Nick Saban Comments on the Accelerated Recruiting Time Table
According to Nick Saban, the recruiting time table has accelerated so rapidly that it is becoming increasingly difficult to evaluate recruits. Listen to his comments at the 2:30 minute mark in this video. Saban says he feels as though they are behind in their evaluations because of the accelerated recruiting time table.
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. One, you could argue that the lack of evaluation time could be the reason for oversigning: needing to run through more kids to make up for misses in recruiting. Obviously Saban makes no bones about feeling like he is behind in his evaluations and is forced to offer kids before being fully able to evaluate them; he goes so far as to call it a problem. Imagine the problem Big 10 coaches are having without that ability to take a few extra guys to make up for those misses in recruiting.
We actually agree with Saban here, the time table for evaluating recruits, and to a certain degree the added restrictions on contact with recruits that were put in place to curb abuses, has made it harder for coaches to evaluate players. Some of the NCAA restrictions are an absolute joke. However, oversigning is not the solution - all it does is give a coach a tool to help cover his own ass in recruiting. Solutions for the oversigning problem need to include adjustments to the evaluation process.
Lastly, Saban really takes a shot at recruiting service websites such as Rivals.com for making recruiting a game and ruining kids in the process. He blames the media as well and goes on to ask the guys interviewing them if they are proud of themselves for what they have done with the recruiting game. Those comments come at the 5:40 minute mark.
After watching the video, you almost feel sad for the reports who stood there and laughed at themselves being shamed by Saban. Where is the media that covered the SMU scandal when you need them? Those guys didn't take crap of anyone, much less a coach.
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 27th, 2011 - 00:53
I think you buried your lead, Josh.
After being asked about the recruiting websites, he begins to talk about how their existence and behaviors do more harm than good, then goes on to lecture them about what he thinks isn’t good for college football.
In my best Seth Myers/Amy Poehler voices: Really?! Really, Nick Saban?! You’re personally jerking around high school and college kids, including standing before the media and lying about why they are no longer with your program [for reference, read the following: Former Players Say Saban Twisted the Truth and this], and you’re pontificating about what’s not good for college football?! Really?!
But it’s even worse than that, as Saban goes on to say:
You can’t make this stuff up. Saban chastising anyone about “principles and values, and honesty and integrity” is like Mel Gibson giving seminars on sweet talking your wife. Um, no thanks.
Are you kidding me?
January 27th, 2011 - 08:24
CHB, you are wrong.
If you read the comments on this website from SEC supporters, there is a value and ethic that is being espoused: ethics means that as long as a practice cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to violate a specific law under criminal rules of evidence, then a coach and its university should do whatever is in the best interests of the football team. “Pro-social” behavior is to be avoided if it does not help your help you win football games. Nor is there a transcendental standard of virtue. ”
Show me where the SEC handbook explicitly says that a parent cannot ask for $180,000,” is an excellent response — and if you don’t agree then you are an envious pollyana.
One can only imagine how this value extends to everyday life in the south: the buffet line at Golden Corral must be a bloodbath as the hungry cut in line for a third helping of food, the elderly are routinely harangued for fumbling with their wallets and so on.
Another value is: that being mediocre in undergraduate education is an asset to be treasured and fiercely defended in the SEC since it enables our schools to enroll football players who would be considered ill-prepared at most other schools since it leads to a competitive advantage on the field — and any school would do the same (“Stanford would have accepted Cam Newton in a second there were just too stupid not to try to sign him”). Academic reputation is something that concerns “elite Northerners” or whining Big Ten fans. Thus, liberally accepting JUCOs, oversigning your incoming class and then farming JUCOs is one of the greatest ideas ever produced in higher education in the SEC. Brilliant, I tell ya, just brilliant.
January 28th, 2011 - 07:03
I wish this site had a “Recommend” button. Bravo, sir.
January 29th, 2011 - 19:27
Thank you, Junny. I write what many have said in many venues. It is interesting that the SEC fans have not attempted a rebuttal, don’t you think?
January 31st, 2011 - 21:35
no rebuttal needed… I don’t think there is anything wrong with liking this site or even liking the idea it puts forward. There is room for many different views… I don’t agree with a lot of what is said on this site, but it brings up good points that can help develop better rules to give athletes more tools to make better decisions…
It’s just sad that so many on this site are very closed minded.
January 27th, 2011 - 09:18
you cite an article about Alonzo Lawrence. Not exactly your best witness, when he was kicked off the Southern Miss football team too, while saying he didnt do anything wrong there either. Also, Saban never tells the media about what a player did, he keeps it in house. Is there room for sleight of hand or slippery slope? Maybe, but it also doesnt tarnish a player. The rule could be not going to class, not going to practice, stealing. No one else will ever know because he keeps his discipline in house. It isnt the media’s business to know what a player did, that was between the coach and the players. And the players respect that. If they didnt, why is he able to still recruit some of the top players in the nation? if he was giving them such a raw deal, coaches wouldnt let him in their schools, parents wouldnt let him in their house. Parents of recruits talk, if a recruit got a bad deal at a school, other parents of football players would know about it.
January 27th, 2011 - 09:23
Did your parents and grandparents condemn water cannons in Alabama in their time? Or did they say there was nothing illegal about it?
January 27th, 2011 - 09:56
I wouldn’t condemn the use of water cannons to dispurse a mob that was looting and destroying property and harming other people…
I would condemn the use of water cannons to dispurse a peaceful rally that was following the requirements of the law…
January 27th, 2011 - 10:54
Texas Dawg, do you ever bring anything to a conversation, or just try and denigrate people who actually post thoughts and ideas? you come across as the guy at a party who is in the corner crushing beer cans with his head, going “Look at me!!!! Look at me!!!!!”
January 28th, 2011 - 11:28
Saban is a snake with zero integrity. Im sure it is a mere coincidence Alabama oversigns EVERY year and also kicks off, gets rid off, medical hardships, whatever you want to call it more than any other school in ANY other BCS conference.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:09
seems contradictory. His players love him, recruits love him, his former players and coaches love him. If he was as bad as you think, why would this be?
January 28th, 2011 - 12:11
personally, i think Tressel is slimy. Interesting that the 2 schools he was head coach at, both had scandals about players being paid to play.
January 28th, 2011 - 18:26
Hey Tre,
If Ohio State players were really “paid”, as you are suggesting, they would not have to sell their rings or trinkets and put their careers in jeopardy.
We, the Ohio State fans, are very upset at what Pryor and company did. But let’s blame Tressel for it.
You have to understand why everyone besides Tide fans dislike Mr. Saban. He has a history of being not true to his words.
January 28th, 2011 - 18:27
I meant “let’s not blame Tressel for it”
January 29th, 2011 - 14:47
Tre,
you could say that about any coach. The real question is, do the many many players he has forced out like him? I would bet they dont.
January 29th, 2011 - 15:39
Is it unreasonable to see that a player who didn’t develop into a coach’s system find himself a little bitter about it? I guess that’s why they are the ones interviewed in the WSJ peices. I wonder what ex-players who didn’t transfer out have to say? Probably nothing that fits the template so why bother?
January 28th, 2011 - 12:39
I don’t know the man persoanlly, so I won’t try to make any opinion of him.
I think Alabama does use the Greyshirt option a good bit and Does try to move players out to make room.
However, Let me ask you this….
If a player is not going to get any playing time and a coach ask that player to transfer IF that player wants to get playing time… is this a Bad thing?
Let me say this too… I don’t think a coach should lie or mislead a kid either. This is why would love to see 4 year deal as opposed to the current 1 year deal. With a 4 year deal, the decision to sit the pine or to transfer would be in the players hands. The coach could still let the kid know he won’t be playing, but the kid then has the ability to sit pine if he still makes his acedemic and practice obligations.
Medicals… need to be verified and approved by an independant party.
February 2nd, 2011 - 21:05
And you commenting on “principle, values, honesty and integrity” is a laughable joke, too.
You can’t make what you’re saying up, either. Well, I guess you can, because you just did.
January 27th, 2011 - 08:10
Whether it be this issue, oversigning or any other related issue, Sanford said it best in a prior post:
“You know, when you break down both sides, you have one side that is trying to protect the student and college athletics, and the other side is interested winning titles.”
Pretty much sums everything up.
January 27th, 2011 - 09:18
Not even close….
If you want to say some recruiters are telling lies to recruits… so be it. I can agree this is wrong and maybe a system could be worked out that would help the athletes understand what they are signing.
However, if they are told what is epxected of them and what could happen… then I have no problem with kids being cut off the scholarship list. They are not being kicked out of school and are not being black listed from trying to play at any other school. They have the option to continue their education at their own cost or try to get a free ride elsewhere. No one stops them from doing this.
