Not All Alabama Fans Support Oversigning
This was posted by a reader in response to the piece on why Georgia Tech left the SEC, but we thought it should be posted for all to see, instead of buried in the archive. This is yet another example of why the Big 10 has banned oversigning in all sports. Thanks to "Dranodrog" for sharing your story; this site exists for people like you and others that have been harmed by oversigning.
My daughter was recruited by Alabama for Cross Country and Track. She was offered 75% of a full ride and signed Nov 9, 2005. She went there the next year and continually placed in the top 5 of her team and was often in the top 3. At the end of her second year, her coach called her into his office and cut her scholarship…but wanted her to stay on the team. She couldn’t afford to do that and got a job as an assistant coach at Tuscaloosa Academy. She then watched new girls come in to run for the Tide under scholarship. She never understood why they did it, but I always knew. They want to get kids in and ingrained into the system, then give that money to get more kids in. My wonderful daughter graduated in 2009 and got to see the mighty Tide’s great Championship Season. We are great Alabama fans, but believe me that I have “a name” of someone who was hurt badly by “the system”.
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 15th, 2011 - 23:53
Make sure I understand this. SEC players who leave because of lack of playing time are victims of the insidious oversigning system, but OSU players who leave due to less playing time are nobly pursuing betting opportunities? Does that sound about right?
http://www.cleveland.com/buckeyeblog/index.ssf/2009/11/basketball_backup_walter_offut.html
I guess this is the quality of abstract thinking one should expect from a conference that names its divisions after MTV Road Rules competitions.
January 16th, 2011 - 09:06
I think you missed the point of all of this. Sure, a few players a year will leave a program for greener pastures. That happens at every school. The point of this website is that the SEC has 10 to 20 more players in a 4 year recruiting cycle then the Big 10 and more than any other conference. OSU has a top 10 class every year and never oversigns. What happens to those 10 to 20 players is what happened to this guys daughter…they are shown the door. No chance to complete school and better themselves all because Alabama has to win at all cost. Michigan St had a kid fight cancer for 3 years and never put him on a medical scholarship and kept him on a football scholarship.
Do the math, in 4 years you should sign around 85 players (allowing for some transfers) and the SEC signs 105 on average. I wouldn’t make fun of the Big 10 academically when there are only 2 SEC schools that would qualify to join academically.
January 18th, 2011 - 07:52
Why in the hell did they not put him on a medical scholarship? It blows the mind.
January 18th, 2011 - 17:41
Well, I looked at Rivals.com for the years of 2007-2010, and there were a lot of guys that never even stepped on campus. I wonder how that is considered an advantage.
January 19th, 2011 - 14:51
Bet that doesn’t get addressed.
January 16th, 2011 - 09:11
No you don’t understand this. While I disagree with the rules in basketball, specifically the 1 and done rules, what you fail to realize is that those players that left were not forced out because Ohio State accepted more signed letters of intent than they could give scholarships. That is the problem in the SEC; schools are promising more scholarships than they can give out because they know they have a 6 month window and the “1 year renewable” excuse to get out of a scholarship agreement with a student-athlete in order to make room for the new recruits.
January 16th, 2011 - 14:45
Yeah, you very clearly don’t understand this.
Don’t oversign and people won’t question your transfers. But when players HAVE to go, suspicion of their reasons and timing in eventually doing so is the only reasonable approach.
January 16th, 2011 - 03:09
It is interesting that this happens much more than we care to admit. I’m all for competition. I just want these contracts spelled out and represented truthfully. Everyone should be upfront. The reasons for non-renewal or reduction should be spelled out and not left to a coaches’ discretion. I’m working on it!
January 16th, 2011 - 14:50
Hear, hear.
That would remove a serious advantage from the SEC West schools, and these aren’t so much respectable academic institutions as they are athletic sweatshops. Especially as it concerns the fans of these schools you see at forums like this… the great majority of which never attended these schools and thus have little interest in their academic or ethical reputations.
January 16th, 2011 - 15:38
You do know Mario played football at UA and graduated from there. I guess his degree is not respectable either.
