Oversigning.com
6Feb/11285

Alabama’s Numbers

During his national signing day press conference, Nick Saban implied that no one outside of him knows Alabama's scholarship numbers.  He also seemed rather irritated at all of the talk about "oversigning" while reading the notes he prepared regarding the controversial topic.  Judging by the national response to his comments, his message fell on deaf ears

We started writing this last night but this morning Kevin Scarbinsky put out the following article which dovetails nicely with what we have prepared. 

According to Saban, those of us on the outside of the Alabama program can't criticize him for oversigning because we don't know the exact number of players he has on scholarship from year to year.Funny thing about that. Why don't we know? Alabama won't tell us, even though we ask every year.

Birmingham News colleague Jon Solomon requests a copy of the annual NCAA revenue and expense report from every Division I athletics department in the state. One of the categories on that report is number of student-athletes on scholarship in each varsity sport.

Every Division I public school in this state provides us a copy of those reports. Only Alabama blacks out the scholarship numbers for every sport.

We know from the latest form that Alabama reported spending $3,041,356 on football scholarships for the 2009-10 academic year. We don't know how many players Alabama reported having on scholarship that year.

The News has asked Alabama several times to explain why it withholds information we believe is a public record. The heart of the explanation, from university spokesperson Deborah Lane: "Federal privacy laws prevent the University from providing the media with personally identifiable information related to its students."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/02/scarbinsky_alabamas_dont-tell.html

If there are federal privacy laws that prevent them from saying who is on scholarship, then why does Alabama have a fax machine cam that displays the names of the recruits signing a national letter of intent to accept a GIA for a football scholarship?  Further, no one is asking for NAMES, they are simply asking for NUMBERS.  This is severely weakening his position that everything is on the up and up.  No one else is hiding their numbers, why is Alabama?

We tracked Alabama's scholarship numbers last year and shortly after National Signing Day last year we determined that Alabama was projected to be 10 recruits over the 85 cap and would need to shed 10 student-athletes in order to come into compliance before the August 1st deadline.  To ensure the general public that we were not being biased and that we were not pulling numbers out of thin air, we provided a link to an Alabama sports blog that provided the most detailed roster break down available anywhere on the Internet - surely the guys that cover Alabama like a blanket 24/7/365 knew what was going on with the roster, right?  Well, in light of the recent comments from Saban and Jon Solomon's request for the exact numbers...who knows. 

There are people that follow college football all day and all night, they know every name on their team's roster, what high school they went to, who they are dating, their favorite color, what position they play, where they are on the depth chart, and so and so forth.  With recruiting being such a hot topic, everyone wants to know how many openings they have for the up coming class.  We're willing to concede that perhaps the general public is off by one or two, but in order for what Nick Saban is telling us to be true everyone, including the most dedicated Alabama fans that watch the roster numbers, has to be off by double digits.  That's hard to believe unless there is a secret scholarship society at Alabama that no one knows about.

Over the next 6 months we followed Alabama's football program and tracked the attrition in an effort to see if they would lose exactly 10 student-athletes by the deadline.  We dubbed this effort the March to 85.  The following list is the attrition that took place on Alabama's roster after national signing day and before the August deadline.

2010 The March to 85 - Alabama

Player Position Reason for leaving after NSD
Terry Grant Running Back Scholarship not renewed
Travis Sikes Wide Receiver Scholarship not renewed
Rod Woodson Safety Scholarship not renewed
Star Jackson Quarterback Transfer, Georgia State Div 1AA.
Deion Belue Defensive Back Academically Ineligible; headed to JUCO
Alfy Hill Linebacker Academically Ineligible; future unknown
Taylor Pharr Offensive Lineman Medical Hardship
Milton Talbert Linebacker Medical Hardship
Darius McKeller Offensive Lineman Medical Hardship
Ronnie Carswell Wide Receiver Greyshirt
Wilson Love Defensive End Greyshirt


On the day before deadline, Saban announced that 1 student-athlete would be transferring and 2 new recruits would be accepting a greyshirt.

