why its so bad…because it can, and does, directly effect the progress of a student athlete in the completion of their (and what should be the universities) intended goal…obtaining a degree.
For a poor athlete from rural Mississippi (or wherever) its better for them to be forced to go smaller school where their scholarship won’t (or will be much less likely to) be revoked, focus on obtaining a degree, and being able to better their lives (whether it be through football or the job market after graduation). Going to a school that games the system, losing scholarships, being forced to transfer (possibly missing semesters at a time) only prolongs and makes more difficult, a process that only gets harder as life goes on (look up the statistics on how many people finish their degrees after having a child for example).
I guess its just my view that a university’s first job is getting those that attends its school to graduate from its school. I don’t see this practice helping in that endeavor.
May 30th, 2010 - 23:27
PSUGuy,
You make a decent argument, and a better explanation that I’ve read from anyone else yet, but I’m unconvinced. I think that most “bubble” players would rather try their hand at a place like Alabama with the knowledge that they may not make it through than pass on it for Troy or UAB. Cory Reamer is a great example. He was recruited by Shula, and when Saban first laid eyes on him he said he’d never see the field, but he gave him a fair shot. The kid stuck it out and did ok, I seem to remember him making a play or two in January. If Bama had the same “elitist” rules as the B10 (see what I did there?) Reamer may have been forced to play for some Sun Belt or MAC team and wouldn’t be on the Ravens roster right now.
Again, I don’t feel sorry for anyone who has had several years of a college education paid for. As I posted on an earlier thread, I paid my own way through college by working full time and going to class at night. I don’t think that transferring is all that tough.
Lastly, don’t kid yourself, a university’s first job is to make money. They are not charitys put there for the universal good. It is not the university’s job to make sure the kid graduates. They could’nt care less. The football team, however, will provide tudors and study guides to assist a struggling player to protect the investment they are making with their scholarship, but again I stress that that assistance is coming from the team, not the university.
May 31st, 2010 - 01:01
@catch
Here’s the thing…the Steelers starting CB came out of Louisana-Lafayette (sp?). JPP was a top 15 draft pick this year and played for South Florida. This is not a couple decades ago where if a player didn’t play for a top program they wouldn’t get scouted and might not ever see the NFL. If a player plays now-a-days they will be found and get their shot. In point of fact, that same bubble guy probably would have made a lot more plays against lesser competition in the Sun Belt or MAC and might have actually been drafted (if its the same guy…I saw a “Cory Reamer” from Alabama that plays for the Jets, not Ravens).
As for feeling bad…I don’t. I just see a system that is already heavily slanted against the student athlete and practices that don’t help it. Besides, I really think fixing this loophole in the system will force more players to different schools and increase, overall, the competitive play in the entire collegiate football landscape. Personally, I just think it’d be funny to watch one of those cupcake OoC games knock a championship hopeful out in the first week of the season.
Oh, and most universities (especially the larger public/semi-public ones) are classified as “Non-profit” organizations per the US tax code and are typically tasked (if not on a yearly basis, then definitely at their inception) with the education of the populations of the state from which they receive tax revenue. Thus, in point of fact, they are not (or rather, should not be) in it to make money except to further increase the size/level of their educational offerings and as such are in it to get people to graduate.
Opinions as you posted may well reflect the current collegiate landscape (especially in the football point of view), but IMO they are reflections of how far wrong the system has gone and only further deepens my opinion that things need set right.
May 31st, 2010 - 17:47
Great Post! From a former University of Alabama linebacker!
May 29th, 2010 - 15:33
Another point is this. Bama is six over the limit as of right now. On NSD, they were ten over the limit. They’ve already had normal attrition of four guys. Now is when the Sabanattrition starts. I think he has until the end of June to get the number to 85. That means in the next month alone….six have to go or be greyshirted (which means they should have less for next year).
Most schools overmsign to a degree. They do it, though, through normal attrition levels. It’s the double digit attrition per year that makes the Bama situation special. Those schools may not be at 91 at this very moment. They may have just been at that level on NSD. On NSD, Bama was at 10 over the limit…not six.
May 29th, 2010 - 16:10
Yes Brad, we know that. And he has until the start of fall practice, or August 1 to get to 85.
May 29th, 2010 - 23:29
Actually Bama according to this site if numbers are right has 5 to go since D Menzie got hurt and looks to get a medical reshirt for next year. Now I know the REC probably did that to him so he could save a year of eligibility.LOL But with him out only 5 more.
May 30th, 2010 - 09:36
Wrong. The only way Menzie doesn’t count is if he takes a non-counter waiver, which means his playing career is over and he will never see the field again. I believe that Menzie is only taking the 1 year medial waiver.
According to By-Law 14.2.4:
Medical hardship waivers allow student-athletes to be granted an additional year of competition if they suffer an incapacitating injury or illness (as certified by our team doctors) under the following criteria:
Injury occurs during one of their four seasons of collegiate competition or subsequent to their first day of class as a senior in high school;
Injury occurs prior to the completion of the first half of their championship season; and
Student-athlete has not participated in more than two contests/ dates of competition or 20% of their scheduled or completed season, whichever is greater.
According to By-Law 15.5.1.3:
Approved medical non-counter waivers allow a scholarship student-athlete who becomes injured/ill to the point that they will never again participate in college athletics to receive their athletic scholarship without the scholarship counting toward the team’s scholarship limit.