January 16th, 2011 - 23:30
That he graduated from there helps explain why he would be (should be) fighting to keep his school’s reputation (and thus his degree) from being tarnished by extremely unethical behavior.
Unlike you, he’s invested in the school beyond just football entertainment.
January 17th, 2011 - 10:10
you would think you would have more interest in your school being on the police blotter every other week.
January 16th, 2011 - 10:16
Dranodrog’s story actually illustrates a great point. This website would have you believe that someone who loses his/her athletic scholarship is effectively kicked out of school; deprived of receiving an education. Not true. While I understand his hard feelings about the way his daughter was treated, I applaud her for getting a job, staying in school, and earning a degree. This is the path taken by the typical college student. No, it’s not easy; I know from personal experience. Even after losing an athletic (or academic) scholarship, the opportunity for earning a degree is still there for those who value it enough to pursue it.
January 16th, 2011 - 10:33
We also don’t know all the details of this, and neither does “Dranodorg”. In most sports outside of football and basketball, they award partial scholarships. The amount of money they have available to offer schollies varies on a year to year basis. Track and cross country are among the least likely to have funds of any kind available, and I know this because I competed in both of those sports at the collegiate level. My guess is that what happened to his daughter is that they simply didn’t have the funds available for his daughter’s schollie that one year. They weren’t “runnibg her off” in favor of another girl. If it is as the Dad says, and his daughter was among the better runners on the team, there is virtually no way they ran her off in order to give HER schollie money to an incoming athlete. Of course I don’t know that, but neither does he, as the information about other kids’ schollies is their private information.
But it’s great that we have yet another example of an effort to prey on readers’ emotions rather than presenting information we know to be factual.
January 16th, 2011 - 12:00
You should really take your head out of the sand and come up for air every now and then.
January 16th, 2011 - 12:09
The only preying that is being done is being done by the multi-million dollar coaches and schools that allow oversigning.
January 16th, 2011 - 15:09
Actually, no, it wouldn’t. That’s only what you would believe if you were trying to make an ill-fated attempt to defend the indefensible practice of oversigning – but could only do so by continually attempting to find and exploit for your own purposes the nuance within the nuance (which is your demonstrated m.o.).
What this website will actually tell you is that many football players would not be able to attend the college they’re at – job or no job while in school – if it weren’t for the scholarship provided.
Plainly, they are at that specific school because that school pursued them and brought them to that campus. The player accepted because of the scholarship offered and the reasonable expectation that the school had an interest in seeing him play a full career and receive a degree.
Though grants, loans and other scholarships do exist, given the circumstances from which many of them come, it’s not reasonable to assume that these athletes can qualify for enough of them to attend those same schools. So, effectively, in fact the yanking of a scholarship is akin to being kicked out of that school. And if it happens to just one athlete, that’s one too many, as colleges should not be in the business of jettisoning their students for the benefit of their athletic programs.
To not understand that elementary notion is to confess to having a faulty moral and ethical compass.
January 16th, 2011 - 17:32
“If it happens to just one athlete, that’s one too many.”
So what are we going to do, impose a cannot-withdraw-no-matter-the-circumstance welfare-like state on CFB. You sir, are out of your blooming mind. We have no way of knowing what some of these kids do when they lose their scholarship for miscreant or even felonious behavior. So what would you advocate? That unless we have a Lawrence Phillips type situation, that these kids can keep their schollies no matter what they do?
Please remove your head from that dark place, because it is truly impairing your ability to reason.
January 16th, 2011 - 18:50
What a bizarre response. Despite all of your bluster and bombast you aren’t in any way arguing against anything I wrote in my post. Nowhere does my post say that a university can’t dismiss a player due to bad behavior. I have to believe every college and university has some code of conduct by which ALL students must abide to remain in good standing (and to continue to attend) that school.
I’m more than happy to discuss the topic of oversigning, and anything I’ve actually written about it, but do me the courtesy of actually keeping to those topics.