With that announcement, Alabama was magically at the 85 number, or so everyone thought, including all of the Alabama media that follow the numbers.  Shortly after that announcement, the NCAA would rule that Alfy Hill would be academically ineligible (which was total BS on the NCAA's part with regards to how they handled that poor kid - he had already taken classes at Alabama but was ruled ineligible after the fact).  

Read more on Alabama getting down to 85 on the last day here: http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/08/04/saban-gets-down-to-85-on-the-last-day/

The two players taking the grayshirts on the last day appeared to be indication that there wasn't room for them in the current class. In his press conference this year, Saban had this to say about grayshirting:

"We have never, ever grayshirted a guy here who when he decided to come here didn't know ... that he was going to be a grayshirt whenever he committed," Saban said.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/02/saban_defends_practices_of_ove.html

Read that very carefully.  If a recruit knows he is going to be a grayshirt when he commits, then why it is not announced on National Signing Day that he will be taking a grayshirt and enrolling in the following January?  We are not doubting that Saban is telling guys that a grayshirt is possible, that much has been reported already, but his comments above in conjunction with the announcement of two players accepting a grayshirt on July 31st last year sure makes it look like he was oversigned and was waiting until the last minute to see how it was going to play out before using his ace in the hole, the grayshirt.  Perhaps those grayshirts were not cast in stone on the front end, instead, perhaps they are a safety valve for the back end should everyone qualify or roster management dictate that someone has to go in order to stay under the 85 cap.

What we are seeing from some schools in the SEC is a mad scramble to wrangle in as many players as possible in order to try and keep them away from other schools, a recruiting tactic as old as the SEC itself, and the grayshirt process has turned into a safety valve for getting back down to 85 if necessary.  This is what Bernie Machen was referring to as morally reprehensible and what Mark Richt was referring to when he said that schools are offering scholarships like candy.

"One of the hardest things for us to do is to evaluate and nail down who you’re going to go after, especially in our own state. A lot of the out of state teams will just come in and just offer like mad. They’ll come in and just offer like candy. Quite frankly I’m not going to name names of schools, but a lot of them will do that just to get in the fight and if the kid commits too soon and they’re not sure they want, they’ll just tell them that’s not a committable offer. Whatever the heck that means?"

Saban comments on this at the 4:15 mark in this video, where he says that recruiting is largely a numbers game and that if they want to get 30 guys they have to put 90 guys on the board.  We're not going to comment on that because Tony Gerdeman has already said all there is to say about that kind of an approach. 

Now back to the numbers.

Saban implied that this year's class of 21 (now 22) new recruits and 2 grayshirt players that carry over from last year was all they were allowed to take.  Further implying that they are currently full and that the 24 new additions now bring them to the 85 limit.  He went on to say that there might be wiggle room to get 1 more guy.

Saban said Alabama has signed the number of players that it could.

"We could add one or so to that, if the opportunity presents itself in the future," he said, presumably referring to defensive end Jadaveon Clowney, the nation's No. 1 prospect from Rock Hill, S.C. (South Pointe High School), and offensive tackle Cyrus Kouandjio of Hyattsville, Md. (DeMatha Catholic High School).

"We have some people who could not finish the season who will probably not be able to continue to play that can be replaced, and we have several (redshirted) players who can graduate and may not come back for the fifth year."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/02/saban_defends_practices_of_ove.html

In breaking that down, he is saying that right now they are at 85 and the only way there would be room for future additions would be for future attrition.  This means two things:

1. We shouldn't see any attrition this year to free up space and get down to 85, and if we do see attrition and no new recruits are added, Alabama will operate below the 85 limit by the number of players that "create their own situation for leaving."

2. If Alabama truly had room for 24 scholarship additions, where the hell did they come from?  They had 14 seniors listed on their roster, 6 of which were listed as SQ for scout team.  They had 3 Juniors leave for the NFL draft and they had 1 player announce he was going to transfer prior to signing day, BJ Scott.  That is 12 scholarship players (8 seniors + 3 juniors to the NFL + 1 transfer).  Saban said they were not at 85 total last year, so were they 12 under the 85?  And if so, why the grayshirt announcements on the last day before the deadline.

The math just doesn't add up and it's not even close.  Compare this to Northwestern's roster situation and look at the difference in how everything is handled.