May 30th, 2010 - 16:14
I am not sure but I do believe that UA had at least one on medical hardship nursing an injury from HS and I do not believe it counted against the 85. But the lines for these rules are very blurred when applying them. The player did play this spring and will see the field in the fall. So off of that I was assuming the same will be said about D Menzie if it happened to the other player. Again not for sure on thisbut though I read it last year when a reporter was following UA trying to get under 85.
It also looks to be maybe 2 players who are part of the incoming class might end up not qualifying. Nothing concrete but one was a possibility from the start and the other has to retake the ACT. So there might be 2 of the players.
May 30th, 2010 - 08:12
I know it is easy to be a critic and I loved the information in the first half of this article but the second half was forced. You should have simply given teams in the readers response, given what info you had and asked for feedback. Commenting on the Ohio State and Alabama situation once again lessens your message because everyone knows you are an Ohio State fan that happens to live in Alabama. If you ever want this website to be taken seriously on this issue you can’t have a bias. Everyone who has been to this site knows that Alabama is currently over the limit.
May 30th, 2010 - 09:08
Which article are you talking about because I don’t think I even mentioned Ohio State in this one?
May 30th, 2010 - 11:16
They are listed on the “Not on the Clock” part while Alabama has its own section. I’m sure your Alabama friends noticed it right away and I think it just lessens the message.
This is just my opinion and I look forward to hearing the results from the other schools.
Love the site.
May 30th, 2010 - 11:32
Ah…I didn’t even realize that to be honest…I did put Alabama in its own table so that we can see how they stack up against the two groups of teams, but I wasn’t really looking to drive home a comparison of Alabama to Ohio State. Point taken though
May 30th, 2010 - 12:12
In fairness, if teams like OSU do things more right than wrong than why shouldn’t they be held right up against those schools that do things more wrong than right in order to further prove success can be achieved without engaging in activities that are potentially detrimental to student athletes.
May 30th, 2010 - 12:31
An argument many SEC fans use to explain the numbers is that many players don’t qualify academically. Our position on this is that if that is truly why schools are oversigning, then what they are doing is nothing more than subsidizing poor academic performance. Why should any SCHOOL be allowed to take more players simply because they can’t find enough academically qualified players in their region and yet be allowed to compete for the same championships and bowl games. It’s kind of like letting joe blow golfer go out there and compete with Tiger Woods and telling him, “hey take as many strokes as you need, we’ll only count the ones that actually hit the green or the fairway.” When talking about recruiting, which is the lifeblood of college football, this is exactly what we have with oversigning. We have a collection of schools that go out and count every stroke and then we have a collection of schools that just go out there shank balls all over the course and only count the ones they want to count.
So as to your point, yes, schools that oversign should be held accountable and should be forced to sign normal numbers.
May 30th, 2010 - 16:43
But yet these schools do find enough to fill their roster. The ones that do not qualify actually they do not take. Those players end up at JUCO or a prep school. You are actually helping the arguement there. The players that do not qualify will never compete for those championships so there is no advantage there. Just because OSU or Notre Dame doesn’t concern themselves with players that have slipped through the system, why should schools that help find these players another opportunity to play after HS be criticized. Maybe CFB should become just like soccer where if you do not have money and are not a part of the elite you have no chance to be recruited. A little elitism there on your part or atleast that is how it is coming across. Sorry not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth and it is not their fault that school systems passed them through but yet when they go and take the ACT they can not pass it.
You talk about myself or others that do not differeniate from oversigning and scholarship limits but in that statement you do not either. Oversigning is offering more players than you have room for, taking would imply actually giving all those out and taken those players into the class. Players that do not qualify do not receive a scholarship and hence do not get taken by the school.
Every school you have criticized on this site or should I say made an example of for oversigning still only took players that qualified. Just like any other school in the country. They only won with those players not non-qualifiers. The arguement by SEC fans is that schools oversign because they know those players will never get in. Players that a school like Notre Dame would never consider recruiting so players they have a chance at but decide not to go after. Your arguement will be that they are locking players down that might go elsewhere, but you assuming 2 things there. One that if these schools were forced to only sign what you call is in their recruiting budget allowance they would still go after these high risk student athletes that might not qualify. I will argue with you all day long they would be more cautious and those players would not be recruited. I have read your opinion on education in the south on the Ozone, but there are more than enough in the region that would qualify. Two your are also assuming that the SEC does can not find enough players that are qualified but yet if they did not how do they get into school and through the clearinghouse requiremnts.
Again please understand the SEC arguement by some fans is they offer more than availible because some players will not qualify. Players that will most likely never be a part of the equation. Also understand to receive a scholarship a player must qualify. No offense but your statement infers that the SEC is accepting non-qualifiers onto the team and are gaining an advantage by it. They might not qualify at Notre Dame to get in, but as long as they qualify per the NCAA there is nothing wrong in that.
One interesting note because I know you think that SEC schools put football before education. UA just set a NCAA CFB record for having 22 players on the roster during the BCSNCG that had already received their degrees.
May 30th, 2010 - 11:11
Someone stated above that they see nothing wrong with not renewing scholarships as long as it is explained to the student beforehand and wanted an argument against the practice. Let’s look at two hypothetical situations:
Two students from Smalltown High get accepted to “State U” on scholarships.