January 16th, 2011 - 20:35
It’s not “bizarre” in the least. You are taking an absurdly altruistic angle on the whole “topic” of oversigning. You, like at least one other individual that has recently been posting here, are treating this as if it were some sort of Brown vs. Board of Education-esque type thing, and that is patently ridiculous. Until you know the stories behind each and every one of the kids that leaves these schools, then all you are doing is speculating. There have only been a couple of bona fide examples that have been given (Elliot Porter is the only one I can come up with, and I still have some questions about him). You have no idea what is going on, yet you act as though you do. You are an outsider with no factual evidence who is taking enormous leaps in judgment without any sort of factual basis for it, then you are attempting to ascribe historic-type melodrama to it.
There is no reason to engage you on this “topic”.
January 16th, 2011 - 21:56
An elementary understanding of arithmetic tells the story of oversigning as simply as it can be told – even without the ridiculous assertion that one must “know the stories behind each and every one of the kids that leaves these schools”.
However, more and more kids are beginning to speak on the record – so that surpasses your silly assertion about “speculating”.
You use a lot of words and make a lot of posts, but your facts are spare.
Save for your mention of Elliot Porter – which is a fact AGAINST your defense – that entire post is devoid of a pertinent fact. As with other equally vocal oversigning defenders you’re loud and persistent in putting up a wall of words. But it’s thin, as thin as your defense, doesn’t obfuscate as you’d like it to, and won’t forestall the inevitable.
Agreed. I suggest you not do so any further until you’ve given an honest effort to acquaint yourself more intimately with the issues surrounding oversigning – there’s a website for that, you know – and expend at least some effort to look at the readily available facts.
January 16th, 2011 - 22:39
The only arithmetic that matters vis-a-vis the NCAA is the 25/85 rule, and the schools that you and others are attempting tear down in an mind-numbingly circular attempt to create something where there is nothing, are all adhering to that rule. There is nothing to discuss.
Cervantes wrote about this. Maybe you should check out his most famous work. It might shed some light on this effort for you.
January 16th, 2011 - 22:44
And as for pertinent “facts”, perhaps it would serve you welkl if you started using some as it relates to these young men, instead of returning again and again to the 25+75=155 pap. When you can offer up the facts associated with ALL these kids, then maybe we’ll have something to talk about.
January 16th, 2011 - 23:38
You say there’s no reason to engage me…but…
Whatever.
What are the numbers that matter regarding ethical behavior, Hoss?
January 17th, 2011 - 06:57
It’s amazing how every conference can figure out how not to oversign like the SEC west . Why? Because they actually care ,at-least a little, about their students. They don’t have to resort to relativism, twisted logic, gamed numbers, excuses etc. The basic fact is a continued trend of 30+32=127. The are no reasons or excuses.
Then again, I guess we should expect this coming from a base that thinks that they have 14 National Championships.
Hint: Notre Dame leads the way in “real” National championships..
The ESPN commercial “Roll Tide” made Alabama fans look like a bunch of bumpkins. Sadly, the stereotype fits.
January 17th, 2011 - 10:13
i showed on a previous post, every other conference except the Big 10, has teams that oversign.
January 18th, 2011 - 20:25
Wrong. ND and Alabama are TIED at 8 a piece. 8 wire (meaning UPI/AP). Get your facts right Gilmer.
January 16th, 2011 - 18:47
“Actually, no, it wouldn’t.” (in reference to my claim that this website would have you believe that someone who loses his/her scholly is effectiviely kicked out of school). Three paragraphs later, “So, effectively, in fact the yanking of a scholarship is akin to being kicked out of that school”. So, this website wouldn’t have you believe it, but you would?
“Though grants, loans and other scholarships do exist, given the circumstances from which many of them come, it’s not reasonable to assume that these athletes can qualify for enough of them to attend those same schools” That’s where that whole getting-a-job thing comes in. See the story at the top of this page for an example. Is it easy? Hell, no. It sucks to work and be a full-time student. There’s no fanfare, no prospect of making millions as a professional athlete. But if you’re in school to earn a degree and not just to play a sport, then that’s what you do.