Pat Fitzgerald: "We have 85 scholarships, we had 17 to give, and we’re at 85 right now." 

Nick Saban: "It's none of your business. Aiight? And don't give me this stuff about the fans need to know, because they don't need to know."

The SEC and the NCAA need to create transparency in the numbers and how they are managed.  As we have said all along, schools should have to report their number of openings immediately after the January 15th deadline for Juniors to declare for the draft and they should be restricted to those numbers - if there is not an opening then there shouldn't be a scholarship offer unless it is a grayshirt situation that is documented and cleared with the conference office.  Schools should be limited in the number of LOI they can send out/accept in accordance with their openings under the 85 rule, not the 25 or 28 rule, and if there needs to be an exception for up to three extra, fine, but everyone wants transparency.  Fans want it, parents and recruits need it, the coaches need it and there is no reason the numbers shouldn't be made available.  In fact, the only reason to not make them available is because you have something to hide.  The Big 10 has had this transparency since 1954, it's time for the SEC to do the same.

Filed under: SEC Leave a comment
Comments (285) Trackbacks (3)
  1. Oversigning: the South’s peculiar institution.

    • Interesting what institutions the South finds worthy of defending, isn’t it?

      • I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting there are no other institutions that “the South” likes to defend? Or are you equating the practice of oversigning with other unnamed institutions?

        • I see what he did there.

        • I think what he’s saying is that the South has often excused corruption within its state institutions. Especially where the negative effects of such corruption and unethical behavior fall most heavily on black Alabamans and their communities.

          And if that’s what he’s saying, then he’s obviously very correct.

    • So – which kids on the “March to 85″ represent an ethical breach on UA’s part? I’m genuinely curious. IF I read it correctly: 2 graduated, so they got their education. 2 failed to meet academic requirements. 3 remained on scholarship through medical hardship. 1 transferred. 2 deferred to the following year. 1 was removed from the team.

    • Why is Bammer even fooling around with LOI’s or grayshirts as it seems you have to have a Top Secret Clearance to even have general knowledge? Well, one reason is an LOI is a commitment to accept athletic financial aide but more importantly an LOI legally haults the recruitment process for a prospect. It protects the school. If that’s the case, then the logical conclusion is the number of LOI’s equals the number of schollys in any single class which in turn equals that year’s number of available schollys. Pretty simple math.

      The NCAA accounts for departures for any reason by allowing 25 signees a year BUT only 85 toal at any time. So, in a given class, 4+/- will leave a team = 15. NOBODY in ANY profession knowingly fails to take advantage of every possible opportunity to leverage an investment. Especially coaches at several universities knowingly signing LESS than the available openings. Or more, if they can get away with it.

      IMO, the answer lies in the players who are no longer on a roster whose LOI’s were accepted! Where are they now? Why did they leave? When did they depart? Compare that dats to the “norm” and it becomes obvioius Saban/Miles/Nutt are spiritually clairvoyant in predicting the precise number of medical or other schollys, medical hardship, tranfers, dropouts, etc., six months in advance of the occurence.

      Lastly, no legal, ethical, or confidentiality issues exist re scholly numbers being provided by a public indeed federally supported institution & Saban/Miles/Nutt are FOS in hiding behind such a weak-ass defense. If you believe otherwise I’ve got a bridge to nowhere I’d like to sell you.

      Hopefull very soon the NCAA & ALL conferences will put a stop to the decietful practice of oversigning.

      • UNC basketball ended the 2010 season with a projected roster of 13 for 2011. One left via early draft entry, one was removed from the team based on what most consider a second failed drug test, two transferred during the off-season but after recruiting season, and one just transferred within the season.

        5 kids! Almost 40% of the roster!

        Roy is getting KILLED for not “paying more attention” to the likelihood of these actions. Perhaps OS.com can craft a tribute to Roy’s roster management, because no one in his fan base is sitting around thinking, “Well, he sure was loyal to those kids.” And if he had moved them along in anticipation of these eventualities, he would have been KILLED for his callousness. It’s a no-win situation in some ways.