The key is the players understanding the risk involved… in a way, it could be a great life lesson.
Eventhough the website title is “catchy”, there is no such thing as “Oversigning”. Please point out one time where Alabama has ever been over the 25/85 NCAA rule? Can”t do it, can you?
I have said it many times on this forum, EVERY NLI is REQUIRED by the NCAA to have a BINDING 1 year scholarship offer with it. That offer will be applied to either the previous years class (if there is room and the athlete qualifies), the current class, or the next class (greyshirt). THEY ALWAYS have a offer BINDING offer. As long as the parents and the athlete understand the offer, it is their decision to sign the NLI and be bound to the restrictions that come with it.
Also, as stated in other threads, the NLI is not required to be signed by the athlete. If you feel you’re good enough, you can try your luck at walking on and earning a scholarship without any NLI.
What the SEC does gives it an advantage over the Big 10 for sure… but that’s at the doing of the Big 10′s rules. There is NOTHING unethical about what the SEC does. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it unethical and in many cases many players would argue that it allowed them go to college and have the chance to gain an education.
January 27th, 2011 - 09:27
When a coach is oversigned, he cannot give impartial advice to a recruit considering an ill-advised transfer. It’s a complete conflict of interest.
If this was ethical behavior, schools with better academic reputations than the very, very poor academic reputations of the SEC West schools would do it. None do though.
January 27th, 2011 - 09:42
Impartial… sure he can. The recruit was told when he signed up he had to earn the scholarship every year. It’s a one year deal. You tell the kid, sorry this year you didn’t earn it. I suggest you transfer if you want to continue plaing football or you can stay enrolled at Alabama and pay your own way… How hard is that? That was the deal when they signed up….
Listen, when you buy something with a contract I would agree it is unethical for the salesman to misrepresent what the “return policy is”… ie he says you can return it if you don’t like it. You sign the contract and find out later that you can’t return it because the contract you signed doesn’t allow it. The Salesman was UNETHICAL in telling/misleading you, the contract isn’t unethincal as you should have read it and understood it before you signed it.
Same thing here… you are signing a contract, one that is not REQUIRED for you to sign to goto college, playfootball or even receive a scholarship. I believe Nick is telling the kids what he expects and what can happen to them. I know I was told when I signed a NLI. I can agree to changing the system to better inform the kids and parents what they are signing and what can happen…
The kids don’t have to transfer, they roll the dice to see if the Scholarship review board will renew the scholarship or not… I think there is even an appeal process to that also. However, if the coach is asking you to transfer or leave… it might be in your best interest to do just that.
Just like the rest of the “normal” population… we have to fund our education out of pocket. They have that option too… and no one is taking that away from them.
January 27th, 2011 - 18:04
I PRESUME when most people that are 18 yr old hot shot athlete’s, are all world on their high school team and are being ranked by some recruiting guru that it would be safe to say they would ASSUME they would be at the college they choose for 4/5 yrs, even if the coach was up front about the 1 yr deal. There’s no way they’d be one of the players cut!
January 27th, 2011 - 20:55
Exactly. Pretending that 18-year-olds have the same decision-making resources as powerful coaches is unbelievably dishonest. Just one more reason why ethical schools don’t allow oversigning.
January 27th, 2011 - 20:56
Why have Nick Saban and Alabama never come out and made it clear that this is their policy? Why do they leave it to be argued by anonymous posters on message boards or stated by the occasional player?
January 28th, 2011 - 07:22
because he doesnt owe you an explanation.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:42
I believe if you read one of the previous article linked to from this sight… when an newpaper interviewed an Alabama recruit that recruit understood that his scholarship was for 1 year AND he’d have to earn it every year….
I think Nick is telling the people that matter what their policy is… the recruits. I don’t think Nick gives a rats ass what the media thinks or know…
January 27th, 2011 - 09:52
Schools recruit in different ways… UGA has decided to use what Alabama does against them and say they don’t do that and you scholarship will be good for 4 years (which in itself is a bit unethical as there is no way to give a 4 year scholarship). That’s their choice… However, when/if a new coach comes in, things may change.
Either way, it’s still up to the parents and the athlete to understand what they are signing.
January 27th, 2011 - 11:02
except when they take a kids verbal commit, but yank it when he is on campus to sign it. which Richt has already done before.
January 27th, 2011 - 11:07
You mail out your NLI and OFFER to the kids and they sign it and fax it back in. You can’t Yank it…
January 27th, 2011 - 11:14
Besides this has nothing to do with “oversigning”. I would like to see an early period to help with that type of situation… as of right now, verbal or not… there is nothing binding until the first wednesday in February…
If Richt pulls a verbal from a kid… I’d say that would hurt his chances in future recruiting class… but conversly, how many kids change their verbal to other schools?
January 27th, 2011 - 11:30
http://blogs.ajc.com/recruiting/2009/07/21/carver-columbus-coach-bans-uga-recruiters/
the coaches offered him a scholarship, so he stopped shopping around, then when he was on campus with his family to sign everything, they sent an asst coach out to tell him that they werent offering it anymore.
January 27th, 2011 - 13:27
And this is why I would be 100% for an early signing period. Kids change minds on their verbals all the time… Schools seem to also as you have pointed out. Verbals do not mean much… but once ink hits paper it does. The contract is for 1 year.
January 27th, 2011 - 20:15
The 1 yr contract is a bit unethical, if a kid gets released, I believe he has to sit out 1 yr if he wants to transfer to another D1 or FBS school or whatever they call it now, so it’s basically a 2 yr deal.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:06
It’s rare to not get renewed… but if you don’t get renewed the NLI is not renewed either…
Mostly what happens is a kid transfers and is released undercondition… ie we will release you but you can’t go play for another team in conference…
I don’t thinkk the current NLI is a fair document, although I do think the parents and athlete should understand it and are bound to what it says… I would love to chang it a bit to make it more of a two way street.
January 27th, 2011 - 13:36
BTW, did you read the article… he was not on campus to Sign a NLI… he was there to announce his verbal commitment. This wasin July of 2009 and he was going to give his verbal to UGA for a NLI on Feb 3rd of 2010. UGA withdrew there offer to him.
It was an embarrassment to him because the school didn’t do a good job of communicating with him before he came on campus for “Georgia Night”, and the HScoach banned UGA from recruiting at the school for a year as pay back.
If anything, this was an issue because UGA doesn’t “oversign” as you say so they HAD to pull his scholarship offer from him. If anything this shows how a kid get’s hurt from not allowing you to “oversign”.
January 28th, 2011 - 11:42
No. you are knowledgeable about the LOI process but you are wrong about the 1 year contract. Yes I know, it is really a 1 year contract but it is assumed they will have a 4 year scholarship baring no academic or discipline issues. This does not count for an abnormally high medical hardship count. Alabama has more medical hardships given out under saban than any other conference….this is not right.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:08
I’ve said before that I would support and think there should be an NCAA approved or independant review of all medicals… I wouldn’t want to restrick the use of a medical as I would want to err on he side of keeping a kid health, but there should be a review process outside the school that approves such a scholarship to keep abuse down.
January 27th, 2011 - 11:01
talk about academic reputation. Have you looked at UGA’s rep? their graduation rates from 2005-2009 were 45%, 41%, 41%, 48%, 57%. that is pretty bad if you are saying their academic rep is good.
January 27th, 2011 - 11:09
Furthermore, how many Rhodes Scholar finalists did your team have?
January 27th, 2011 - 11:10
Are we talking Academic rep or Athletic Scholarships? Each school uses their “rep” to try to sell a kid also… I would hope each athlete would take that into consideration, and maybe that gives the Big 10 and advantage over the SEC ?
January 27th, 2011 - 11:02
Impartial advice? Why not? Better yet, I would argue that it is the duty of a responsible coach to inform every player of his status, especially if he’s been there for two or three years has done nothing to distinguish himself. What is unresponsible is to let the kid continue to believe he has a shot at playing time when he doesn’t. Once this is discussed, what more is there to be impartial about? If the player decides to transfer, a good coach would then go and assist him in finding a school that has a need at his position, and is a good fit academically (one that allows him to continue at his major) – I see no conflict of interest here either.
January 27th, 2011 - 10:34
Your missing a point…ugh…we all know every nloi is bound to a one year scholarship awarded in one of the three ways you mentioned…that is the reason the dead weight already on the roster is pushed out…see lsu when all of their recruits qualified and lsu had to push guys like Chris Garrett out.
January 27th, 2011 - 10:47
And I have problem with that… as long as the family and the recruits understand what they are signing. It’s a One year deal… not a 4 year deal.