January 16th, 2011 - 19:54
If nothing else, you remain true to your m.o. of attempting to muddy the discussion waters, and avoid the head-on discussion of the central topic of oversigning, by searching for the meaningless nuance within the nuance.
It’s that same m.o. that caused me to believe that you’d actually seize on that exact phrase to make a point that doesn’t even rise to the level of being specious. Are you really that lost in this discussion of oversigning that this is all you can offer? Are you really struggling to discern the clear line of thought and supporting argument in those paragraphs? I wrote those paragraphs precisely as I intended and would not change a word.
Regarding football players being effectively forced out of the particular school they attend, this website makes the same distinction with that point that I did, and does not make the blanket claim that you purport it does. I can’t imagine that too many others beyond yourself could actually struggle to comprehend that, since it seems clear to me that it takes a certain level of desire to not want to confront the truth of the point in order to actually not understand it.
As for your point about getting a job, you’re being extremely disingenuous, or simply daft. Sure a job will help to meet the cost of college – assuming all other aid and loans fall into place. But it’s silly to think any kid recently out of high school can command a salary to meet the cost of a college education. Again, considering the challenging environments many of these kids are coming from, there’s likely to be little to no parental help in securing loan money or cash for living expenses.
To carry your silliness to it’s logical – but realistic – extreme, lets posit a scenario where all of college football engages in oversigning and kids are having scholarships yanked everywhere. How is a kid with a high school diploma going to find a job that allows him to be able to afford a yearly $40, 000 tuition cost at Stanford? Vanderbilt? Northwestern? Notre Dame? UCLA? Cal? Boston College? And on, and on. Some kids will face a lower in-state tuition, but most schools draw talent from out of state as a regular practice – and these kids will face the full brunt of the out-of-state cost, which is far larger. And they won’t be able to afford. Hence – they are effectively kicked out of that school.
And again, it’s a school they only went to because the school pursued them with the lure of the scholarship which allowed them to not have to worry about how they were going to afford to attend there. If they were bent on attending college without the help of an athletic scholarship it’s highly likely – and common sense – that they’d would’ve sought a far more affordable solution, such as a community college.
You really are grasping here to make a point.
January 16th, 2011 - 19:59
Should read as: “…logical – and realistic – extreme”
January 16th, 2011 - 21:02
I’ll skip to the 3rd paragraph since the first 2 paragraphs are just insult-lace condescension devoid of anthing that could be construed as a point.
“Regarding football players being effectively forced out of the particular school they attend, this website makes the same distinction with that point that I did, and does not make the blanket claim that you purport it does”
If you’re trying to say that some students are effectively kicked out of school while other aren’t, I don’t recall Josh (or anyone else who posts on this site) making that distinction. For example, from the 2nd comment on this blog entry, “What happens to those 10 to 20 players is what happened to this guys daughter…they are shown the door. No chance to complete school and better themselves” What was I thinking making a blanket claim when clearly the distinction you refer to is always made and blanket statements are never made by Josh and others on your side of the debate?
As for a student attending a high-priced university? You’re right, not all are going to make it. Some are going to struggle financially. Some are going to have crises at home that cause them to put school on the back-burner. Not eveyone who attends college is going to graduate, and of the ones that do, very few graduate from their dream college. What each student has is the [i]opportunity[/i] to attend college and earn a degree; just like all the other students at that college.
You can proceed with your insults and condescension now. After all, it’s your m.o.
January 16th, 2011 - 22:54
You’d have done better to skip your entire reply because it’s just more of the same nibbling around the edges of the oversigning discussion, like your fellow oversigning defenders – just a wall of obfuscating words.
And even when you appear to be approaching the topic you end up with nonsensical conclusions. To wit:
You wrote all of that and actually think that’s a point against my argument? That’s nonsense. All of those sentences make the point that many football players can’t afford to attend the schools they are at without that football scholarship – so when the scholarship is taken away they are effectively kicked out.
And try not to be so petulant when somebody calls you on your flawed -and intentional – discussion tactics, particularly when they’re so clear to see. Any reasonable person can do a search of your posts on this site and see how you frequently look to parse the most trivial points that have little or no impact in the discussion of oversigning.
