Alabama with Verbal Commitment #22 and #1 Recruiting Class
Alabama picked up verbal commitment #22 last night from Xzavier Dickson and they now have the #1 ranked class according to Rivals.com. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/Alabama-73
That commitment seems to have ushered in the departure of another commitment as one of the 22 is now headed to JUCO. http://alabama.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=&script=content.asp&cid=1173085&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
It cannot be stressed enough how much of an advantage it is for Saban to not have to work withing a projected recruiting budget like he would if he were recruiting in the Big 10 conference. With a senior class of roughly 8-10 players and no more than 4 Juniors jumping to the NFL early, the reasonable recruiting budget for Alabama should be somewhere around 14-15 players, which is what you would expect when a school has such a small senior class. If you go back and look at schools such as Ohio State, you will occasionally see a small class of 15 or so recruits. That is the normal cycle of recruiting when you are not allowed to oversign.
Ohio State signed 16 recruits in 2003, 15 in 2007, and 19 in 2010. See the pattern there; every three or four years you have a small class if you are not oversigning every year.
Alabama on the other hand going back to 2005 has had 32, 23, 25, 32, 27, 29, and is at 22 this year.
Alabama is not done recruiting yet as there are still a few players on their board and national signing day is not here yet. The good news is that at least the SEC will stop them at 28; even though they are already way, way over their projected budget.
Must be nice to just go out and get 25-28 new players every year, despite what you have room for, and never get so much as a phone call from the conference office asking where you are going to put everyone.
Mike Slive and the University Presidents of the SEC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to continue, but to them, maybe this is just a way of life...after all, this has been going on in the SEC since the days of Bobby Dodd and Georgia Tech being an SEC member institution. At least they had the dignity to take a stand and leave.
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
January 6th, 2011 - 10:25
Alabama just offered Ameer Abdullah a couple of days ago to play CB also. Looks like there is no slowing up on the offers until Feb. Then for Alabama it is time for winter, spring ball and then finding out which guys arent going to cut it to get rid of. Endless cycle.
January 6th, 2011 - 10:43
Wrong. Nebraska offered him a couple of days ago (probably why you know about him). Alabama has not and will not offer him.
January 6th, 2011 - 10:51
“It cannot be stressed enough how much of an advantage it is for Saban to not have to work withing a projected recruiting budget like he would if he were recruiting in the Big 10 conference”
The B10 imposes upon itself a restriction, and you call that an advantage for the other schools? You would do well in the US Congress, where it is called a budget cut if spending increases, but just not as much as they wanted. If you are upset about this “advantage” Saban has, you should petition the B10 to change their rules so your school isn’t handicapped by this rule.
January 6th, 2011 - 12:18
“If you are upset about this “advantage” Saban has, you should petition the B10 to change their rules so your school isn’t handicapped by this rule.”
The Big Ten has the rule to protect the student-athletes. If there was no rule, there is little doubt that most coaches would take advantage of it just like Saban and Miles (and others) do. The Big Ten’s restriction fits more with the spirit of the NCAA’s 25/85 limit than what the SEC allows (although the 28 cap is at least an effort).
I don’t fault coaches for taking advantage of loopholes to improve their team’s talent level. I don’t like it on a personal level and think it’s a pretty lousy way to treat kids, but if the coaches/ADs/fans can live with it, and it’s not against the rules, I’m not going to condemn them for doing it.
That said, it should be explicitly against the rules. My biggest problem is with the NCAA and their lack of attention to this practice, which is technically inside the rules, but certainly not in the best interest of the athletes, which is who the NCAA is supposed to be there for.
January 6th, 2011 - 12:22
Most schools don’t oversign because it is highly unethical. The SEC West schools are embarrassing, pathetic institutions widely regarded as academically inferior because of people like you.
January 6th, 2011 - 13:14
Wow, so providing opportunities to more kids (many being from poor, impoverished and educationally challenged areas that struggle to attract teams that can’t gamble on them) is deemed highly unethical by you and others on this site. You can maybe point out one or two kids who get the notice of the WSJ or some biased ESPN article, but there is no widespread epidemic of real mistreatment of students, regardless of how much you claim differently.