January 27th, 2011 - 13:53
BTW, I know where you stand on this as we’ve had this conversation on previous threads… Your views are not really based against oversigning… which I think both you and I know is not what’s going on… it’s that these scholarships are for 1 year and the kids and parents don’t understand that. They don’t fully get what they are signing or what could happen to them. In this area, you and I (I think) agree… something more could/should be done to make the NLI more “fair”… either by binding it for 4 years or by making it more clear what is being offered. To that I don’t have a good answer as to what to do…
January 27th, 2011 - 13:58
Sorry… i hit submit before I was complete…. wish there was an edit feature.
Anyway, I personally don’t agree with the Big 10 method. I think it limits the chances given to boardline kids or kids that may be trying to decide between two or more schools. I think it punishes the schools for not making the offer to the “right kids. I think the use of greyshirt is a great thing, as long as the kids knows… however, I would love to see some type of independant review of medials and maybe a 4 year binding scholarship.
January 27th, 2011 - 10:38
Pu-lease, get a grip.
First, you failed to grasp the meaning of the post you responded to, which actually belies how stuck in the “screw the athlete and win at any cost baby” mentality so prevalent in that academic backwater called the SEC West.
Second, for as much as you post, it is amazing that you still do not understand what oversigning is. This is clearly evident when you post stupid things like “there is no such thing as “Oversigning” ” Go educate yourself and then come back. Clearly there is such a thing as oversigning otherwise sportswriters and media outlets would not be discussing the activity. News flash, the Big 10 has passed rules preventing their member schools from oversigning. If there was no such thing, what would they actually be passing rules on?
Wake up idiot. When a sleaze bag like Saban offers 28 kids a place on his roster knowing he only has room for 20 of them, the math is simple: somehow he has to cull his roster by 8 in order to make the numbers. That is oversigning. Get it? That behavior is unfair not only because it exploits the kids, but also, because it is unfair to the programs that have to compete against these sleaze bag, chronic over-signers.
is it any wonder why the SEC has won the last 5 national titles??? Now we know. They oversign!
January 27th, 2011 - 13:15
What you call oversigning isn’t oversigning. How can you sign more than 25/85 players… you can’t… Every scholarship is for 1 year…. Every year you renew exsisting, cut exsisting or add to exsisting to get to 25/85….
Don’t you get it… You start EVERY year with ZERO scholarships. Zero… Nadda… Nothing. You then either renew or add scholarships up to the 25/85 limit. THERE IS NO oversigning unless you go above the 25/85.
NCAA rules do not allow you to offer anything more than a 1 year scholarship. That’s it… Nothing else. You have the option to renew that scholarship or not. Alabama not renewing a scholarship my be something you do no like… it may be something that the recruit would not like… but it is not OVERSIGNING. Period… end of story.
If you want to argue that scholarships should be 4 year deals… ok, I’ll listen.
If you want to argue that recruiters should lie or mislead the recruits… ok, I’ll listen.
If you want to argue about a system that could help the recruits understand what they are signing… 100% for it.
What this site tries to put forward is that the SEC is cheating… they many not say it directly, but that is what I get from it. It seems to over and over again complain that the SEC doesn’t do things the way the Big 10 does…. and this give an advantage to the SEC. I’m sure it does give an advantage, but it’s far from being unethical to the kids.
If a kid get’s cut… does he get kicked out of school… No.
If a kid get’s cut… is he blacklisted from trying out for a different team… No.
Where is he injustace? He signed a 1 YEAR deal. The school has lived up to that 1 Year. The school now has the option to renew for the next year or cut the kid and he can go else where without penatly. There is NO promise for a 4 year ride. If a coach or recruiter is telling a kid that.. then THAT would be the unethical part and I would then agree with you that something would need to be done to help STOP that misleading from going on.
So, before you go calling people an idot… do some research and understand fully the system. Each year start anew…. 0/0 to get to 25/85….
January 27th, 2011 - 13:57
More blah, blah, blah…Bammer justification bs
Yes players ARE in effect kicked out of school if they are capable of playing elsewhere. That fact doesn’t excuse any school for failing to live up their implied obligations.
The egregious fact is athletic scholarships are marketed or represented by coaches and institutions as a free “educaiton” which in this instance should transalte to a 4 year degree. Not a year-to-year maybe scholly based upon the future possibility there might be a prospect out there better at your position. (see recent Bammer 5 STAR transfer BJ Scott)
Oversigning is ethically & morally wrong your reasoning is a gross perversion of the intent of all athletic recruiting guidelines. You better be preparing yourself for the practice to come to a halt very soon. Finis.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:07
I would agree on the 4 year scholarship offers… we don’t have that option by NCAA rule. I would love to see that changed.
There is no implied obligations… it’s a one year deal and the schools are not allowed to offer anything more. If they are telling a kid anything else THEY are the ones being unethical.
Please explain how it is unethical? If a parent and athlete know they are signing a 1 year deal and that they will have to earn the scholarship each and evey year… they choose to agree to that…. I just don’t see it.
Again, you wanna change the scholarship from 1 year to 4 years by NCAA rules… I’m all for it; however that will do little do stop what you call “oversigning”. They ue of greyshirts will still be used (which I like). The use of transfers will stil be used (as they should be. A coach has a responablity to give a kid direction if he feels he’s never going to see the playing field).. however the transfer would now be more at the descrition of the athlete as he has a 4 year ride (if you change the 1 year rule to 4 years) AND he can choose if he wants to ride pine or play elsewhere… I think you’ll fnd a lot of Transfers will still happen.
January 28th, 2011 - 13:55
yes there is oversigning. Every year most SEC west teams go over the 25 per year rule. In fact, the SEC has a cap of 28 on the yearly rule so how is that not oversigning. They only mark your argument makes any sense is of the 85 rule where chronic oversigners push kids out to make room.
January 28th, 2011 - 14:11
You need to call the NCAA then… that is a MAJOR violation to have more than 25 guys on scholarship from one recuiting class… MAJOR.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:00
“”What you call oversigning isn’t oversigning. How can you sign more than 25/85 players… you can’t… “”
Where did I say that?? Show me where I wrote anything about schools signing more than 85. Show me! Stop projecting what you think people mean and pay attention to what they actual write. You made a similar mistake on KSU comment, which you totally misconstrued – that is what got me involved in this pissing match.
“”NCAA rules do not allow you to offer anything more than a 1 year scholarship. That’s it… Nothing else. You have the option to renew that scholarship or not.”"
Total rubbish and patently false. From the Ncaa.org website:
“”Bylaw 15.3.4.2 allows the scholarship to be cancelled or reduced only if the student-athlete:
Renders himself or herself ineligible for competition;
Fradulently misrepresents any information on an application, letter of intent, or financial aid agreement;
Engages in serious misconduct; or
Voluntarily quits the team.”"
Nothing there about “not being good enough to make the roster.”
But just think about what you are saying logically and consider the consequences. If scholarships were really only good for one-year, then why can’t student athletes willingly transfer at the beginning of each year without the consent of the school since their contract is over? There are a number of laws governing transfers. This facet alone nullifies your point that scholarships are only one year deals. There are rules for transfers and rules for renewals that extend beyond the mere “1-year only” concept, which is a complete violation of the intent of what a scholarship is supposed to be about.
Good ole Nick Saban might be able to sell that 1-year line of garbage to some gullible teenager, but don’t come around here spouting that nonsense. We know better.
I have no more time for your silly objections in defense of the unethical and unfair practice of oversigning. Even ncaa.org has an entire page condemning the practice.
This crap has too stop. This is destroying college football. (Oh yeah, and we need a playoff. But that is a different topic.)
January 27th, 2011 - 14:12
15.3.3 Period of Institutional Financial Aid Award.
15.3.3.1 One-Year Period. If a student’s athletics ability is considered in any degree in awarding financial
aid, such aid shall neither be awarded for a period in excess of one academic year nor for a period less than one
academic year (see Bylaw 15.01.5). (Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)
15.3.3.1.2 Financial Aid Authority Precedent. A staff member may inform a prospective studentathlete
that the athletics department will recommend to the financial aid authority that the prospective
student-athlete’s financial aid be renewed each year for a period of four years and may indicate that the
204
authority always has followed the athletics department’s recommendations in the past. However, the prospective
student-athlete must be informed that the renewal will not be automatic.
Notice that last part…. “However, the prospective
student-athlete must be informed that the renewal will not be automatic.”
You get that… Now do you understand…
January 27th, 2011 - 14:22
First, it is duly noted that you ignored my transfer rules comment. I will take that as complete recapitulation.