Case in point, you wrote:
Hello! I post on this site – and I just made that distinction.
But for the sake of argument, even if a poster or Josh misspeaks to say ALL football players who have their scholarships yanked are then shown the door – it makes no tangible difference to the case that some football players are forced off of teams and out of school because of the loss of their scholarship.
Whether it’s 50 percent or 100 percent – it’s still an unethical practice. Universities don’t belong in the business of running de facto quasi semi-pro sports franchises that cut students in order to benefit the franchise.
But you argue that distinction nonsense as though it’s pivotal in some way – and it isn’t. But it’s your m.o. – and make no mistake – I will never hesitate to call you on the weak tactics you employ.
But since oversigning defenders can’t argue the numbers, and can’t argue the ethics, maybe I shouldn’t expect any better.
January 17th, 2011 - 01:33
You have the audacity to accuse of me of parsing the “most trivial points”, then you use as an example a case that only became a point of discussion because YOU decided to parse my words. Absolutley incredible.
“But you argue that distinction nonsense as though it’s pivotal in some way – and it isn’t.”
Again, YOU are the one who made “the distinction” a point of emphasis, not me. If it’s not important, then why do you feel compelled to challenge this statement, “This website would have you believe that someone who loses his/her athletic scholarship is effectively kicked out of school”? Is it because you believed there to be a noteworthy distinction? When I do it, it’s parsing. But when you do it, I suppose it’s a righteous act; in your own mind anyway.
It’s apparent that you believe that athletic scholarship should be 4 year agreements instead of 1 year agreements. That’s a whole different discussion and not even that pertinent to the oversigning discussion since there is only 1 football player to date who had his scholarship not renewed. If you think that 1 is 1 too many, then fine feel free to lobby for 4 year scholarships, but I’ll doubt you get much traction.
January 17th, 2011 - 15:28
Dude! Are you even paying attention to your own posts? And do you not understand the difference between “parsing” and challenging an outright false statement? Your first post in this thread started with:
This website does no such thing. It’s a false statement. Content from articles posted on this website already show that several Alabama players who lost their football scholarships still remain in school at Alabama on medical scholarships.
This is your typical m.o. of twisting the available facts.
As typical as you spending a full three-quarters of your post discussing the discussion. Three of your first four paragraphs!
It’s standard practice for the oversigning defenders who can’t contest the facts head-on with anything approaching discussion based in sound reasoning and informed by an ethical view.
It’s like the mega-law firm burying the small firm that is its adversary in mounds of paper work – you’re both looking to bring proceedings to a halt by clogging the course forward with the detritus you chip away and pile up in towering mounds .
You talk, and talk and talk about weak off-topic comparatives, nuance and parse the same, and twist the readily available facts in a campaign to clutter this site with walls of words that do little to advance discussion of the central topic here – oversigning.
I’ll play your game – but I’ll always bring the discussion back to where it should be with discussion of oversigning – so you won’t get off the hook in that way.
As for 4-year scholarships, you wrote:
Yes, scholarships should be for four years. No, you’re wrong – 4-year scholarships are part and parcel to the oversigning discussion – as is any vehicle which creates the loopholes which unethical coaches will, by their ethics-less nature, exploit.
Take away the “renewable” component of a scholarship and coaches can then not revisit the disposition of that scholarship for four or five years – save for voluntary transfer, academic failure, or university code of conduct violation – thus leaving one less loophole to exploit.
These are students the university not only invited to be a part of the community of students – but actually lured there with the athletic scholarship – knowing full well that many of these students could never otherwise afford to attend that school, and would not have made that choice were it not for the scholarship. These are students – not contract employees who should be continually trying out for a position.
January 17th, 2011 - 18:13
Re the four-year scholarship–you are DREAMING. I thought maybe you were just a misguided and left-extreme miscreant, but you just toppled off the edge. The one-year renewable schollie is not going ANYWHERE. And this will be true no matter how many proclamations get made by all twelve disciples of this “cause”.