        Nothing in this anecdote mitigates the actions of another coach, but it is a highly relevant example of the complexities involved.

        • But does that happen to UNC every single year? That’s the only way it’s comparable to what Saban does. Those things are going to happen to most programs at some point, but not very often and not always to the same program. I would also add that the fans who are “killing” Roy over this are not considering how unlikely it was. Sounds to me like quite a bit of that was beyond his control or anticipation.

          Every day there are a lot of car accidents, but they don’t consistently involve the same drivers.

          • So most schools don’t have a handfull of transfers every year? I admittedly have not looked into it, but I have the impression that every school have two or three every year. The fact that Saban prepares for that irritates people like Josh.

          • I’m comparing percentages, not raw numbers.

            5 of 13 in basketball equates to 32 of 85 in football. No, that doesn’t happen to every program every year. I don’t think it’s ever happened to a football program.

            1 of 12 in basketball equates to 7 of 84 in football. And yes, UNC does lose on average one kid a year to something, sometimes 2. As a numbers game, that equals 7-14 kids on a football team. And when you filter the “March to 85″ above for graduation, you’ve got 9.

            Hardly a “car accident” or “train wreck” from that perspective.

            • You do well in establishing the complexities angle, but you don’t at all establish the relevance or validity of an apples to oranges comparison between basketball and football.

              Seems you should be comparing what’s happened to the UNC roster numbers to past UNC roster numbers, and to other basketball programs’ numbers. For example, how outrageous do those numbers appear when compared to other similarly situated top basketball programs? To Kentucky, UCLA, Syracuse, UConn, Ohio State, Michigan State, Kansas? That comparison has been done between Alabama (and other football oversigners) and other top football programs and Alabama’s numbers are glaring.

              • And we’re right back into the “X > Y, so X must be wrong” argument.

                I respect your conviction that Alabama’s divergence from a Michigan or Ohio State on medical hardships and transfers means they are abusing kids.

                However, I see kids transferring from State U back to a smaller school closer to home all the time just because they’re happier there. Why shouldn’t it happen more often in football? I see kids pushing themselves to stay in a sport that has defined their lives way past the point that’s good for their bodies. Where does the right to play through pain end?

                As a result, I would love to see more medical hardships, not less. I would love to see schools be more proactive in making arrangements for some kids to move into better situations closer to home, while retaining their scholarship status, on a new campus. That, to me, is a much more humane version of CFB than we have now.

                I am NOT saying these are Nick’s ambitions. I am saying that the prevailing attitudes here, if you stop and think about it, perpetuate a greater evil in their attempt to eliminate a lesser evil.

                We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

                As for apples and oranges, to be strict on that, you would have to compare Saban’s first 4 years at Alabama to the other major college football programs (sorry, Northwestern doesn’t apply) in the aftermath of a coaching change. His numbers have been trending down – perhaps as a result of this site, perhaps as a result of turning over Shula’s roster.

                • And we’re right back into the “X > Y, so X must be wrong” argument.

                  I’d not say “we” – since I can’t join you in distilling my position down to such a simplistic view.

                  To simply brush away the clear patterns of handing out medical scholarships and grayshirts at rates that historically – and unreasonably – exceed other major football programs outside the SEC West, seems a willful act of ignoring the obvious.

                  However, I see kids transferring from State U back to a smaller school closer to home all the time just because they’re happier there. Why shouldn’t it happen more often in football?

                  Because it happens as often as it needs to according to what the player determines he wants to do. A college football coach should not be culling the student body numbers based primarily on a goal to improve the football team, as if he were a NFL coach or general manager.

                  I see kids pushing themselves to stay in a sport that has defined their lives way past the point that’s good for their bodies. Where does the right to play through pain end?

                  I don’t know. But that’s pretty far afield as regards the oversiginging discussion. The only tenuous connection I could make is actually a particularly ridiculous one that would suggest it’s the compassion of the oversigners that’s really the driving force behind weeding out “underperforming” players.

                  As a result, I would love to see more medical hardships, not less. I would love to see schools be more proactive in making arrangements for some kids to move into better situations closer to home, while retaining their scholarship status, on a new campus. That, to me, is a much more humane version of CFB than we have now.