Second, how do you read the phrase “not automatic” and assume that means good ol Saban can willy nilly cut under-performers from his roster? The very same bylaw states:
“the athletics department will recommend to the financial aid authority that the prospective
student-athlete’s financial aid be renewed each year for a period of four years”
This is clearly the intent of a scholarship – that it is renewed yearly as long as the student athelete meets his/her end of the contract defined in by-law15.3.4.2. That is, as long as the student keeps up their grades, doesn’t quit the team, or violate any rules/laws they are in good standing and the scholarship is to be renewed. This renewal process may happen every year, but that does not mean the scholarship is “up for grabs” every year. Otherwise, there would not be an entire section governing transfers, etc.
The above bylaws do not in any way support your fanciful notion that a scholarship is only good for 1 year and that coaches like Nick Saban can go ahead and “cut” players without any justifiable reason.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:47
The transfer rules are in place for any athlete under NLI. If the school renews your scholarship it also renews your NLI and therfore you are bound to the transfer rules if you decide to leave.
You left out the beging of that rule… what you left out is “A staff member may inform a prospective studentathlete
that”… Key word is May… This is because some schools tell the kids that we ALWAYS recommend that your scholarship be renewed. However, that’s not the case at all schools and as evidenced in previous threads at least on current recruit of Alabama understands that he will have to earn his spot each year.
As I said before, it’s rare that any scholarship is not renewed. Mostly it’s more a coach going to a kid and letting him know he’s not going to get playing time and advising him to transfer. I don’t see where that is a bad thing. The athlete could push his luck and see if they renew his scholarship or not and then if they don’t he could appeal it. I’ve never see it happen, but he does that option. In the end and in most cases it’s the athlete decision to leave.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:51
Oh also, if they always follow the recomendations of the atheltic department… woudn’t that also account for it the athletic department recommended it not being renewed…
THat’s how I read it as not being automatic… cause they say in plain english…. IT WILL NOT BE AUTOMATIC… seems simple to me.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:15
What you posted was for the year the scholarship is offered. NO SCHOOL is cutting a player they have given a scholarship to. They are NOT RENEWING it at the end of the 1 YEAR period that the scholarship was given.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:29
NOT RENEWING = CUTTING for all practical purposes.
It goes both ways. If what you say is true, then the student-athlete should have the right to “not-renew” a binding contract and be able to freely transfer. It is not as clear cut as you suggest.
A school cannot just “not renew” a scholarship without a viable reason when the athlete is in compliance with the bylaw defining the athletes obligations.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:37
oh yes they can… and they have a section in the by laws that states you CANNOT tell them otherwise. Actually, it’s not the Athletic department that makes that decesion anyway. They may follow the lead of the Athletic department, but technically… they could not renew your scholarship EVEN IF the coach wants it renewed.
And yes, I think think there should be a two way street… see my post below a few ticks.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:52
How… do you not have unscholarship players on the team? THe roster is 120 guys…not 85…. They are taking away the scholarship… you can still try out for the team as a walk on.
January 28th, 2011 - 14:01
Bathel,
You are way off dude. You just dont get it and you will sit here and type until your fingers bleed because all you care about it winning even at the expense of the student athlete. It is funny how there are fans of certain teams who oversign and they agree oversigning is unethical and creates competitive advantage.
January 28th, 2011 - 14:21
Have you read my post??? Do you know even know that I am FOR rule changes??
The problem is the rules you want changed, won’t change anything… or at least it won’t FIX the problem.
I was one of these atheltes that signed an NLI. I was an athlete that transfered… I understand the rules pretty well, athough some aspects have changed since 1990…
Please, do yoursel a favor and read up on what I have posted… mostly near the end of this long thread.
I am 100% for changing the rules to a 4 year scholarship.
I am for having an independant or NCAA regulated mediacal scholarship program.
I am 100% for changing the NLI system to be more transparent to the athlete’s and parents.
I am 100% for giving the more control to the athletes
The Big 10 rule, doesn’t do any of that.
January 27th, 2011 - 15:25
Thanks for posting that.
It’s important that visitors to this site who either already support the oversigning cause, or who are simply looking to be educated by what each side has to offer, see what lengths the oversigning defenders will go in order to willfully avoid drawing common sense conclusions that in any way favor ethical treatment of football-playing student-athletes.
To wit, any reasonable man would have to conclude from reading Tdogg’s posts and citations of NCAA bylaws, that there is no suggestion within them of an NCAA blessing to dismiss players due to inability to gain a starting position, or to become a regular contributor with an athletic team. It’s just not there in anything Tdogg cited.
Yet because you are able to make the semantically true statement that schools are procedurally “NOT RENEWING” scholarships, you believe you’ve put to bed the notion that players are not being cut. This despite that any reasonable reader would clearly conclude that oversigning coaches are forcing out what you defenders call “dead weight” (a practice which oversigning defenders have openly stated exists, and for which they have affirmed and reaffirmed their support ).
I guess it will remain true that as long as oversigning defenders are deaf to the dissonance of their own intellectual dishonesty, then you can say and believe whatever you want.
But don’t count the NCAA, the burgeoning number of national media getting on board with exposing this abusive practice, or even your very own conference offices among those who are fooled by yours specious defenses.
January 27th, 2011 - 19:40
Come on… really… Then argue that the NCAA should implement 4 year scholarships… Why the heck to do you think they only limit it to 1 year… Why is it a renewable scholarship…. why not just make it a 4 year commitment and be done with it…
January 27th, 2011 - 19:45
Not renewing, cutting a player, running a kid out… call it whatever you want… I do not have an issue with it. In the end, the coach is removing the “Scholarship” from the player. The player can still go to school at that school if he wishes AND further more can even try to walk on and re-earn his scholarship in a future year. There are plenty of kids on the team that DO NOT have a scholarship.
If you want to make it a 4 year commitment, change the NCAA rule to allow for a 4 year commitment. I would 100% support that, however you’d still have transfers, greyshirts and medicals that would occur.
January 28th, 2011 - 14:07
you still dont get it. wow
January 28th, 2011 - 14:26
Then please explain to me how the Big 10 rule stops oversigning? Cause it doesn’t stop the use of transfers or the use of medicals… it only pushes them up to before national signing day.
However, it does kill greyshirts, which is bad.
It does punish a school for making an offer to a kid that doesn’t qualify or that choses a different school.
Please explain to me how the Big 10 rule would STOP Alabama from running a kid off before National Signing Day? Cause if he’s transfered before that day, you have a spot to accept an NLI.
I think the person who doesn’t get it is you…
January 27th, 2011 - 14:21
Pay attention tdog:
What you trying to argue is not oversigning. It’s not renewing scholarships for 4 years. Oversigning would be giving out more scholarships than the 25/85 limit allows. You give those out each and every year. You can either choose to give them to the same guys as last year or not… there is NOTHING that says you have to.
Now, if you want to argue there should be a 4 year scholarship offer… I might jump on board, but that’s not the case right now. I also don’t agree with the way the Big 10 handles it… I think this punishes a kid who may be trying to decide between two schools and it punishes the school for making offering the “wrong” kid.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:34
I don’t care if you jump on board. I care that this issue gains prominence and is brought into the national awareness. It is an exploitive (to the kids) and unfair (to the competing schools) practice that the NCAA needs regulate. It is getting out of hand. Ole miss already has 29 recruits…they are 14 over the number of available spots??? And they are still recruiting. What the heck.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:33
That’s easy… if a school doesn’t renew a scholarship the NLI is no longer binding. THe kid can go play anywhere he wants to without penalty. If the school does renew his scholarship and he decides to transfer, he has to sit a year as the NLI is binding.
It’s very rare that a kids scholarship is not renewed and even then there is an appeal process you can go through if you feel you were wronged. What normally happens is the coach would go to the player and let hiim know he’s not going to see the field and his best option is to transfer if he wants to play. Some coaches are nice enough to release him from his NLI (most understipulation that he play outside the conference)… but not always.
The transfer rules are all in place because of the NLI you sign and maybe by any scholarship you accept (i’ve never seen a scholaship without an NLI but it is feasable). If the school renews your scholarship it renews your NLI and there by binds you to the rules and regulations of transfe.
This is where I have a bit of an issue… You as an athlete basically sign a 1 year NLI and get a 1 year scholarship. The school then has the option to renew that NLI and scholarship for 4 years and you have no choice. I think it should be a 4 year NLI with a 4 year scholarship.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:38
Bathel wrote:
That’s easy… if a school doesn’t renew a scholarship the NLI is no longer binding. THe kid can go play anywhere he wants to without penalty. If the school does renew his scholarship and he decides to transfer, he has to sit a year as the NLI is binding.
Not so fast. If a schollie is only good for 1 year, both parties have to renew, not just one. So if Saban has the option to “not renew”, then Mr. Ingram should have the option to “go to Michigan State”.