The first maxed out all the standardized tests and got an academic scholarship in his chosen major. At the end of the first year he achieves a 3.0 GPA. Since the scholarship depends on him achieving a 3.2 GPA his scholarship is taken away. He returns to Smalltown and starts his new career bagging groceries.
The second is a blue chip football player and he got an athletic scholarship to play football. At the end of the first year he achieves a 3.0 GPA but it is obvious from the first snap during two-a-days that another recruit at his position will be the starter. Since his scholarship depends on his football skill his scholarship is taken away. He returns to Smalltown and starts his new career bagging groceries.
Two similar situations. Same ending. We all accept students losing an academic scholarship if don’t make the grade. Why can’t we use the same standard for college athletics?
The reason I would argue is the situations are a bit different. A university’s main purpose is to educate not to play football. The two people in my example are performing better than the average student but only one was given a scholarship to excel in academics. The other student is on a football scholarship and it is almost impossible to come up with a consistently fair way to judge football skill like a GPA does for academic performance. That means to keep an athletic scholarship you need to keep the coach happy and that is akin to being a job and not a student.
I realize that these students spend a lot more time in the weight room than in the classroom and that college football lost its status as a pure amateur endeavor a long time ago. However, “cutting” players because they aren’t playing as well as originally expected is another step towards professionalism that I’d prefer college football not take. I’d prefer to hold on as long as possible to the ideal that these are educational institutions that happen to have a football team and not the other way around.
I realize that this is a mostly emotional argument and will be unlikely to change the mind of any that currently feel the practice is OK. That is why I agree with the owner of this site that the NCAA should require every school to declare a recruiting budget on signing day that can’t exceed 85. This would at least create an equal playing field and limit the practice.
May 30th, 2010 - 11:17
+1 Great post. I think the biggest thing that detractors to this site fail to realize is the mission and purpose for Universities is to educate, not to run professional football teams so that fans can have bragging rights.
May 30th, 2010 - 21:30
It seems that many people also don’t realize that without the money generated by football in many of these schools, other sports would suffer. In many schools football pays for all other sports. Take away that money and you either have to eliminate the other sports or you have to take money from somewhere else to pay for it. Call it a necessary evil if you will but it’s a fact.
June 3rd, 2010 - 17:57
Actually Steve, not very many schools make enough money to fund their athletic programs from football revenue alone. In fact, I believe the last article I read about it, a few years ago I will admit, put the number of schools able to do that at under ten.
May 30th, 2010 - 21:53
You are actually contradicting yourself here. Here you post that schools should be about educating the students, but yet in another post you criticize schools that allowed players to retain their free education when they went on a medical scholarship or when players no longer were on the team but yet were able to graduate. A few of these players at UA had not seen the field but still were left on the team to get their degree.
So I am confused here should the team find every way they can to allow these players to stay in the school and graduate or not. If it is the responsibility of the university to educate than why have issues regarding things such as medical scholarships?
May 30th, 2010 - 18:06
If you really want to gain some credibility, stop hiding behind a website and anonymous posts. Your whois is hidden as are the names of those running the site and posting that attacks. You could be Phillip Fulmer or Gene Chizik for all we know.
The way you act as if you have an axe to grind with Alabama, I wouldn’t be surprised if you had both on staff.
May 30th, 2010 - 20:40
I think another poster handled this question pretty well. This site’s credibility depends on the accuracy of the numbers and the facts involved in oversigning. Mickey Mouse could be the owner of this site with Donald Duck and Daffy as writers as long as the data is accurate. Here’s the deal, and it’s real simple to understand. Oversigning is real and it is practiced the most in the SEC, and that is not speculation or conjecture. Hell, Huston Nutt even admitted to doing it on purpose. The real argument is how much it is hurting the kids and what kind of competitive advantage does it provide. We believe there is enough of both going on to warrant change. We are not alone in this – just look around on the Internet, people are talking about it now more than ever.
Oversigning is a loophole that needs to be closed and we will continue this website until it is closed. It is unnecessary – there are many, many schools that are not doing it and they are able to remain competitive – the Big 10 is living proof that college football can exist without oversigning. Sometimes I get the impression from some of you that college football would shrivel up and die without oversigning.
May 30th, 2010 - 21:45
I agree that CFB would not self destruct without it, but I think some arguements have no merit here. If the issue is oversigning creates an advantage to teams that do it via stockpiling talent than oversigning kids that might not qualify will have no effect on that issue. If they do not qualify than no talent is retained from it. I do believe in the past the practice has been utilized to help give some kids the feeling they do belong even though they might not get into college. But it also allowed college coaches to help get these kids another opportunity to play FB after HS and help the JUCOs land players. I have no issue with that what so ever. The main concerns I see are when coaches go overboard like H Nutt did, even though his premise was to help get kids into JUCO and help out the JUCOs with getting players he was gaining an a small advantage by building future relationships in MS where JUCO CFB is very strong. And there is a small advantage if later this player becomes qualified and can join the team but they still count against the incoming class when they do arrive. One or two maybe but 10+ in one class is excessive. That many to place and sign if they all come back to Ole Miss is like having a JV team training and playing for 2 years and then replacing the varsity team when they move on.