January 17th, 2011 - 20:20
The increasing trend of hypocrisy in your posts would be humorous if it weren’t so sad.
First, you continued to parse my claim about this website and student-athletes effectively being kicked out of school even though you yourself argued that same point ON THIS WEBSITE. But, no, you aren’t parsing; it’s a righteous act.
Then you admonish me with the following:
“As typical as you spending a full three-quarters of your post discussing the discussion. Three of your first four paragraphs!”
Which you immediately follow with 4 whole paragraphs of pointless blabbering completely unrelated to oversigning. And the most humorous part is that you devoted one entire paragraph to condemning the practice of cluttering “this site with walls of words that do little to advance discussion of the central topic here – oversigning”. I couldn’t make this stuff up! I must thank you though for the immense entertainment value that you’ve provided me.
Against all odds, you did eventually stray back into the realm of relevance to make your arguement for a change to 4 year scholarship agreements. Like I said before, if you want to make this your crusade, then by all means go for it. It’s not something I favor or oppose. If you’re successful, you can call it the Chris Garrett Act, named of course after the most famous and only known football player to have his scholarship not renewed.
January 18th, 2011 - 10:48
Vesper:
Do you ever have an original thought?
Or are you resigned to repeatedly taking my criticisms of your lacking posts and clumsily attempting to turn them back on me?
A trained chimpanzee could do what you’re doing. And be just as wrong (though at least the chimp would have a legitimate excuse for it’s foolish mimicry).
And for Pete’s sake, if you’d just make a pertinent, factual – truthful – post about oversigning we could move the discussion forward. But it’s become abundantly clear that’s not what you want to do – because you really don’t have anything to say.
And what you do say, you write it as would a high school student who hasn’t yet realized he can’t b.s. his teacher with volume and vocabulary. At some point you’ll have to get around to intelligently discussing, and displaying an understanding of, the topic at hand – in this case, oversigining – or you’ll simply record an epic fail.
Which is the record you’re creating for yourself in this thread, as elsewhere. Any reasonable observer can see that you entered this thread making a patently false assertion – and ever since you’ve either ducked the oversigning discussion – or made silly statements which no reasonable person should ever feel comfortable in believing actually added to the intelligent discussion of the topic.
But as I stated, I’ll play your nonsensical game of “discussing the discussion”, just to show you you’ll gain no traction with the tactic, because I’ll always turn the discussion back to the central topic of oversigning – and your inability to argue the point in a factual, truthful way with a view that reflects an appreciable understanding of the value of ethical behavior.
Now here’s something more for you to tap dance with to help you avoid discussing oversigning:
You wrote:
Seriously, dude. Don’t be such a sophomoric hack. That statement is just pure whining on your part. Only a fool could think he could write using the weak tactics that you do – and then not be called on it. Again, if you had entered this discussion making factual points about the oversigning topic, that’s what we would be exclusively discussing. But you didn’t – and we’re not. So here’s your gauntlet: talk only intelligently conceived points about oversigning – and that’s what we’ll discuss. Can you do it?
But you gotta do better than this:
Are you yanking my chain with that or are you truly imbecilic?
Fact: Chuck Kirschman is NOT on a football scholarship at Alabama. It was not renewed.
Fact: Jeramie Griffin is NOT on a football scholarship at Alabama. It was not renewed.
Those are facts. Short of you showing that those two former players are still on renewed football scholarships at Alabama – then yet again you’ve shown your inability to discuss the oversigning topic in a factual, truthful way with a view that reflects an appreciable understanding of the value of ethical behavior.
Please make your next response an intelligent one solely on the topic of oversigning.
January 18th, 2011 - 16:11
As it relates to Chuck Kirschman and jermie Griffin, I think it’s great that you are going to provide all of us with the proof that neither one of them belongs on a medical scholarship, and I am presonally excited about reading your information.
Prior to now, all we have had is the word of licensed physicians as well as the University of Alabama. But now that we have an assertion from an anonymouos poster on an internet forum, this will surely clear eveything up as it relates to Kirschman and Griffin.