Furthermore, I find it hypocrital that a fan of Georgia, the proud 2010 Fulmer Cup Champions (the only championship this team has been in the running for for several years now) is embarrassed by anyone else in the SEC. Get your own team in line and out of handcuffs before you start removing the splinter from the other teams.
January 6th, 2011 - 13:34
“so providing opportunities to more kids”
Lying about what is going on like this just shows that much more how little you care about basic ethics.
If highly unethical behavior wasn’t required to oversign, more schools would do it. Especially far more academically reputable schools than the SEC West. But very few schools do, and they are the usual suspects.
January 6th, 2011 - 14:20
How do you deny that oversigning provides opportunity to more kids? If Alabama signs 25-30 more players over a 4-5 year span than a school like Ohio St, that’s more kids with the chance to play for an elite BCS school, who weren’t required to instead go to some low-rent MAC or Sunbelt team and never have the chance to play in front of 100,000+ fans. You may counter that a handfull of these players end up there anyway when they transfer a couple of years down the road, but as I’ve said over and over again, I’d take the risk of disappointment for the chance of greatness every time. As an added bonus, it seems to be a solid incentive for the players to stay in line, keep their grades up, and not get arrested – as evidenced by Alabama’s decreasing off-field instances and increasing GSR percentages.
January 7th, 2011 - 13:25
“How do you deny that oversigning provides opportunity to more kids?”
You can’t possibly be this stupid and unethical can you?
Kids get cut to make room for others. The net is the same # of opportunities but a much higher level of dishonesty, injustice, etc.
If this was just “more opportunities”, schools with far better academic and ethical reputations than Alabama and SEC West schools would do it.
They don’t.
You are either lying or incredibly stupid.
January 6th, 2011 - 22:43
What kind of smug self-important person makes this sort of an observation? You must not have been very popular growing up, and my guess is you are a loner now. Good gosh.
January 9th, 2011 - 12:08
And what kind of person after being kicked off website after website creates new accounts and then posts the same crap?
January 6th, 2011 - 22:55
U R compoletely FOS, Catch 5, & must be Bammer through & through. Only then would it excuse your selfcenterd ignorance. Apparently u think you’re doing these kids a “favor” when in reality you’re nothing more than a thief robbing them of an opportunity you promised to deliver. How does that feel?
You also know dayum well that Tricky Nicky is lying to recruits & their parents when he says a kid is a “can’t miss”. What’s he said to those who’ve been exited before?
Maybe you’re one of the Bull Elephants that Bear used to cow-tow, too. Does the name RUssell Means mean anything to you? Well, Saban is about on the same plain with is recruiting BS & the practice should be stopped by the NCAA. It’s indefensible. It’s morally corrupt. It’s a dirty, dispeceble, it’s dishonest BS.
Then agin maybe that’s the way you run your own life. Most of the rest of us don’t. Thank, God.
January 7th, 2011 - 10:07
Give one fact to support your accusations. You can’t because you impose your pre-conceived notion of someone you have likely never met into the situation and can’t allow for the possibility that Nick doesn’t lie to recruits. If he does (I’ve never seen any evidence of it) then I would say that he is wrong (again, not an oversigning issue but a character issue).
Instead of personal attacks on people you don’t know, how about you defend your point with a solid explaination of actual events or ideas instead of making up things that you have no evidence of outside of your own personal bias?
January 6th, 2011 - 11:01
“Ohio State signed 16 recruits in 2003, 15 in 2007, and 19 in 2010. See the pattern there; every three or four years you have a small class if you are not oversigning every year.”
Good point, and this is one of the main reasons oversigning is allowed (and probably will continue to be). If a school can greyshirt 4-6 guys in those down years, they don’t have those droughts.
January 6th, 2011 - 12:09
Vesper,
“Really a lot has come in the month of January,” Abdullah said on Wednesday evening. “Alabama came through with an offer, Nebraska – they like me at running back though and USC, that was the biggest school that I [received] an offer from recently.”
No, Nebraska has not offered yet.