                  Again, pretty far afield. Plus, you’re proposing solutions for problems that don’t exist.

                  As for apples and oranges, to be strict on that, you would have to compare Saban’s first 4 years at Alabama to the other major college football programs (sorry, Northwestern doesn’t apply) in the aftermath of a coaching change. His numbers have been trending down – perhaps as a result of this site, perhaps as a result of turning over Shula’s roster.

                  Makes my point just the same – your basketball to football comparison really isn’t shown to be valid. Plus, I’d take the comparison you just posited dealing with new coaches any time you’d like to make it. I’m confident the medical hardship and grayshirt numbers will still be outliers.

      • You (SEC Fan) completely ignore the responsible use of greyshirts. A coach doesn’t need to know exactly how many kids will want to transfer, dropout, accept medicals, etc six months in advance if they have kids willing to take a greyshirt. If a coach “oversigns” by six or seven, he is protected against that many kids leaving or becoming injured – if (this part is very important, and if not done, the greyshirt is wrong) the coach has a handfull of guys who know they likely will be asked to greyshirt, the team doesn’t suffer a shortage of scholarship players, and the university is able to assist the maximum amount of students with aid. That’s two positives for both the team and the players, that result from oversigning. If some kids transfer or dropout, some of the greyshirts may be ready to step up and enroll. It is good roster management, and not evil or unethical as long as everything is done with the student’s knowledge beforehand.

        • If greyshirting is such a fine “roster management” tool then let’s count the greayshirt year as a redshirt year. Of course that would mean that instead of 5 years to play 4 a greyshirt would only have 4 years to play 4 and then you’d hear Tricky Nicky screaming from Tusky to Anchorage. That’s the reality of the current system so let’s call it what it really is.

          The biggest hole in your retort is this: The NCAA sets a limit of 85 total & 25 new in a single year. If a school greyshirts 3 they effectively exceed the 85 total! AND coaches are free to communicate with these guys as to workouts, diet, etc., which is clearly outside the bounds of what the NCAA members intended. The numbers don’t lie and over a 4 year period Bammer (Ol Piss, LSPhew) has had the luxory of at least 1 additonal class of recruits.

          But you’re completely missing the egregious point of oversigning: It’s what happens to the players who LEAVE a program that matters & not who replaces them. The Saban’s of the world hide behind non-disclosure rules to suit their own personal agenda.

          There’s simply no way around the facts that oversigning is bad for recruits & their familes, bad for the players removed from a roster, bad for college athletics. It should be halted and I may be the biggest fan of an SEC school on here.

          • Why is it any different for football and basketball players at UGA. Is it fair to them and their families. That 1 out of every 2 african americans at UGA that sign to play football will not graduate and receive a degree? Or that 2 out every 10 that sign to play basketball fail to graduate or a get a degree?

            Answer this if you will. What is worse. Transferring to a DIAA or DII school and still get a degree, stay on a medical hardship and get a degree, grayshirt and delay the start for your degree, or not graduate after being promised that you would get a degree and receive nothing at all because your school has one of the worst records in the SEC for doing so?

            I could care less about roster management or practices that some feel create a competative advantage. I am strictly addressing the concern that so many voice regarding the education these players are being robbed of.

          • SEC_FAN…The difference between Redshirt and Greyshirt is that a Redshirt is counted in the 85 cap… a Greyshirt isnt recieving aid and defers his enrollment to the next year where he will then accept the aid to count to the next class…

            I don’t see how your idea 5 to play 4 or 4 to play 4 would even come into play… it’s apples and oranges.

            Please explain how they exceed the 85 limit? The recruit is agreeing to enroll the next year, not the current year. So any scholarship would be granted for the next years class and counted towards that years numbers.

            As for communication to the recruit, I wouldn’t be against making a greyshirt recruit contact with the team coaches limited. I’m not sure how that really helps out anything… but I would be willing to listen to how to do that or why it is a bad idea to allow coach contact with a recruit.

            How does Saban hide behind non disclosure rules in the removal of players off the roster? To my knowledge all that have left have left either of their own desire to get playing time at another school, for violation of team rules (which I don’t think should be public knowledge), or as a medical due to injury… Keep in mind in the case of team violation, there is an independat review board that renews/denies scholarships and they have an appeal process if you feel you didn’t violate a rule.