January 18th, 2011 - 17:42
CHB,
So this time you devote 9, that’s right, 9 entire paragraphs to me. At first it was flattering, but I’m starting to worry that you’re developing an unhealthy obsession with me. Creepy. And those 9 paragraphs can be summarized by the following: “Whaaaaah! Whaaaaah! You’re not talking enough about the issue even though I’m not either. Whaaaah!”
Chuck Kirschman and Jeramie Griffin didn’t have their football scholarships taken away. That’s got to be your weakest and laziest arguement ever.
January 16th, 2011 - 12:10
They probably pulled her scholarship to pay for one of their “medical hardship” scholarships for a football player.
January 16th, 2011 - 14:27
Any reason the Georgia #s given in the “call for help” thread haven’t been posted?
January 16th, 2011 - 16:09
Josh,
what about the numbers I posted for Arkansas?
January 16th, 2011 - 17:52
Really why do you care? Is it truly for the best intersest of the individual taken advantage of or to level the playing field in athletics? If you ask me it’s the latter. They are not breaking the rules at all and if the athlete doesn’t want to get taken advantage of then commit to another institution. Until someones life is truly ruined by this I don’t see a problem. And that is impossible because if their scholly is dropped then they are right back in the same boat. Right where I was when I had to find a way to pay for school with no financial help.
And please point out the people who left these SEC powers under “strange” circumstances. I’m sure you’ll have no problem providing evidence.
January 16th, 2011 - 20:41
So… short of “truly ruined” lives, it’s all good.
Solid.
January 16th, 2011 - 21:04
Actually they’re not in the same boat as you as you didn’t have your plans kicked out from under you at the last moment through no fault of your own.
I had plenty of friends that paid their way and so long as they did the paperwork with enough advance time they got their money and went to school…end of discussion.
These athletes are told last minute they have no scholarship and thus no money…that’s an immediate semester+ delay if you don’t have the means to pay for it. Anyone who actually reads up on college graduation statistics knows that any delay, for any reason, in attending college greatly reduces the chances of graduating.
If the possibility of not graduating college isn’t considered life changing I’m not sure what is.
January 17th, 2011 - 11:39
“Through no fault of your own”?
You’re KIDDING, right? When a kid gets dismissed for persistent violations of team rules, you are calling this “through no fault of your own”? Would you mind listing out the players from, let’s say, Alabama’s team that have not had their scholarships renewed when the player has not only not done anything at all to bring that event about, but where it can be documented that this is the case?
“These athletes” are told WELL in advance when there are team violation issues. If they don’t eliminate the issues that THEY caused, then THEY suffer the consequences.
Get your facts straight.
January 17th, 2011 - 12:09
Saban must be some sort of magician to know so far in advance that 10+ players every year will leave. Or maybe he just makes sure that they’ll leave.
January 17th, 2011 - 13:37
Yeah there are a few coaches on the planet that must know 10+ players every year will not make it or be dismissed from the team for violating team rules.
There is a huge difference in a team who currently has 84 scholarship players (with that years recruiting class) dismissing 3 players from the team for academic/team rules and a team is currently 11 over their scholarship budget and has 3 players dismissed. It is clear team B is getting rid of those players to make room for their oversigned recruits.
January 17th, 2011 - 13:41
Once again, you can ASSERT anything you want, as this is freedom of expression, but neither you nor anyone else can state unequivocally what the reasons are for a player’s dismissal when you don’t have access to that individual’s private records. So all you are doing is speculating. Which makes it meaningless.
January 17th, 2011 - 14:00
No, but what we can state unequivocally is that a university that is oversigned has put its employees in a serious conflict of interest as it relates to giving sound advice to its students.
January 17th, 2011 - 16:31
what a howler!
Yeah, that is a sound defense.
The nation knows what is going on and the tide is turning.