“Yeah, actually Tuesday is when coach (Tim) Beck the running backs coach called me and we talked for a little while,” he began. “He said he was on his way, to get on a plane to Birmingham. He came today to my school and I talked to him for a little while. He came to my house [tonight] to talk to my parents. I’m visiting on the 14th and I’m sure they’ll make [the offer] official and everything nice.”
Just sayin’
January 6th, 2011 - 12:32
I love it. A player did not make the entrance requirements and has to go to a JUCO, and you claim it is because of a new recruit commitment. Hmm, did Saban call him up and tell him to fail all his classes so that he cannot get into Bama and has to go to the JUCO?
January 6th, 2011 - 13:35
So this will be the only Alabama commit ushered to JUCO this year, right?
If not, why this commit, and why so early?
January 6th, 2011 - 14:59
I merely said that his recruit, who couldnt make it academically into Bama, has enrolled in a JUCO, and the author of the website makes it sound that the only reason he went the JUCO route is because of a commit yesterday.
January 7th, 2011 - 13:27
I didn’t think you could answer those questions. Thanks.
January 6th, 2011 - 15:00
Likely not, but where’s the harm? Like usual, I see this differently. In my eyes, being able to offer a scholarship to a player like that offers iniative for the kid to make it at the JUCO level. It lets him know that he is wanted at the next level if he can get his grades in line. If he wasn’t offered any scholarships because no schools could spare the room, he would likely be discouraged and less likely to better himself. That would be the real tragedy would it not?
January 6th, 2011 - 12:35
Just a thought, if the Penn State could sign one more recruit to take the QB who is not being allowed to transfer, then maybe JoePa wouldn’t have to take him hostage. Undersigning is not the better model, it’s just unfair that some conferences don’t get to do it and others do.
January 6th, 2011 - 13:07
JoePants’ failure to let that guy transfer is unethical as well in my opinion. I mean, how do you let a guy lose a game by throwing 5 picks, then get upset when the backup wants to go somewhere where he can play?
January 6th, 2011 - 13:25
Would you, then agree that an ethical coach should let a player that has been on the team for a couple of years but shown little development and been passed by underclassmen know where he stands and offer to help him transfer to a school where he has a better chance of seeing the field?
January 6th, 2011 - 13:39
Not necessarily.
Such players have no future in football. They have a chance to get an education and start a decent career in other fields. An ethical coach would stress to them that if they care about what’s best for their future, they should stay at the superior school instead of transferring to an academically inferior and less professionally connected school.
Unethical coaches and people like you instead pressure these players to transfer to the inferior schools. Because all you care about is yourself.
January 6th, 2011 - 14:54
Lesser prestige of football power does not equal to lesser academics or professional connectivity. What if one of these players is pre-med, and they could get a transfer to UAB? The Blazers suck in football but have one of the best medical schools in the country – they would also be glad to have most transfers from Alabama. Star Jackson’s transfer to Ga State is much discussed on this site, and I don’t know what Jackson’s major is in school, but do you really think that he will get that much worse an education there as opposed to Bama? That’s part of the coach’s job of assisting a player in a transfer if he is to do it right.
I’ll say it again, a transfer is ultimately a decision made by the player, not the coach. Of course when someone is hell-bent on painting someone in a bad light, they can do it regardless of fact or validity.
“Because all you care about is yourself.”
That’s quite a damning accusation you make about me with very little knowledge. How about we keep the discussion to the topic at hand and leave the (unfounded) personal accusations to those with less intellegence?
January 6th, 2011 - 16:08
You assume everyone is pressured and that a coach should be able to decide what’s best for a player that no longer wants to play for him. I think it should be acceptable to force kids to transfer. If Bama does this a bunch, then use it to negatively recruit against them, but Joe Pa is holding this kid hostage because that’s what happen when you ban oversigning. You hold a kid at gunpoint and tell him to play here or kiss his entire athletic career goodbye. That’s some legendary leadership from the Big 10 right there.
January 7th, 2011 - 13:26
“I think it should be acceptable to force kids to transfer.”
Wow.
Good old Alabama. Same as it ever was.
January 7th, 2011 - 14:01
Texas_Dawg – Do you think the SEC is the only conf. who does this?