However, this is not the case. The athlete has to be “let out of their agreement” by the school, which implies that there is more at work than just a renewable 1 year contract as you implied.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:56
Actually, no.. it’s the school option to renew not the players… this is where I would agree it is not a two way street… I think it should be a 4 year NLI and a 4 year scholarship. BTW, use (remvoe the periods) if you wanna quote something… easier to read.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:58
achh… use less than sign to quote… add the / before the work blockquote to close it.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:59
oh good lord..
Link to how to quote…
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_blockquote.asp
January 27th, 2011 - 13:34
["News flash, the Big 10 has passed rules preventing their member schools from oversigning"]
No, as witnessed in yesterday’s discussion, the B10 does allow oversigning, and apparently it’s ok now (provided you have the B10′s blessing):
["...The prior B10 rule prohibited sending out more NLOIs than there was projected room for. So if a team projected to have 20 spots available out of the 85 total, they could only send out 20 NLOIs ... The B10 changed their rule in response to this [being left short when a verbal decommits late] and similar situations … Obviously, the new rule has the potential to result in oversigning by three, but the controls the B10 put in has served as enough of a deterrent that it infrequently occurs.”]
The B10 allows oversigning of up to 3 per year.
January 27th, 2011 - 13:42
Not to mention… what’s to say they can’t project what ever they want… we project taht we will be not renewing 5 scholarships… so we are going to sign 25 guys. Or better yet… just give notice to the 5 guys that they will not be renewed. You don’t have to project, you can base it in fact… we will have 25 spots open cause we just cut 5 guys.
What they want is a 4 year scholarship… which can be debated… but oversiging isn’t the problem, but it sounds better than making an argument against the 1 year scholarship.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:13
You are an idiot. The big 10 does not allow oversigning. Get the facts straight before you continue to make a fool of yourself. It is 3 over the 85 limit, not per year!!!!
And even that has to be documented to explain beforehand how they intend to get to the 85 limit. It has nothing to do with oversigning. Saban has had more “medical” hardships in the last 3 years than the entire big 10 freakin conference has had in something like a decade. You can’t make this stuff up. Here is what a medical hardship is supposed to be about:
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/tag/medical-hardship/
But instead the SEC has turned it into this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384204575509901468451306.html
I can spend all day educating you fools, but actually have to save the world right now.
January 27th, 2011 - 19:52
Tdogg… Saban has 2 medial scholarships out of his last three classes of recruiting… in the class of 2008 RB. Ivan Machette and in 2009 OL. Darius McKeller. There have been no medials in 2010… although word is Kerry Murphys knee that he tore up in Junior college may take a medical which would make 3 in three years.
January 27th, 2011 - 20:21
Sorry, i was wrong there… I was going from memory so please ignore my above post as it is wrong.
January 27th, 2011 - 20:30
I think an arguement could be made to have a 3rd party or independant doctor clear a athlete for a medical… I don’t want to restrict the use of medicals as I’d hate to see a kid get seriously hurt becuase a coach keeps him on the team and practicing because he has to use that spot for a scholarship, but it should be able to be verified and cleared by the NCAA.
January 27th, 2011 - 17:10
You are absolutely wrong. there are several schools oversigned between Feb 2nd (NSD) and July 1st (the NCAA mandated date for non-renewal notice).
And you don’t have to walk on to sign a GIA…you can sign a GIA and not sign an NLI…where do you get your information?
January 27th, 2011 - 20:00
To my knowledge, the scholarship doesn’t start until the fall start date… which is the class of the recuite. They are not offical to the school as of yet as the second part of the NLI would have to be fullfiled before it was binding…and that is that the athlete would have to actually qualify at that school for enrollment for the NLI to be enforced, which is why a non-qualifier can go to JuCo and then is not bound to the NLI and can go to any college they want or that wants them.
January 30th, 2011 - 17:24
Your knowledge is wrong…Many players enroll in June
January 31st, 2011 - 21:29
ON their own dime… yes, I don’t believe the scholarship starts until Fall quarter… I could be wrong though. You do have early enrolls, but they have to qualify and you have to have room. I can promise you they are not giving out more scholarships than the 25/85 limit allows…
January 27th, 2011 - 19:13
You would have been very comfortable defending the ethics of Germans who helped create the environment that led to the “The Final Solution”.
January 27th, 2011 - 19:19
This was intended for Babel.
January 27th, 2011 - 19:54
Please…. if you don’t have anything constructive to add… stay out of the debate.
January 28th, 2011 - 11:04
That’s some sweet irony there.
January 28th, 2011 - 11:04
Or just the extremely poor ethics that white Southern society has long had regarding issues that largely involve black Southerners.
January 28th, 2011 - 03:04
Bathel, oversigning is an accurate term for what happens and there are many examples of coaches accepting too many LOI. The term oversigning is derived from the fact that students sign a LOI. If a coach sign more LOI than there are available scholarships during a given year then this is oversigning. No coach goes over the 85 scholarship limit at a given time because the coach/staff/university chooses to dismiss someone from the team, the student doesn’t qualify academically, the student is given a medical hardship or a grayshirt, or the student transfers.
But Nick Saban has most certainly oversigned. Students sent 32 LOI in 2008 (http://tinyurl.com/4wcwwyv) which put him in a situation to have to cut some from the team or rely on some not making it. But this is the definition of oversigning and not a term that the author of the site invented to piss off SEC fans.
January 28th, 2011 - 09:53
Actually, no… Most NLI are with an option for a defered enrollment to the next years class (greyshirt) or really, most NLI’s are offers for the next years class with an option to enroll in the current years class IF there is room. You cannot have more than the 25/85… so if you accept 28 NLI’s and only have room for 23, you are putting 23 toward the current class and 5 toward the next years class… now if a guy transfers or doesn’t qualify… then one of those 5 would move to the current class.
So you see… you are not OVERSIGNING…as you can NEVER have more than the 25/85 limit.
Are you saying you don’t like the use of greyshirts?
BTW, the Big 10 rule wouldn’t stop what is being done in the SEC and other schools… Why? Because what would happen is you would have guys transfering or leaving after the fall term in leui of the Summer term to open spots up before the Feb national signing day. It would just shift the time frame.
What you want to do, if I understand you… is to disallow the use of Greyshirts, which I don’t agree with at all.
January 31st, 2011 - 11:03
This is still oversigning. I agree that a class cannot have over 25/85 but that would be called ‘overscholarshipping’ rather than oversigning.
January 31st, 2011 - 11:08
And I have no problem with fair use of medical hardships, greyshirts, or allowing a student to transfer. This does happen and is not always unjust. The issue is the level to which each of these cases is used or abused by some coaches.
January 31st, 2011 - 15:42
Which is why I have been saying the Big 10 rule does’t address any of that. You can still get people to transfer or abuse medicals… you’d just have to do it before national signing day. Besides, the Big 10 rule kills greyshirts, which I don’t agree with at all.
January 31st, 2011 - 15:48
When you sign, you are given a scholarship… it’s part of the NLI. So you can’t oversign without overscholarshipping… the “trick” is some offers are for the class of 2012 not 2011… ie the Collins kid from Alabama this year just acknowledged he will be accepting a greyshirt offer for the class of 2012. I’m sure he wont’ be the only one.
This site will most likely count him toward the 2011 class this year for the “cup” points AND you’ll see him again next year counted as a greyshirt (to be honest, I don’t know if that’s the way this sight counts them… I am just guessing, but I feel confident I will be corrected if wrong).
As long as he knows what he’s being offered and he’s ok with that… so am I.
Now, for runing a kid off or abuse of medical, I would agree this is not a good thing. That is why I have been trying to get some of these guys on this site to understand the Big 10 rule doesn’t address that… If a coach is unethical (as has been said on this site), why would he stop being unethical when there is clear room to abuse the Big 10 rule too?
January 28th, 2011 - 10:02
This is where I have issues with this site…
It saw Alabama with 10 oversigns in it’s “cup points”. That’s just not true. Even if no player leaves the program or is “cut”… Alabama will not be oversigned. They will have what ever number NLI’s go toward the 25/85 limit as they can and the remaining will be to the class of 2012… as a binding scholarship. Those over the limit guys are not being dumped to the curb, their offer is for 2012 and not 2011 and as such will not count toward the 25/85 numbers until the class of 2012.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:51
There is nothing wrong with greyshirting, but with a greyshirt, the student has to pay for their tuition. The idea is that if a student knows ahead of time they are going to have to greyshirt, then they would be inclined to go elsewhere where a school has offered a full-ride sholarship. That is, why go to Alabama and greyshirt when I can go to Clemson and be on scholarship.
The problem is when the athlete believes they are getting a scholarship and finds out after they show up for camp that they are going to have to greyshirt.