The real concern that with the practice without bias are whether the coaches are abusing it to retool rosters that are currently not working. Now at this point it is only speculation that anything malicious has been done. Anything out there can be interpreted however you want, but when a site points the finger at one school or coach every chance they get with accusations they can not prove, it is another issue. Yes as your numbers have stated CNS and UA have oversigned. There is no arguement from me on that. But the implications based on your opinion on how roster turnover has occured is what has upset fans. Many times you have taken the liberty to accuse Saban and UA of wrong doing when you have no proof other than a player left the program. No one knows what was said in his office. Does that mean UA is clean concerning this who knows because we do not. If your site is dedicated to closing this loophole so that no malicious behavior will transpire among CFB players I have no issue and I hope it is something the NCAA will look at it and I think they probably are. If you want to use it to promote an anti-Saban/UA campaign all you will get is more upset fans instaed of people that might bring more to the table discussing it.
In regards to the Big-10 they have found success from their practices and even if they started to oversign to retool rosters that did not work, there is no assurance it would benefit them. It is all a gamble in the end. And again there is no specualtion or conjecture that the SEC uses it more than anyone else but there is alot of speculation on this site how those numbers get down to 85, especially when use an email from a rival fan of UA as a source to gain credibility for your site. Yes we know players have graduated early with eligibilty left and that players have transferred, but the reason for those players no longer on the team no who knows why, not even you. Yes I am not naive and understand these players were done seeing the field probably at UA, and that Saban told them they get to practice but that would be it. Oh well life is hard and they choose not to stick it out.
All people are asking that if you want this site to be taken serious by all fans including UA fans, and maybe you do not fans from the SEC behind you, but if you do do not show bias. But if you think showing communists soldiers marching and relating that to UA and their numbers crunch, but yet when talking about other schools you show only their logos is not being bias you are the one being naive here.
All we ask is keep the site unbiased and save your dislike for Saban/UA/SEC for the Ozone. Again a legit topic but your approach has brought all the negative attacks on to yourself.
May 30th, 2010 - 22:52
Small advantage???? Houston Nutt was trying to create a farm league for Ole Miss.
With regards to how the numbers get down to 85, our table shows the exact reason why a player was released from his scholarship. Do we have an opinion on it, sure, but it doesn’t diminish the fact that A.) the players were released, and B.) the undeniable truth of the situation is that Nick Saban overbooked the roster and no matter what only 85 people are getting on the plane when it leaves. 10 people have to go. If everyone in the country was doing it and we elected to just single out Nick Saban because we don’t like him, then yes, I could see where someone could call us out for singling out Nick Saban. However, regardless of what you want to believe and what you think you know about our personal opinions, we are not the one singling out Nick Saban. He is singling himself out by being the number one offender of oversigning in the country. And that is a fact, not something we are pulling out of thin air or making up because we have a personal agenda, which we don’t.
May 31st, 2010 - 10:56
Josh, I don’t think you can ever really escape your background. It doesn’t mean the issue has no merit, but it simply is relevant (in my opinion) that you as owner and author have the background that you have. If a criminal is arrested for a felonious act, the prosecutor will use the fact that he has a prior record if the judge will allow that fact into evidence and the defense attorney can’t exclude that evidence. It doesn’t mean the jury will weigh prior acts as they consider current charges, but it is generally used to show patterns of behavior.
Let your readers decide what is relevant and what isn’t. You don’t have the “shield” of a newspaper or magazine editor, and you don’t have the credentials necessary to establish that you have no bias. Let the readers understand where you “come from” and where you are, and if they determine your case is inviolate regardless, then there it is. Case closed. Until then, we seem to have something of a standoff, and in my opinion you can’t just make it disappear by saying “these are facts and my rooting interests and background have no bearing on what I say”.
May 31st, 2010 - 11:48
You are getting more desperate by the post brother. What background? The one you have created by bits and pieces that you have gathered on a message board? You have run around to every message board and every website in the country, basically shouting from the highest mountain top, that this site is bias, run by a jealous Ohio State fan that hates Alabama, and should not be taken seriously. All things that are YOUR opinion. Yet, our traffic has never been higher and more people are talking about oversigning than ever before. You need to get this through your head, no one cares about who the owner of this site is except for fans of teams that are guilty of oversigning and who are looking for anything they can to discredit the criticism of the practice of oversigning.
I thought I already dealt with you on this topic. Remember, you were the one sending threatening emails and calling me a worthless, cowardly POS.
I am bias and this site is bias…bias against the practice of oversigning, period.
May 31st, 2010 - 13:11
Again, if you have no bias and you don’t care what people think, then simply provide some biographical and current living status information.
If an Auburn fan decides he wants to write an expose on Bear Bryant, it is going to be highly relevant to his readers that he is an Auburn fan, no matter how well he does with his dissemination of “facts”, wouldn’t you say? Not divulging his background and affiliation is an error of omission.
Big Ten fans regularly bash ESPN for their supposed favorable bias toward the SEC. They point to the deal between the two that was done last year. The fact that deal exists is relevant to Big Ten fans and every time the “Worldwide Leader” mentions the SEC they view them as a shill. Don’t you think ESPN might take exception to that too?
May 31st, 2010 - 13:52
Listen to this clip – move forward to the 15:15 mark.
http://rivalsradio.rivals.com/radiostream.asp?SID=1135&TYPE=WM&cl_key=5496
Again, no one frigging cares but you and people like you that want to dismiss this site as a bias attack on the SEC or Alabama and Nick Saban, which it is not.