If so then I have some swamp land for you Mr. Self Righteous!
January 6th, 2011 - 22:45
Once again with the personal shots? And where did you go to school?
January 8th, 2011 - 17:48
No. Its unethical because the offer that is made at the time of contract execution is: I will pay for your college education, not 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc…It is unethical because I have never heard of a coach recruit a kid by saying, I will giver you a 1 year scholarship and if you don’t perform up to my expectations (which are not specified anywhere), You are subject to not having your scholarship renewed.
January 7th, 2011 - 09:24
So, one thing that is never brought up here. So it’s ok for a team to be hamstrung with a player that doesn’t perform for a full scholarship, even though it’s renewed every year. Because it’s ethical.
But it’s ALSO ethical for another kid to cut and run to the pro’s, with the same LOI to the same school?
That reeks of hypocrisy. That the school is required to be more loyal to the kid than the kid is to your school. At least to the minds here.
January 7th, 2011 - 14:05
JasonH – That is a great point! Also many have failed to understand that a scholarship is renewed from year to year.
January 7th, 2011 - 15:31
No hypocrisy. That’s why schools get 85 scholarships, to provide a buffer for kids who don’t work out or for kids who work out so well that they stay 3 years instead of four. I don’t know if 85 is the best number, but it is the number that the vast majority of the schools abide with. Unfortunately, bama (et al) don’t.
January 13th, 2011 - 14:29
85 / 4 != 25 * 4.
It’s a ludicrous number.
January 7th, 2011 - 15:46
What does the LOI have to do with anything when a kid enters the draft? His scholarship is then open, and the school can offer it to another kid. I don’t see how the team is being hurt in that situation.
Meanwhile, this oversigning practice seems to be nothing more than a way to cover up shoddy recruiting. “Oops, you’re not as good as I thought you’d be. Mulligan!” Part of being a coach is dealing with the fact that you make mistakes in recruiting sometimes.
And at the end of the day, this is AMATEUR football, played by STUDENTS. They worked hard at the HS level to earn an athletic scholarship, which, for most of them, is the only way they can go to college. Those who excel are rewarded with starting spots and eventually maybe even NFL jobs. Those who don’t still get a great education and their hard work in HS still pays off.
January 7th, 2011 - 15:53
Well I would call shenanigans on any of those students actually gaining a great education. Even the mighty Big 10 (who apparently is blameless and loved by God around here) has many, MANY players with the equivalent of Underwater Basketweaving degrees. So them getting an education to hedge against not going pro, is a strawman argument at best.
These kids who get recruited, are going to school to get to the pros. Nothing more, nothing less.
LOI as defined by this site is a four-year agreement. But it’s only binding to the student for three. Just saying you can’t have it both ways.
“Part of being a coach is dealing with the fact that you make mistakes in recruiting sometimes.” Part of being a player is understanding that if you’re not as good as advertised, you’re not worth having around.
January 8th, 2011 - 17:37
Many students go to school for the education. Please speak of what you know if you are going to make such a sweeping generalization.
January 11th, 2011 - 08:55
They are far, far in the minority. When they read player’s majors off, very few if any are in any kind of challenging non-business related major.
Most are in some kind of sports therapy. Know of what YOU are talking about.
Maybe it’s different where you are, but the kids that go to school for college, are going so they can make it pro, every once in a blue moon you get a Greg McElroy.
January 12th, 2011 - 11:55
Your argument is illogical. You make the assumption just because SA’s choose or are placed in majors that many would not deem difficult that they are there only to go pro…that is just a stupid leap.
Many choose these majors because they fit the football or basketball schedule easier.
Many choose those majors because they are working a full time job and want less of of a challenge.
Many choose those majors because the academic staff are comfortable dealing with those departments.
Many choose those majors because its easier to keep them eligible in those schools.
most SA’s know that they aren’t going pro by the end of their sophomore year (when many pick a major)…
Thanks for being a fan with an uninformed opinion…
January 13th, 2011 - 14:28
So, then what’s wrong with shuffling those kids off who aren’t going to contribute, and know they’re not going pro to a medical scholly? They’re still getting their education.