January 28th, 2011 - 13:06
And this is why I would support 100% making it MORE clear as to what they are signing or just making school offer a seperate offer that is for Greyshirt… IT would say it’s for the next class, but it would also allow enrollment into the current class if there was room….
so you could make two different offers to a recruit… One NON greyshirt and one Greyshirt…. I don’t know if that would help out, but it might make things more clear, thoughts?
January 28th, 2011 - 13:18
Sure making it more clear would be nice. But of course, they do not want to make it more clear. This is just another example of how the SEC is exploiting the loopholes and the expense of the athletes.
Case in point (and there are many) Elliot Porter. He showed up and moved into the dorms thinking he had a scholarship, but because Les Miles is another one of these chronic over-signers, Elliot was asked to greyshirt after signing day and after he showed up to summer camp. Had Les Miles told him before national signing day, he could have selected one of the many other schools he had offers from.
Unfortunately, his life was disrupted as both a student and an athlete. See this is the real problem with oversigning..it is the human capital that is thrown asunder by a handful of exploitive, win-at-any-cost programs. Had Les not over-signed to begin with, this would have never happened. THIS does not happen when a conference enforces rules, such as the big 10.
January 28th, 2011 - 13:33
Again… the Big 10 rule does nothing to stop oversigning… cause there is no oversigning. What it would do is shift the transfers or medicals to the summer term instead of the fall term to make room for more NLIs to be accepted…
What the Big 10 rule does is nothing but punish kids that are boarderline qualifiers or that are deciding between two schools as it limits who each school is going to offer.. ie they won’t offer a kid that may pick different school OR a boardline kid as they end up losing a scholarshipo that year… at least in my opinion.
I think different rules need to be changed to help “protect” the athlete…
January 28th, 2011 - 13:42
The big 10 rule does stop oversigning because, well it has! The proof is in the numbers, which are clear for all to see. The big 10 does not offer more scholarships than they have available. The SEC does, but then has to pull them at the last minute when they are over. The are oversiging.
And yes, you can repeat oversigning does not exist, but you are just wrong. When it is posted on the main recruiting page of NCAA.org and conferences like the big 10 passes rules specifically citing the practice, then the empirical evidence shows there is such a practice.
Here you go, proof that oversigning does exist and that you just do not really understand the concept.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2010/Division+I/Council+takes+steps+to+curb+over-signing+in+football
January 28th, 2011 - 14:32
How does the Big 10 stop a school from getting an athlete to tranfer to a different school? How does it stop the use of a medical scholarship?
My understanding is that as long as you have room, you can accept the NLI, correct?
So Nick instead of running a kid off in July… Runs him off after the season in December or January.. before the 2nd term… Signing day is the First Wednesday in February…
So… now he’s run the players off… They now have open spots to accept the NLIs…
The only think the Big 10 rule does is STOP greyshirting, which I happen to think is a good program. I think it affords more kids chances to go to school…
So, from what I can tell… this site should be going after Greyshirting.. the defered enrollment, if that’s what you want to do… but I wouldn’t support that. For many reasons.
January 28th, 2011 - 13:08
IE.. a NON-greyshirt offer would not be able to defer enrollment; however, a greyshirt offer could move back to the current class.
January 28th, 2011 - 11:31
WOW! Bathel keep talking and telling yourself this and it will become true in your mind.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:11
Yup… same to you guys…
January 27th, 2011 - 12:03
I come from the Big Ten. I hate these SEC team so much. I went to good scool for academics, very good. But good football too. I get so mad that SEC beats we so much. It is because there teams oversign. They is cheating cheaters, and barely literate.
They are unethical immoral and stoopid. Saban is the werst, but I hate Les Miles so much too because he told Michigan to go fly a kite.
January 27th, 2011 - 14:42
Learn how to spell.
There is no way you came from the Big 10….
January 27th, 2011 - 14:47
To Bathel:
You seem like a reasonable chap. Just answer this question:
Do you think bringing in more players than a team has space for is:
a.) Unfair to the kid?
b.) Unfair to the schools that do not do it?
Forget the NCAA rules and bylaws, forget the semantics, just go from your gut…in terms of what you feel is ethical.
January 27th, 2011 - 15:08
Unfair to schools who don’t do it….
I think the Big 10 rule punishes kids that are boarder line and or trying to decide between twoo schools. It also punishes the schools if they offer the “wrong” kid.
I don’t have a problem with what you call oversigning as you call it… they use of transfers and greyshirts are a good thing… but they can be tweaked to allow for a better situation for the kids.
1st…. 4 year NLI and 4 year scholarships should be offered with school and team rule requirements of course.
This allows some of the kids to be more incontrol of the decision making. The coach could still come the the kid and say, you’re not going to get playing time you should transfer if you want to play. Then the kid has the option to transfer or ride the pine (assuming he meets his acedemic and team rule requirements).
2nd… the SEC already has a 28 current class/greyshirt rule. YOu can back count all you want to what space you have and who can qualify (which is why Auburn had 32 guys last year… many were early enrolls that could qualfiy to fill spots open from the previous class). This helps limit the chance of having to grey shirt a guy that wasn’t expecting it….
3rd… The OFFER/NLI forms should be clearer in what is being offered and needs to be known that a greyshirt is a real chance.
4th… Early signing period. It’s unfair (IMO) for a kid to be commited to a school for a year and then have the offer yanked prior to National Signing Day… and vice versa for a school to accept a verbal and have it change on National Signing Day.
I’m sure there are plenty of things wrong with my ideas… I don’t have the answers that is for sure…
January 27th, 2011 - 15:52
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they go to the 1-year rule the same time that they reduced the scholarships to 85? If this is correct, the only reasonable explaination is that the schools could make up the shortfall of schollys by not renewing underperforming players. This would ease the impact of the reduction while still leveling the playing field for smaller programs. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The return to a 4-year scholly is interesting, but I don’t know where I stand on it. What would be the effect of leaving the term of the scholly up to the school and player? That would open up an element of negotiation that could sway a recruit to a school willing to sign a 4-year deal away from one only offering a one or two year one. I’ve only given this preliminary thought, but I think I like it. If the term is negotiable, and something specific that must be agreed upon upfront, the coach/school would by rule have to discuss it with the player, and if a player is not performing at the desired level when his term is up, the scholly could not be renewed with no reasonable hard feelings. Thoughts?
January 27th, 2011 - 19:57
I don’t have any real good answers… I think there are much smarter people that would have to look into it, but I don’t have a problem with any system as long as the players and parents understand what that system is. I do think there are better systems that can be formed from the one we have now.
January 28th, 2011 - 11:06
So there you have it, Tdogg.
A disgustingly unethical and dishonest disgrace of a person.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:11
See… when you can’t fight back with facts and knowledge, you’re only left with insults. I love it when I prove a point.
January 28th, 2011 - 12:18
BTW, it’s kinda sad… We could have a great debate on how to work the system to make it better if you’d just understand what the problem really is…
As I’ve said above, adopting the Big 10 rule won’t change anything. It would just shift the transfers and medicals to the Summer Term instead of the Fall Term… You’d open up spots earlier so on the first Wednesday in February you could accept the NLIs you wanted to.
I think the problem is 1 year scholarships and would love to see a 4 year deal wth a 4 year NLI. Also, I’d love to see an early signing period to allow kids to sign early and school to accept that NLI early to help take some of the pressure of offering the “correct” kid, ie a kid that will qualify and will choose you too.
I wouldn’t mind the “restriction” of the use of greyshirt either… not sure how that would be tweeked, but I think greyshirts do much more good to the athletes than harm so I wouldn’t want to get rid of them all together.
Calling the problem “Oversigning” may bring attention to this also… but it’s not the issue as it’s not going on. In the end, you’re going to have to deal with the scholarship issues with the NLI launguage. There needs to be more control given back to the athlete, which would help any transfer abuses… IMO.
January 28th, 2011 - 13:31
This is a very simple problem with a simple solution. Pass rules, like the big 10 has in place, and these problems go away. When a school or conference allows for wiggle room and loopholes such as “a surge in medical hardships”, “creative use of grey-shirting”, “do whatever to cull the roster under the 85 limit”, etc. it is clear what the mandate is: “Win at any costs”. The big 10 and a handful of other programs around the country does not place the “winning” above the needs of the student-athlete. Yes winning is important, but it does not trump the intrinsic value of a college education and the collegiate experience of the amateur student-athlete.
In the SEC, as Bathel has demonstrated, they prefer to finagle their way around loopholes and breathe new interpretations into the bylaws with the unstated, but obvious intention of developing an competitive advantage against those programs that are in compliance with the spirit of the NCAA rules.
January 28th, 2011 - 14:43
How does the Big 10 rule change any of that??