May 31st, 2010 - 14:11
If “no one freaking cares” then it should be no skin off your nose to state freely what your background is. Not just where you went to school, but where you live now and who is a part of your extended family. If there is no bias there, then all you will have to do is tune out a few more fringe-dwelling nuts, and you seem to be quite capable. Full disclosure, my man. Full disclosure.
If you’re writing a piece on the death penalty it might be noteworthy if you had two family members that had been murdered. Doesn’t mean your writing on the subject doesn’t have merit, it just means there was a reason you found your way to the subject matter.
May 31st, 2010 - 16:24
Why would the owner post any type of personal information if he is receiving threats?
If someone gets so worked up over this site that they feel a need to send threatening e-mails it’s time for serious psychological help.
May 31st, 2010 - 16:58
Blood and Steel you must be one heckuva sleuth, buddy. All I am asking is for Josh to tell his readers who he’s a fan or graduate of (not post a link to a radio show that requires us to spend 5 minutes doing what he could just tell us). Then tell us if he just happens to live in the heart of Crimson Tide country with an extended family that happens to be Bama fans. But you’re certainly welcome to be as much of a silly alarmist as you care to be.
June 2nd, 2010 - 07:38
Case and point…
“So, all this guy did was post rants on the O-Zone about Saban, how much Bama “cheats”, how impossible it is to live in Tide Country, and so on. Somebody on the forum, and it wasn’t him, started talking about the fact that Saban pushes the 25/85 rule to the limit by oversigning players. Well this was like the first hit on a crack pipe to an addict. This guy jumped on that topic like he was a rabid dog, and refused to let go.
Finally, it got so bad that the other forum participants said even they were sick of reading his rants on the topic and suggested he go start a website.
Thankfully, this guy’s mission appears to be twofold: first to “expose” the fact that Bama is exploiting its scholarship athletes by engaging in this practice and second to make an absolute *** out of himself. Fortunately he does a far better job of the latter.
His site has been mentioned at least once on Rivals radio, because I heard it myself. I don’t think a jackass like this guy can be allowed to spread the lies and misinformation he spreads at least not with impunity.
Quite a number of good Bama fans have gone to this guy’s site and taken him to task. Some do a better job of debating than others. The guy is a sanctimonious jerk and not very bright. A few smart Bama fans who can write and debate well could crush this fool. I encourage you all to band together and make this guy’s life as unpleasant as possible.”
Last edited 5/23/2010 5:03 PM by DeepSthBoy
Not that it really matters, but only about 1/3 of what he said is actually true, the rest is inaccurate.
June 2nd, 2010 - 08:29
Trust me on this, if the Big Ten, specifically, tOSU were doing this, deepsthboy would start HIS on website on oversigning. He is more obsessed with Ohio State than his own team and his been booted from Bleacher report (where he was known as Lei Roi Jordan) for trolling. I have never seen anything like it.
May 31st, 2010 - 06:56
Oh, so now Alabama oversigns as an act offering opportunities for students? Please realize that you are dealing with a fanbase that has a corrupt, illegitmate tradition. The term “Bama Math” use to apply to their phony national championships. Now, we can apply to their recruiting budget also.
Once again, LOL at Bama rationalization!
May 31st, 2010 - 12:12
If this is directed at me I said the practice not UA. See the problem with this site is not just UA people that are upset but fans such as yourself that continue to come on here that do not like UA and bash them. You conitnue to stir the pot. If anything I will give some credit to the owner because when he started this site everything pointed towards UA, atleast now, unless he is debating with someone regarding a post, he does not use as much bias as he once did.
I will conitnue to debate with him until he kicks me off the site. I know I will never change his mind because many more posters have posted that disagree with him than agree with him and he still supports and becomes defensive no matter what is said when argueing his side. He has that right, but he does allow others to argue their point so I give him credit. If your post brings somethng to the table other than a personal attack I see no issue with it. But this above post is just a bad as some of the people who bash the owner, no different.
May 31st, 2010 - 13:51
The players at Alabama are getting their degrees, so clearly they are not being taken advantage of, and that is not the issue at case. The issue apparently is that some some schools would rather whine than do what it takes to see that the players they sign receive their degree. Oversigning is not an advantage, it’s just that some schools are too cheap to do what is right and see that their players receive an education. If you think that oversigning is an advantage, do it yourself, just take care of the players and make sure they get their degrees, which Alabama does.
May 31st, 2010 - 15:40
No, they don’t all graduate. Alabama does not have a 100% graduation rate, no one does, it’s more like around 55%.
May 31st, 2010 - 16:54
Alabama has graduated 22 players from the 2009 team, which is the highest number of any BCS national champion team, Josh. Eleven walked this month and the rest had already received their diplomas in December or earlier. Alabama’s APR score of 955 is in the 80th percentile and ranked among the highest in the country. Of course we know that Ohio State’s basketball team has been penalized in the past for sub-standard APRs. We also know that Ohio State has struggled mightily in the past with its football team’s APR scores. Natinoal articles condemning the poor job Jim Tressel did with his team’s academic efforts embarrassed the program greatly:
http://www.cbssports.com/general/story/8239321
The last time the NCAA published GSRs (graduation success rates), Alabama’s percentage of graduates on their football team was higher than Ohio State’s:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/academics+and+athletes/education+and+research/academic+reform/gsr/2009/841gfw951_2009_d1_school_gsr_data.html
This isn’t the best arena for you to bash Bama, and your 55% isn’t even close. Feel free to post the link where you got that if you believe it’s accurate.