            Personally, I don’t see where you can say oversigning (greyshirting) is bad for recruits and their families… that idea just doesn’t hold any water. Now the idea that a coach lies to a recruit and misleads him into signing a greyshirt offer is something that needs to be controlled. The usof medicals needs to be independatly verified to avoid abuse. However, the use of transfers is a kids decision and his alone. He has to decide to leave for the NLI to be binding… if the school leaves him, it is not binding.

            Anyway, I’m happy the debate is being made… I hope that smarter people understand that greyshirting isn’t a bad thing and find a way to manage it to be better than what it is now… I hope they also see how POOR the Big 10 rule is and how it HURTS the school and the players. It’s not a good rule and should be looked at to be changed by the Big 10…

            • His argument isn’t that greyshirting violates the 85 rule directly, but that greyshirting is often used in a last-ditch effort to slide below the 85 cap pre-August 1. The assumption there is that the expected attrition hasn’t materialized, the school has oversigned by a certain number, and student-athletes are then forced to greyshirt without prior knowledge in order for the school to fall below the limit. I actually have no problem with greyshirting if both parties know in advance that it’s going to occur (i.e., someone says to the kid while recruiting him “we will probably have you greyshirt a year”). I don’t like the idea that it can be used to manipulate the class in order to fall below the 85 cap. The most obvious way to rectify that problem is to have greyshirts sign a greyshirt-specific LOI. Then at least we know the student knows they’ll be a greyshirt, and the school is contractually obligated to grant him a scholarship the next year. You won’t be able to greyshirt anyone who signed a normal LOI; you’d have to redshirt them.

              • The new rule would have to be changed because it the school offers the grayshirt a player can no longer sign a NLI. Also very seldom can you wait until summer to grayshirt. All players returning on scholarship have to have their scholarship renewed by by July 1. Now you could hold an incoming freshman at bay in this you have some that might need summer classes to qualify, but for the most part grayshirting is done long before the summer.

  2. FWIW, SQ doesn’t mean scout team necessarily. It means “squad” meaning they are on the squad, but have not lettered. Technically some of those listed as “SQ” could have been scholarship players. It’s not likely, but it’s just another unfounded assertion you make on your way to making sure the SEC is vilified as much as possible.

    I’m sure you’ll go back and change your post to reflect this.

    • If you want to be technical, somebody on the scout team

      • If you want to be technical, there’s no reason somebody on the scout team couldn’t have a scholarship as well. In fact, he’s said this before: that squad/scout team players could but are very unlikely to have scholarships. The point stands, and your ad hominem attack is irrelevant.

        • Ad hominem attack? It’s not ad hominem if the fallacy belongs to the person making the original argument. If the site owner is reporting data or commenting on his data in a non-factual way, then presenting that information is in no way ad hominem. And it is must assuredly relevant.

          • “It’s not likely, but it’s just another unfounded assertion you make on your way to making sure the SEC is vilified as much as possible.”

            THAT is the ad hominem.

        • Please list 24 POSSIBLY scholarshipped departures from the 2010 Alabama roster.

          Go.

          • You’re attacking the wrong person.

            • If its a senior who is a SQ departing, they probably arent on scholarship but if they are an underclassman who is a SQ member that could actually possibly ADD to their scholarship numbers. SQ by their name is in no way a defense for oversigning.

              • Sure, I agree with that. The point is that the guy above me (Ell) is trying to make hay out of squad team vs. scout team, a trivial point, as an excuse to impugn the author’s motives. It’s incredibly disingenuous, and I corrected him.

                • The bottom line here is that it is highly unlikely that a senior with 3 or 4 letter is not on scholarship and it is highly unlikely that a senior still on the squad or scout team, or whatever you want to call it, is on scholarship. Not saying it doesn’t happen but there is not enough of that to move the needle. The original post is simply lashing out and trying to find a way to discredit this site because that is the only option left.

                  By the way, someone needs to hire a PR guy for Saban.