If a guy transfers 2nd term (january) do you not have the chance to accept a NLI in February???
That is my point… you have to change rules that gives more power to the player to help them feel “not forced out”… IE a 4 year scholarship instead of the current 1 year.
I have never said that the SEC doesn’t use the rules to their advantage… I have said that what rules you are trying to change are not correct. The Big 10 rules do nothing but hurt the schools and the athletes. It may work in the Big 10, maybe because the Big 10 looks after the athlete better… but you’re assuming that the SEC will stop getting kids to transfer or stop using medicals by the adoption of the Big 10 rule when the Big 10 rule doesn’t address any of that…. it just moves the time table up earlier to make a kid transfer or medical.
I know I come across as a PRO SEC person… but I DO NOT LIKE THE SYSTEM AS IT IS NOW…. read that again… I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM; However, I do not agree with what the Big 10 has in place either. Can you understand that?
The problem isn’t oversigning even if you, the Big 10 and the NCAA uses that term.
The problem as I see it is misleading recruiting and not offer the athletes the leverage to make proper decisions in transfers or medicals… They should have a 4 year deal, not a 1 year. Until the NCAA addresses that, there will be schools that abuse it… weather it be Alabama, LSU, Auburn or any other school in any other conference… Yes even the Big 10 CAN abuse it if they want to.
Do you agree with any of that?
January 28th, 2011 - 13:44
Our friend Bathel keeps insisting that Oversigning does not exist. Here is a wikipedia entry…Quick everyone tell wikipedia and the NCAA, the big 10, ESPN, and the SEC that oversigning does not exist. Because all of those institutions have recognized that oversigning is a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversigning
January 28th, 2011 - 14:55
I don’t think Wiki is your best argument of what oversigning is… but we’ll look at that definition…
First off… it assumes that every NLI offer is for that current class and it is not defered to the next class, greyshirt. If I get an offer for the class of 2012 and I accept that offer… why would you count me in the class of 2011 and it’s 25/85 class?
Second… as we’ve already shown, each scholarship is for 1 year. It may be assumed that every scholarship is renewed, but it is not a given… so if you don’t know how many are going to be renewed, how can you count them until they GET renewed?
So, what you are saying oversigning is : “The practice of MAYBE going over you 25/85 limits as set forward by the NCAA and having to defer enrollement to the next year to keep from going over the 25/85 limits and thereby being oversigned.” Then yes, you are correct.
January 28th, 2011 - 16:07
Bathel: There are two many threads/replies to bury my response…So I will do so here and address a few of your issues.
In short…It doesn’t. It cannot. But it can definitely mitigate the abuse, which it has. For instance, just look at the difference between the number of medical hardships between the two conferences. As has been discussed in the WSJ article, Saban has been exploiting medical hardships quite creatively, while other schools have not. This is empirical and data supports this (see article). Now why is Saban & co. doing this?
We must agree with this. There is empirical data in the surge in medical hardships localized to a handful of schools primarily in the SEC (although not entirely) and we just want to understand why.
This is a very good question and requires looking into the numbers a little for an explanation. The hypothesis advanced by the WSJ and this sight is that because schools like Alabama oversign (or if you prefer => offer more schollies than they can eventually sign per the 85-limit rule), they need to figure out ways to cull their rosters in order to make the numbers.
Saban is using medical hardships as a method for culling his roster. Maybe he is doing this cause he is actually a nice guy. Why just kick him off the team or force him to transfer? Place the athlete on a medical hardship and he gets to continue his studies for free and does not have to leave the university and disrupt his academic progress. Not such a bad deal for a player that will never see the field. You can look at that and say, hey…what a great guy. A win/win.
However, if Saban did not actually sign extra kids to begin with, there would be no incentive for him to creatively make use of medical hardships in the first place. In this situation, the problem is not with the medical hardship rule, but the perversive nature in which it is being utilized; It is against the spirit of what a medical hardship is really meant to be used for.
So the steps in this hypothesis are:
1.) Bring in too many players, more than you have room per the 85-rule…
2.) Forcing the program to cull the roster, preferably of lower-end performers.
3.) Study how the players wash through the system via transfers, medical hardships, greyshirts, kicked off for “team rules”, etc. These numbers should all be higher in schools that chronically oversign, because they are forced to resort to what I will term expulsion tactics, in order to reduce their numbers.
Now going back to our actual example. Why did Saban offer 12 medical hardships? is it because he had to cull his roster and used a medical hardship creatively to do so? Or did he really have 12 medical hardships – what a coincidence.?
I am pretty sure that the rise in the numbers of the various expulsion tactics mentioned above are an indicator that something is amiss.
January 28th, 2011 - 16:24
Now you’re getting my point…
You can always find a way to “oversign”, you won’t stop that IF a school wants to do it, they will.
What you need to do is shit some of the control back to the athlete to make it HARDER to get him to accept something that may or may not be in his best interest, while still allowing room to give schools the best chance to have a full class and offer the maximum amount of kids the chance to get a scholarship.
What you assume is that, as you put it, and unethical coach with no morals (paraphrased), would abide by a rule that is IMPLIED… ie the Big 10 rule.
I don’t have an issue with greyshirts and I don’t want to lose that method of recruiting… I think it could be tweak to make it more clerar or to limit it’s use…but over all it is a good thing with a few exceptions.
The Big 10 rule kills greyshirts and doesn’t address Transfers or Medicals Directly….
I think, and again I am not an experert… if you make the scholarships 4 year deals then you put more control to the athlete on if he wants to ride pine or transfer.
I think, if you bring an NCAA controlled doctor or some outside authority in to evaluate any medical, you would eliminate the abuse of medicals with causing an atmosphere where an injured guy is at practice with a chance to get hurt more just so he can keep his scholarship.
Listen, you have more than 85 guys on the team… there are plenty of guys without scholarship. I have no issues with a guy losing his scholarship because he isn’t performing, because that’s the way the system is setup now. What Nick Saban is doing, isn’t unethical. It may not be something you like, which I can see why.. but I think the best way to change that is to change the scholarship system. Then the Big 10 and the SEC are playing under the same rules and everyone knows where they stand. A coach can then still go a kid and let him know his chances of getting playing time and then that athlete can decide if he wants to ride pine or not without fear that his scholarship will be cut.
I think you’ll find some kids will still want to transfer, which can be a good thing for both the athlete and the school.
So…let me try to be a bit clearer and more to the point.
I think schools should be able to oversign (as you call it) and greyshirt within limits… I don’t know how or what those limits should or shouldn’t be.
I think schools should offer 4 year scholarships.
I think medical scholarship need to be approved and reviewed by the NCAA or independant doctor.
I do not support the Big 10 rule as I think it hurts recruits, even though it can help current walkons get scholarships.
I also don’t think anyone on this forum/blog is helping their side by calling people names… that goes both pro and con…
January 28th, 2011 - 16:12
Bathel,
Look at the damn list on the oversigning cup and you tell me it is not a problem the SEC is a chronic abuser of? Doesnt it strike you as odd these teams oversign (Ole miss-14, Alabama-10) then right before the deadline to be down to 85, all the sudden they dump 6 kids to make room. Come on dude, be real here. Alabama has had 12 medical hardships since Saban took over. TWELVE! That is more than the entire Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC and Big East during that time period. One team has more medical hardships than an entire conference. Now I know your response…..Saban practices his players harder so they get hurt more. No that is not the case. They are oversigned and have to get down to the 85 scholarship limit by dumping players who have not performed as well as they had previously thought. Maybe Saban should actually do his homework on these players like the rest of the NCAA and offer correctly. Dude you are way off.
January 28th, 2011 - 16:24
Bathel is what I would term a deconstructionist. There are two ways to argue oversigning.
The most common approach is to point out that no actual rules are broken when a school oversigns and if the big 10 or Georgia/Notre Dame decide not to do it…tough beans. The schools that oversign are operating within the rules of the NCAA.
For obvious reasons, this seems wrong to me, but that is a different discussion.
However, Bathel is taking a different approach. He is arguing that oversigning is really not the problem (in fact, he has consistently stated that there is no such thing as oversigning). Rather Bathel believes that the real problem is not with oversigning but with the rules themselves. So he argues for things like 3rd party physician approval of medical hardships, 4-year letter of intents, and basically technicalities or tweaking of the current system to close off these loopholes.
I think this is either amazingly disingenuous, highly unfair or incredibly naive. But that is the discussion we are having….
January 28th, 2011 - 21:12
Please then… offer up a rule or idea that would stop Nick Saban from oversiging… cause the Big 10 rule sure won’t do it.