I honestly don’t think you want to head down this path. Stick to oversigning.
May 31st, 2010 - 17:41
You continue to try and make this a pissing contest between Ohio State and Alabama…it’s getting tiresome. If you continue, we’ll just start blocking your comments again. All I was saying is that the original poster was wrong in his assertion that Alabama is graduating all of their players – no one is doing that.
Here is the link to the 55% graduation rate.
http://stanford.scout.com/2/827873.html
As for your comments about graduation rates, you might want to look at this.
http://www.tidesport.org/Grad%20Rates/2009-10%20Bowl_APR_GSR_Study.pdf
Lastly, as to our personal information, you are out of your mind if you think we’re going to give out our personal address, family member names, etc., etc. We have no obligation to do so and with lunatic fringe fans, such as yourself, we would be complete idiots to post that information on the Internet.
May 31st, 2010 - 17:48
And for the record, APR and FGR are a complete joke. The number one flaw is that when a players transfers he becomes the responsibility of school he transfers to and the school he transferred from is released from any obligation to see to it that he graduates. But I digress, this is a separate can of worms.
June 6th, 2010 - 02:39
If APR is a complete joke, as you say, then why did you use it as a valid measurement?
You attacking the messenger doesn’t make the message any more true or false, it just reflects very, very poorly on you.
June 16th, 2010 - 18:38
when you have 164 on scholarship compared to 85 for the rest of the nation graduating 22 players is pretty simple.
May 31st, 2010 - 17:11
BTW the reason people qeustion your credibility is because you do not always use the facts. UA is at 67% graduating its FB player which OSU is at 62%. Read it yourself if you doubt me.
http://stanford.scout.com/2/952555.html
May 31st, 2010 - 17:45
First of all, I never said it was EXACTLY 55%, I said somewhere around 55%. I was 7% off, sorry. In my defense, I was looking at 2009 figures, which I posted above, again, sorry. Lastly, the whole point was that I was refuting the original posters claim that Alabama is graduating EVERYONE…I think we have all proved that is not the case.
You and Deepsthboy need to take a chill pill and relax. You’re gaining quite a reputation around here.
May 31st, 2010 - 17:57
I was not supporting that they did just pointing out the rate was higher. Still not up there with Vanderbilt or Notre Dame.
May 31st, 2010 - 18:04
Anyone below 75% graduation rate has serious problems and should be put on probation. The goal is for the students to receive a quality education!
May 31st, 2010 - 18:10
That would mean that only 13 schools from the BCS conferences would not be on probation and no school from the Big 12 is above 75%. If that was the case I guess oversigning would not be an issue because there would no one left to play. These are the 13 schools from the BCS big 6 conferences that are above 75% for graduation of their football players.
Stanford 89%
Northwestern 92%
Penn St. 85%
Vanderbilt 91%
Duke 96%
Boston College 91%
Wake Forest 81%
North Carolina 80%
Miami 75%
Connecticut 82%
Rutgers 81%
Syracuse 77%
Cincinnati 75%
Atleast it eliminates oversigning. Also atleast one of my alma maters made the list.
May 31st, 2010 - 18:12
And that is the real point! Most schools should get their house in order!!! This is a farce…and I have a legitimate interest…as I was one of these Student-Athletes who sees a flawed system….
May 31st, 2010 - 19:21
Mario,
I noticed you posted in an earlier thread on another post that you played at football on scholarship. You wouldn’t happen to be this Mario Morris, would you?
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mario-morris/4/42b/50
The only reason I ask is because if you are truly a former player I think everyone here on this site would love to get more input from you. Any commentary you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for visiting the site!
May 31st, 2010 - 19:43
Yes, I am Mario Morris, former linebacker at the University of Alabama…I will try to provide as much commentary as I can. I appreciate the site and the informed discussion.
May 31st, 2010 - 21:13
@Mario
Awesome, thanks for reading the site and taking the time to comment. Look forward to your insight. As you can tell, this is a hot button topic and things tend to get a little heated when talking about topics like oversigning or pointing the finger at a certain coach or school.
Our sincere goal here is to discuss the topic of oversigning, bring it to light, and hopefully lead the charge to some sort of rules change that eliminates the practice. As we have mentioned in the past, if we wanted to spend all of our free time arguing back and forth about which school is better, etc., we would have stayed on message boards and argued with all the knuckleheads out there. We created this site to hopefully lead to change and to eliminate oversigning from college athletics.
Thanks again for reading!
May 31st, 2010 - 23:15
@Joshua
No problem. I enjoy these topics. I am actually in the process of earning my PhD in Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis and I hope that some of my research will be used to correct some of the imbalances that have crept into collegiate athletics…and you have identified a growing problem that needs to be addressed. Keep up the good work!
May 31st, 2010 - 23:54
It sounds to me like you have an amazing story to share with a very unique perspective. It’s not everyday you hear from a former college football player that played on a national championship team who is now working on a PhD in Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis. Even more interesting, you played at Alabama and now you are attending the University of Wisconsin. Sounds like a fascinating life. Best of luck with the PhD!