          • I got a better one for you. Since my Dawg poster here likes to play the race card. Lets name the 10 recruits in the incoming UGA that will not graduate. Since UGA signed 21 african americans but yet african americans only graduate at a 48% rate at UGA lets name the ones that will not.

            GO!

            I am sure CMR while sitting in the living room of all these kids families told each of them that number. Sorry seems to me that it might be unethnical to recruit just athletes and not worry about the success of them as a student.

    • You can’t be serious? There’s absolutely no way in hayul Saban’s gonna spend a precious resource like a scholly on a SQ guy who isn’t contributing.

      He’ll pull his usual shinanigans but this would be self-defeating given the numbers signed. It’s totally out of character given his actions which speak louder than anything he can say.

  3. What intrigues me about Saban’s comments is that if an NFL or MLB coach said something about the fans not needing to know in the tone that Saban did, they’d be all over him. Fans would call for his firing immediately because fans think they have a right to know every single thing. Except Alabama fans. They’re content being ignorant. It’s truly remarkable. They only fans in the country that would let a coach treat them like they’re idiots. And defend said coach.

    • The difference there is that those coaches are usually being asked to explain failures to win. Not to reveal ways in which they are cheating. A lot of hometown fans would defend professional team coaches that were refusing to tell the press how they were cheating, so long as they were winning.

      • Perhaps, but I think fans just feel like the team they watch and spend so much time on owes them everything. I think that’s why so many were literally enraged about the steroid issue in baseball. Oddly enough they completely overlook it in other sports, especially football.

  4. Great work as always, Josh.

    A year ago at this time, oversigning was the talk of you, a few highly plugged-in B10 fans (representing a very tiny % of B10 fans, much less all CFB fans), and the occasional blogger or media member.

    Today?

    The Wall Street Journal (which one would have thought those red-state Republican Bama fans highly respected) has written 2 reports on Alabama’s oversigning, ESPN Outside the Lines has discussed the topic twice in the past 2 months, far more national media members are writing about it and talking about it, the president of the most powerful school in the SEC and a top 5 NCAA athletic program has called Alabama’s behavior “morally reprehensible” and “repugnant,” and now even the Birmingham News is not just sitting back and taking Saban’s “you don’t now my numbers” taunt, as they did after Ian Rapoport bravely asked for it in 2008.

    What a difference a year makes… thanks to some great work by you and a few others to uncover the tricks of this backwoods cesspool that is the SEC West.

    Keep it going. Saban is having to talk about it now for the first time… and he’s doing a terrible job of defending himself.

    • Thanks! Your efforts on twitter, along with the national guys writing about it, have made a difference. This whole thing started as a journey to investigate and understand oversigning and bring to light those that abuse it. Had no idea it would turn into this. Together, this of us who get it can make a difference and help preserve the sport we love so much.

      • Is Texas_Dawg the person with the @Oversigning account on twitter? If not, do you know who has it?

      • It reminds me of how steroids in baseball started.

        The first talk of it? Yawn…. who really cares… what can you do anyway…

        Then the media started talking about it more. But the response (myself included) was still largely, “We get it. Give some suspensions and move on. Or whatever. Quit talking about it.”

        But now we can look back and see how much it sucked. One of the greatest records in sports history was broken, yet it was so undeniably tainted by then that no one could even enjoy it. And a great statistical consistency to the game was completely shat on for a decade or so.

        I’m an SEC fan. I have no ties to or love for the Big 10. All things equal, I would love to have the SEC team beat the Big 10 team… as I used to be able to do. But now, I can’t because the whole thing is such a total fraud. Every bit as big a fraud as so many of the roid-fueled HR hitters.

        Anyway, the rules changes are coming, and Nick Saban will probably bolt from the game as fast as Mark McGwire did.

        • I enjoyed it. Then again, I couldn’t care less about records and don’t care what a grown man or woman puts in their body. All records reflect the era in which they were set. Babe Ruth played in a league with no minorities when about 30% of players today are minorities. Consider that 30% of the players Ruth played against wouldn’t even be good enough to play in today’s game. Hank Aaron played in an era when people took amphetamines and he took them. The deadball era was when pitchers were throwing primarily spitballs (an illegal pitch). Pitchers dominated in the 60s and then the mound was lowered. Offense suffered in the 80s and we saw stolen base numbers inflated (see Rickey and Raines). Then baseball begins to build to new ballparks and they are smaller so the stolen bases are less important and home runs are more important.