January 17th, 2011 - 18:10
Yeah, I’ll tell you what’s a howler. This article on the NCAA “closing the loophole” that allowed the Tattooed Six to play in the Sugar Bowl:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-01-16-ncaa-enforcement_N.htm
What’s astounding to ne is how quickly the NCAA is working to get this loophole closed, despite the lack of any websites on the subjects, 5 million hits on that website, or someone named Vito proclaiming that “the tide is turning”. Simply amazing. I read that article several times and there is no mention of oversigning. How long has this website been around?
January 17th, 2011 - 14:31
Please show me where 10+ players left Alabama for undisclosed reasons. Please I’m very intrigued.
January 17th, 2011 - 16:13
We do know Alabama oversigns 10+ a year and then starts to dump players to make it down to the 85 scholarship limit.
January 17th, 2011 - 20:34
Yes I understand that is very easy to type but I want to see proof of this “player dumping”.
January 17th, 2011 - 14:17
I was set to receive an academic scholarship but that fell thru last minute. But your right I didn’t have athletic talent so my situation is totally different.
January 17th, 2011 - 19:20
I am shocked at the SEC fans on this site. They act as though this is common practice everywhere and it isn’t. The overwhelming majority of NCAA schools follow the rules. Only a few break them. The fact that those schools stand out (Alabama being mentioned on this blog so frequently) is proof they are doing something others are not. The majority of schools have determined oversigning to be unethical. SEC fans would have us believe that they are all wrong. it’s mindboggling to me that people can be so blind. The SEC isn’t the only universities that do this, but they are the biggest offenders. They stand out for a reason. Let’s stop pretending it’s not an issue. Let’s stop pretending it happens everywhere. Let’s stop pretending that this blog unfairly picks on a few schools. Those schools are picked on because they stand out. Those schools are picked on because they do things that the majority of universities have determined to be unethical. If your argument is that everyone else is wrong, just say it so the rest of us can ignore you. Everyone else isn’t wrong. Those universities who oversign are and it’s frightening to me that so few SEC fans see this. You do realize that the team you’re rooting for is an educational institution, correct? Shouldn’t we hold them to standards at least as high as we’d expect from them when they educate our children?
January 18th, 2011 - 08:02
So what this site advocates is a 4 year welfare scholarship? Where the player keeps the scholarship regardless of his on the field merits? Where all he has to do is the bare minimum that the coaches ask, and he can get a free ride?
So if a player does as the coaches ask, but he just doesn’t understand the system, or just doesn’t compete as advertised, the university is stuck with him? I think that’s what I’m understanding.
January 18th, 2011 - 08:40
1. Coaches are payed millions of dollars to coach and evaluate talent, they should be held accountable for their recruiting decisions. 2. There are schools, PLENTY OF THEM, that have no problem living with the recruiting decisions they make and making the most of the student-athletes they coach and mentor. 3. We have never advocated a welfare system.
January 18th, 2011 - 09:59
It sounds that way. That no matter how the athlete does on the field, that the school has to keep them on scholarship regardless of their athletic merit.
And some of that talent evaluation blame goes to places like scout and rivals. But some kids that evaluate great, just don’t pan out once they get to college. Your complaints leave no avenue to trim fat.
I’d like someone to at least admit that the student part of student-athlete is smoke and mirrors at best, and a farce at worst.
January 20th, 2011 - 07:20
Your comments are about the 4 year welfare scholarship is offensive and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are the kind of guy i would love to suit up again and crush! These players put their hearts,souls, minds and bodies on the line for millionaire coaches who Promise a 4-5 year scholarship as long as you abide by the rules then (some) push (gently nudge) them out the door when a new shiny recruit comes along. You should be ashamed of yourself. When was the last time you had a job where the standards were not spelled out. I’m sorry but this is not a right to work place of employment where you can be jettisoned for any reason.
Before you make another idiotic comment. I am all for competition and standards of excellence…Just let me know up front what they are.
January 20th, 2011 - 07:21
“are offensive” …just typing too fast with old LB fingers..
January 20th, 2011 - 09:46
You make a good point there about letting them know up front.
However most proponents of anti-oversigning, doesn’t think there should be any competition at all. That is what I spoke to.
And if you truly played for Alabama, I appreciate the play you had on the field.