June 1st, 2010 - 14:55
Thank you for the comments. It has been an interesting ride! “Get Busy Living or Get Busy Dying” – Shawshank Redemption…
May 31st, 2010 - 18:19
I agree with you here. But I also have issues with players that go to programs that allow students to be subpar in the classroom along as they are contributing on the field, but the moment they get hurt and no longer on the team their subpar classwork is now a concern and they lose their scholarship. The main reason for struggling in the classroom was the amount of time required for that sport, but yet now the school does not care and the player ends up without playing FB and an education.
June 1st, 2010 - 13:21
One other point, I just try to make sense of the site. I see things posted that I disagree with or think are wrong. For example in an earlier article called attrition that is on this site you have a list of players that during Saban’s time at UA are no longer with the team. Besides some of the info that is wrong regarding the numbers because they do need to be updated, it is the statements you make that concern me when I call it being biased.
The fact is out of the 23 players on that list Saban only recruited 8 of them. Including the two that went to MLB. So out of the other 6 players that Saban recruited one is back on the team Lewis and Dial is looking to come back with next years class. So Saban missed on 4 guys because of grades, but yet you blame him for everyone of those recruits and comment on how he missed them all.
“2. How did Nick Saban miss on all these guys – he is regarded as one of the best recruiters in the country? Or, is it that Saban just runs through more players and the cream rises to the top? ”
Your quote not mine from your article. See again I have no issue with the concern of oversigning but it is when you like to take shots at UA and Saban that have no merit except an opportunity for you to do so. That is a direct shot at Saban that is false.
Has UA oversigned yes. Has Saban while at UA oversigned yes. Have players left while at UA under Saban yes. Were the majority of these players recruited by Saban no. Has Saban via the oversigning loophole help to fill the roster or maintain 85 max on the roster while removing players that had off the field and in the classroom issues, yes. He was able to work within the shaded areas of the rules and keep the roster filled. Where we disagree is if oversigning was not allowed these players would still be gone. You seem to imply he would have kept them if the space allowed and whether you like Saban or not he does discipline his team and will not tolerate the behavior of those former players even if it meant having less than 85 on the team. But your site seems to follow the thinking it would be wrong to boot them from the team because of promised education and playing opportunity at UA.
No school should have to honor anything if a player can not meet what is required of them off the field as the same with any regualr student. It is also hard to follow your logic on this site at times. One minute you question players receiving their education via a medical scholarship but next you state it is the university’s job to educate. So when they find a way for those players to stay and get that you argue it is wrong. I realize your main reason is you want them to be counters towards the 85 but atleast they are getting what was promised.
I will also agrue that signing potential non-qualifiers gains no advantage. If they do not sign they can not replace anyone and so they do not force open roster spots.
If Saban is guilty of anything it is cleaning house of players that either did not belong at the school because of issues off the field or players that he told had a better option of seeing the field if they went elsewhere. All the players in question that this site and so many others like to imply Saban brought them in and lied to them, he did not, and I would bet that these are players Saban would not recruit if he was there during their full recruitment. See Saban does recruit the creme of the crop on and off the field. The same players that Notre Dame, or any other top Big-10 schools are, and he will gamble with one or two.
All oversigning did for Saban was allow him to keep 85 on the roster after removing players with issues from it. He still would have done the same except if he could not oversign UA just would have 77 to 80 a year instead of 85. The players that won the NC last year would have been among those 77 to 80 players still so no advantage there. Now if in 2 years when all the recruits that are coming through UA and selected by Saban are starting to leave and we see mass attrition that we do now then people like yourself can make accusations that Saban runs players off and lies to them, but until then at worse he is just cleaning house of old personal that should have not ever been at UA.
May 31st, 2010 - 18:27
@SoccerMike…I am with you there as well! Good thread fellas…
May 31st, 2010 - 20:49
Mario, first of of all I remember you on the ’93 team. I think you were #58? I remember because that was DT’s number in the pros, and I thought you played a lot like him at Bama. Second, I posted above that Bama graduated 22 players from this past year’s national champion team, which is an all-time record for BCS champions (not sure how far back the records go). A lot for Bama, the players, and the parents of those players to be proud of.
I have worked quite a bit over the years with Randy Scott, also a former LB with the Tide, that graduated back in 1980 and played for a while with the Packers. Randy still gets over to Tuscaloosa as much as he can and is a member here in Atlanta of the Touchdown Club. He is definitely wired in to a decent degree with what’s going on in T-Town, and I would imagine you are too. I will be quite interested to see what you have to say.
June 1st, 2010 - 00:38
@deepsthboy
Thanks for the post. I try to keep up with the Tide. I actually went out to Pasadena for the NC game (Awesome!). If we graduate 22/25-28 every year, I will be a happy camper. I think Saban gets it. The academic records Bama set recently are tremendous (We just have to continue to produce these results). I want to make sure colleges don’t push players out. Players are going to leave because, lets face it, it is ultra competitive and you are fighting for a job everyday and some can’t handle it. I think we need good data on why players transfer, have their scholarships revoked or not renewed or don’t sign at all. Maybe a mandatory exit interview to collect the data. Meaning if you want to transfer, before you can play for another university, the interview must be completed…I think its something we can take a look at…
June 1st, 2010 - 03:55
Update
Texas A&M is down to 89 players after kicking a player off the team…
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/sports/local/a_m_football_player_transfers_to_lu_after_arrest.html
June 3rd, 2010 - 16:36
Regarding Texas A&M:
2006: 23 signed, 8 remaining for 2010
2007: 19 signed, 10 remaining
2008: 23 signed, 19 remaining
2009: 28 signed, 27 remaining
2010: 24 signed, 22 will receive scholarships in the Fall (1 will grayshirt while recovering from injury, 1 will most likely go to JUCO)
TOTAL: 86
As noted above, Adren Dorsey is transferring to Lamar, which leaves 85.