And I would say that the reputation of several of those majors (including Geology – which is not called “Rocks for Jocks” without reason) indicate someone who is not going to school to get a meaningful education.
Of course, I’d say the same about someone who got a Art History major too.
January 17th, 2011 - 15:06
Wow. What majors are “legitimate” in your eyes? How do you explain non-athlete Geology majors? Or is it your position that none exist?
What’s wrong with “shuffling” “non-contributors” to a medical scholly? Besides the fact that there’s nothing medically wrong with them, you mean?
Maybe your new question should simply be “What is Wrong?” I’m not sure you have a firm grasp of the concept.
January 18th, 2011 - 10:06
They still get their schooling paid for, which is a complaint of this site. And clearly, they’re not going to see field time, so what is the harm? There IS NO HARM in a medical hardship scholarship.
Legit? Engineering, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Math. Basically the hard sciences.
Business school is a breeze, as is Communications. And let’s not even discuss the value of a Liberal Arts degree.
January 23rd, 2011 - 12:33
Well, thanks for your judgment on college majors. Many of those “hard sciences” are a breeze for certain people. I would argue that a “legit” major is one that opens doors for someone in a profession that they have a passion for.
The “harm” in a medical hardship scholarship for an athlete that has no actual medical hardship is that he and the school are essentially committing fraud.
But, hey, he gets his school paid for and the coach gets to sweep a recruiting error (or coaching failure) under the rug. Everybody wins! Who cares if we have to lie to do it?
Right?
January 8th, 2011 - 17:42
Good Post
January 8th, 2011 - 17:43
Not a very smart statement. Hamstrung….lol
January 7th, 2011 - 17:40
The Big 10 should be embarassed by their showing in bowl games against the SEC. How about the ineligible players THE Ohio State University used in the Sugar Bowl? Starting a blog about that? Funny how the OSU website celebrates the Sugar Bowl victory on the home page with a link to the story about the ineligible players. Tressel’s my hero.
Anything for a win, over sign or play ineligible players.
January 9th, 2011 - 12:13
Tressel did not play ineligible players. If they were, they would not have been able to play in the Sugar Bowl. The NCAA allowed them to play based on their own rule and Ohio State followed the rules.
January 7th, 2011 - 21:59
Seems like I saw someone ask the question–would opponents to oversigning be OK if the NCAA just raised the scholarship limit to 125? Funny, but I don’t think I saw any good answers to that poser. Wouldn’t be much need for this website, no would there? And it wouldn’t be possible for a B10 fan to try and rally support to tear down the SEC.
January 8th, 2011 - 14:40
And, it would appear, there’s no answer now either. This isn’t about the recruits, it’s about the SEC. A blind man could see that.
January 8th, 2011 - 17:41
Hoss, Your restatement of that question probably doesn’t deserve a response since we all know that the NCAA is not going to raise the scholarship limit to 125. Also, we should deal with the facts as they are, not as they might hypothetically be.
January 9th, 2011 - 10:34
Mario, that’s ridiculous. First of all, why WOULDN’T they raise the limit, if by doing so one of the ancillary “benefits” was to keep kids from having to transfer as often. The limit used to be much higher, but was reduced because the bigger/richer programs were stockpiling all of the talent. Now there is more talent to go around.
And you want to talk about hypotheticals. This site deals in hypotheticals constantly, since it pre-supposes reasons why kids are put on medical scholarships without having nearly enough factual information to draw the conclusions that it does. The same goes for the pre-supposing why kids are dismissed from these programs. If we are only going to deal with FACTS, then I welcome that move. It would change the tenor of the entire site.
January 13th, 2011 - 14:33
The facts are, that very many of the athletes being defended would probably spell cat K-A-T, and really have no business being in college.
But don’t blame the SEC for that one. That one is solidly on The U.
January 23rd, 2011 - 12:36
If you consider that a “fact,” you have no business discussing the topic.
June 7th, 2011 - 23:55
Have you ever thought about creating an ebook or guest authoring on other sites? I have a blog centered on the same topics you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information. I know my visitors would enjoy your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e-mail.