January 28th, 2011 - 21:15
In fact, I’m open to listen and debate any idea you have. I’ve put forward plenty of ideas that I’ve come up with… but I know I’m not smart enough to be ablet solve the puzzle. I don’t have any the answer…
Let me ask you this… Do you really feel that the NCAA adapting the Big 10 rule would stop Nick Saban or anyone else that wanted to from running a kid out of school or using a medical to pickup room for an new batch of NLI’s?
January 29th, 2011 - 11:57
Imagine someone offering up options to fix the system, without throwing it out completely. The nerve! The only proposals to fix it being offered on this site is to adopt the B10 rules. If you’ve been paying attention, there are a lot of suggestions being offered by several different people in favor of oversigning. The response on this site is to ignore it or dismiss it as unethical without explaining how.
For instance, you are correct – Bathel does feel that “oversigning” is not a problem. He’s right. Explain how it is. The common explaination here is that kids get screwed. But the fact is that they don’t – every kid that signs a LOI gets a one-year scholarship. and his statement that there is no “oversigning” is also true. On this point he is being technical, but it is true – no school will over sign since that would be breaking the 25/85 rule.
The root of the problem as described on this site is that some players are supposedly forced from the team – whether that be through a transfer or medical or other means. Most people who support oversigning believe that a scholarship is an honor and something for elite athletes – not a guarantee or right attributed to kids who seem to have potential coming out of HS.
Bathel and other have repeatedly said they are in favor of rules that would require better education of the recruits so they better understand the terms of the scholarship. some have come out in favor of going back to the 4-year rule (I don’t think I would like that, but it is a viable option). these solutions fall on deaf ears, as it seems most anti-oversigners refuse to look at any system that does not seek to punish Nick Saban and the rest of the SEC. If I’m wrong, please provide a reasonable discussion of how you would fix the system and why the suggestions by the pro side is so wrong.
January 28th, 2011 - 21:10
BetterRED…. have I ever said there wasn’t a problem? I’ve said I want change, just not the change you seem to want. I don’t think the Big 10′s rule addresses the issue.
January 28th, 2011 - 16:15
Tdogg,
Hit is directly on the head bro.
January 29th, 2011 - 09:00
There is no moral or ethical argument that a person can make for a school that consistently oversigns. For those schools that are more than 5 over their current limit with current ‘commitments’, how does the coach actually look a kid in the face and offer him a scholarship?
Anyone that supports oversigning is either a) an entrenched supporter of a school that practices oversigning, or b) just a bad person.
What is oversigning similar to?
People who willingly write bad checks. Regardless of how much money is in their checking account, they keep writing checks that can’t be cashed. As long as they get theirs, they’ll let the system sort out the rest.
The only difference is that the guy who writes bad checks eventually gets punished as to where coaches who consistently oversign do not get punished in any shape, form, or manner. In fact, those who practice oversigning are actually rewarded for their morally unethical behavior.
We already treat these kids like cattle the way it is. It would sure be nice to see some rules put in place for the actual benefit of the student-athlete. Then again, it would also be nice to see schools that don’t stretch rules to their utmost gross interpretation to see what they can ‘get away with’ under the rules at hand.
January 29th, 2011 - 21:01
The whore with a heart of gold is similar to the SEC. Yes, they commit prostitution, but they do it for the “right reasons.” It is funny considering the value statement that SEC fans believe inhere to their conference.
January 31st, 2011 - 13:02
Yes, I’ve taken my share of shots at Saban on this site, but I suppose I better put myself in his shoes. He’s paid multimillions a year to put a winner on the field, as are an increasing number of big-time coaches, and perhaps he’s just doing what he feels is necessary to justify his fat contract. I suppose that, given the enormous pressure he’s under to produce a consistent winner, he’s going to try and find every loophole he can. There is no question that Saban’s willingness to play musical scholarships gives him a tremendous competitive advantage against those coaches who can’t (Big Ten), or won’t (Richt at UGA). Oversigning coaches get more players to evaluate every year, can maintain a superior talent level as a result, and are able to cover their recruiting mistakes far easier than others.
I guess it’s time to take it easy on poor old Nick. The NCAA and SEC are the problems: he’s just a symptom.
January 31st, 2011 - 15:31
Now that I can mostly agree with…
I don’t like the practice of running kids off, either transfer or by medicals; however, I do like the idea of using greyshirts and wouldn’t want to stop that.
February 2nd, 2011 - 21:03
Pretty much the NCAA and the SEC are the problem. And they’re just going to become an even worse problem.
February 2nd, 2011 - 21:01
This moron compares Alabama with SMU? Are you really that stupid?
February 3rd, 2011 - 11:33
Bathel, I think you do a good job of constructing your responses and supporting your viewpoints. Three questions from me, or for any who support “oversigning.” (I know the 85/25 but I’m using the word as the writer intended it)
1. Regardless of SEC or B10 rules, what defense is there for Les Miles in the Porter incident?
2. If the B10 rules are as ineffective against the problem as SEC rules, why do B10 coaches choose not to exploit the rules?
3. With schools like Florida and Georgia coming out and saying they honor 4 year commitments, do you think Saban, Miles, Nutt, etc are really able to go into a recruits home and tell a kid’s mother that their son’s scholarship will be a one year contract with the ability to renew (even if verbal jargon in the bylaws state that action is acceptable)?
I think I’m on the same page with you that rules need to be amended to make the playing field more level, but I think there is a point we disagree on.
You seem to suggest that it is okay for a coach to essentially revoke a player’s scholarship after one year because he’s underperforming. Perhaps I understand that viewpoint, but what if a player like Jarrett Lee gets beat out by Jefferson, Mettenberger, and Rivers next year and Miles decides he’s expendable and doesn’t renew his scholarship because he’s oversigned already and wants to get frosh on the field next season. Lee has been working hard in the offseason, has slightly improved, but still got beat out by all three. Through no fault of his own he’s asked to either pay his way his senior year or transfer. He was good enough for a schollie last year, may be a better player this year, but now he’s out of a schollie.
Maybe the scenario is far-fetched, but it could or has happened at some point. A player who’s not the worst player on his team, just the worst at his position who has no real shot of playing any other positions is cut to make room. The situation is not similar to not making the grades at LSU because not making the grades is transparent and the numbers are objective. Not getting your scholarship renewed is not objective or transparent. There is a difference between underperforming and not seeing the field in my opinion. If you wasted the schollie on Lee (or whoever), and they’re playing at a reasonable level and are buried on the depth chart, tough sh*t. Do a better job of evaluating if you want to find Peyton Manning.
Obviously the problem doesn’t just lie with the coaches but the NCAA as well. But many coaches choose not to cut reasonably performing players (even if they perform under SUBJECTIVE expectations), and some do…
February 3rd, 2011 - 14:34
Solid! +1
February 3rd, 2011 - 15:51
1. Based on the information given, there is no defending it, and I’m for several options that I have read where this would be punished. The problem with this incident is not oversigning, but rather not informing the recruit of the possibility of a greyshirt. I’m for any proposal that increases the knowledge of the recruits and requires the coaches to inform them of what exactly they can expect.
2. That’s a good question, and undoubtedly it is seen as immoral “up there” if you ask a guy to delay his enrollment until the spring. They would rather send on borderline recruits to MAC schools than be seen offering them a greyshirt. If that is how they want to conduct things, more power to them. In Saban’s recent NSD press conference, he made a few comments about the recruiting environment between the B10 and the SEC. You would probably be suprised by some of the things he said as much of it was positive toward the B10 and negative toward the SEC. There is an honor code, where once a player commits to a school (in the B10) the other schools stop recruiting him. In the SEC, that player becomes a target for other schools. It is a different environment entirely, and one that is more difficult to know exactly who will sign and who won’t. This environment makes it imperative to “oversign” in order to make sure you maximize the roster.
3. In the same press conference, Saban says he has never kicked a kid off the team because of his athletic ability. He says that every kid that has left has defined his own path. Now, he doesn’t say that he doesn’t advise them to seek another school if they want playing time, but he does defend himself against the blind accusations often levied on sites like this one.
Your scenario with Lee is interesting. I think a coach has the right to cut that scholarship if he deems it necessary. I think that would be wrong given the circumstances, and given what Lee has done in the past. A similar situation occurred at Alabama with Star Jackson. Star was the back-up QB through much of the 2009 season, but by the end of the year, he was passed by the redshirt freshman behind him. After spring practice that year, it was obvious that he had been passed by not only him, but the true freshman coming in that year, and that he would never be the starter. Given that he still had two or three years of eligibility left, he felt he could contribute better elsewhere, where he could get the playing time. He transferred to Ga State. He wasn’t kicked off the team, and his scholarship was not revoked. He transferred to get playing time. Probably a good deciscion, and probably one supported by Saban – though not mandated.