June 3rd, 2010 - 23:03
Thanks, Travis, but we need a little bit more info before we can take aTm off the clock. As with Washington, we need to have the 2009 scholarship roster and then the number of guys graduating that have exhausted their eligibility and the number of guys that declared for the NFL draft by the January 15th deadline. Once we have those numbers we can compare them to the number of players signed this year and we’ll know where aTm stands.
It certainly doesn’t look like they have 5 players to cut between now and August as alleged by the Alabama that posted the numbers above.
June 4th, 2010 - 23:11
Here’s more info and updated numbers (I missed a scholarship from a transfer in, and the kicker appears to have earned a scholarship).
From the official 2009 roster I counted 77 scholarship players. I cross-checked this with ESPN’s recruiting class history, the projected 2010 Depth Chart below, and information on TexAgs.com.
A&M lost 11 players due to eligibility. There were no players lost to declaring for the NFL Draft. [Total 66]
It appears that from roster being released and NSD, A&M lost 1 player (Chris Lathrop). There is speculation that it is due to injury, but I cannot find anything to confirm this. He does not appear in the class breakdown on TexAgs.com or on the 2010 Depth Chart. [Total 65]
They then signed a class of 23 on NSD, with an additional commitment coming later. Two of the 24 will not receive scholarships this coming fall. [Total 87 - Oversigned by 2]
A. Dorsey transferred to Lamar. [Total 86]
Official 2009 Roster
http://www.aggieathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/tam-m-footbl-mtt.html
SpreadsheetAg’s projected 2010 Depth Chart
http://spreadsheetag.blogspot.com/2010/03/after-reading-all-updates-i-could.html
June 4th, 2010 - 23:20
Awesome, awesome work Travis. I think we can scratch aTm from the list or at least the claim that they had 90 and needed to cut 5. They are over by one though and it will be interesting to see how that pans out. I’ll post something shortly on this. Thanks again for the great work.
June 7th, 2010 - 08:32
By definition, the 25/85 Scholarship Rule institutionalizes and encourages over signing. 25 x 4 classes= 100 scholarships + a class full of Red Shirts = 125. So why 85?
I have heard (or read) it argued that the 85 limit rather than 100 or 125 presumes normal attrition due to injuries, academics, etc… but how did they come up with 85? Four classes full of 25 recruits divided by 4 classes equals 6.25 players per class or 1/4 of each class which becomes 8 players per class or 32%. So how does a team lose 1/4 of a player due to attrition? Why 6.25 which in reality is 8 players per class?
Emphasis on Recruiting Rankings only serves to encourage more over signing. You don’t have to visit many Team Fan Sites to come to the conclusion that how one’s team fares in the World of Recruiting Rankings has been elevated to nearly as important as how many games one’s team wins and loses. Recruiting Rankings are of such elevated importance that they even serve as a palatable “yea, but” substitute for wins among many a fan base.
This emphasis on Recruiting Rankings that encourages over signing has become so systematic that at many schools such as my Alma Mater, Oklahoma State, annual bonuses are based on Team Recruiting Rankings with the major services. The problem lie’s in how these services calculate their rankings. Quantity counts. If a coaching staff wishes to enhance its Recruiting Rankings to reap personal financial reward, over signing is the simplest and most logical method… and even worse than that it encourages the signing of highly rated recruits the coaches know won’t qualify… but what if they do? Yet more over signing.
The scholarship limit rules have done a great job at creating parity in FBS Football and preventing the monster programs such as the Nebraska’s and Oklahoma’s of the 60′s and 70′s from stock-piling hundred’s of players many times just to keep them from playing for their competition.
The problem with the rules is that they bureaucratically violate the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) Principle rendering predictable results. The victims are the high school kids that are lied to and deceived, the credibility of the rules themselves, and the credibility of the system.
IMO, in keeping with the KISS Principle and to gain credibility, the NCAA needs to re-write the rules making no presumptions about attrition and eliminate all exceptions to the 25 per year rule. In other words, drop the 85 rule altogether and let the 25 per year rule and natural attrition dictate how many scholarship players any given team has in any given season.
There would need to be limits placed on the total number of Scholarship Transfers a team has and perhaps a limit on the number of Walk On scholarships a team might reward to retain the positive effects of the 25/85 Rule on College Football but the rules as they are now are way too inconsistent, lend little credibility, emphasize the wrong thing (Recruiting Rankings), and victimize the weakest and most vulnerable of all the ingredients… the High School kids that systematically and institutionally get the shaft at their first venture out of the nest.
June 7th, 2010 - 09:26
Awesome, awesome post! I might post this on the main page for discussion.
June 16th, 2010 - 18:52
this is for Nebraska
Blake Lawrence quit the team because of injuries
You may already have this one off of their scholarship total but I thought I would send it anyways
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/concussions-cause-nu-linebacker-to-find-new-line-of-business-1.2224527
Nebraska has also lost
Jon Levorson
Patrick Witt
Major Culbert
Justin Rogers
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/nu-s-culbert-decision-to-leave-mutual-1.1593366