          The problem isn’t that the record was broken. The problem was/is that people view the record in a far too a simple manner. 714 home runs in the era Ruth played is the equivalent of about 850 today (thanks to Baseball Prospectus for that one). The record is just a number. That’s all it is. Bonds breaking the record doesn’t take a single thing away from Ruth’s accomplishments and when some cheater breaks Bonds record it won’t take a single thing away from his accomplishments.

          Steroids and oversigning are completely different. Steroids in pro sports are similar to steroids in college sports and they are prevalent. Oversigning is comparable to baseball pre free agency (when players were indentured servants).

          There’s nothing wrong with records being broken in an era that we know many used steroids. Nobody criticizes the ridiculous pitching statistics in the deadball era when every single pitcher was cheating on every single pitch he threw. Nobody claims that offense in the 1970s was unfair because they lowered the mound.

          People have to be careful and not compare the problems in college sports to professional sports. There is a huge difference. They are grown adults making their own decisions. You can criticize them all you want, but there’s not a thing you can do about them. They have a union that protects the workers (college athletes do not). They are paid very nicely (college athletes are not). The more people compare oversigning to steroids the less people will take it seriously. A survey conducted at a university showed that baseball fans don’t even care about steroids (they consider it slightly more unethical than corking bats and Babe Ruth corked bats!).

          Oversigning is an issue because we’re talking about students. Compare this to professional athletes and the battle is lost. Nobody gives a crap about professional athletes and if you make it sound like students are in any way comparable, they won’t care about them either. Most importantly though, as I said before, steroids in professional sports are only comparable to steroids in college sports (and nearly as many use in college football as tested positive in 2003 in baseball).

          • No one is saying they are ethical equals. Just that both are unethical and harmed the integrity of their sports.

            The main point about steroids is that the 70 HR seasons are now considered totally fraudulent. Alabama/LSU #1 recruiting classes and “5 national championships in a row!” should be treated no differently.

            • Maybe you can clarify something for me. When you say “5 national championships in a row”, are you referring to BCS championships or mythical recruiting championships? If you are suggesting that a BCS championship is “fraudulent” due to oversigning, you might be retarded. Do you understand that under the current NCAA rules the practice of oversigning is not illegal? Just because you don’t like it, regardless of the reason, does not mean it should invalidate anything. I don’t like that UGA has more convicted criminals on their team than many conferences have as a whole but I don’t think that should be cause for them having to vacate wins. Maybe you could just say it TARNISHES an accomplishment IN YOUR EYES. If that’s the case, it’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.

              • All college football championships are mythical, but only Auburn’s championship is fraudulent.

                • As a UA fan I think AU won it fairly and until something is found to make them remove their name from the books I give them credit for winning it.

                • I will also agree until we get a playoff system the championships are somewhat mythical. I do think the SEC would have a good chance to still win at the moment but there are many other schools from other conferences that would make a legit run in a playoff system. The SEC overall might be the strongest conference but there are several teams outside the ocnference that could win the SEC if they were in it.

              • UF’s seem legit, but LSU, Bama’s and Auburn are not legitimate in my view.

                Heck, Bama probably has a few more NCs that I don’t view to be legitmate. The whole history of the program has *.

            • That’s not correct though. Only a few people view that season as fraudulent. Same with Bonds and others. The majority of fans couldn’t care less. As many fans who are upset about it are looking at the era in a rational manner. You can check out the ethics survey and you know exactly how little fans really care about steroids.

              Furthermore, to say it’s viewed as fraudulent now and will always be is a bit shortsighted. People hated Babe Ruth when he played. If you asked someone at that time they’d have said he ruined the game. Now he’s a hero despite all his flaws and his cheating. Hank Aaron was crucified for the color of his skin at the time and is also now a hero despite his cheating. If the history of this game has shown us anything it’s that in 50 years Barry Bonds will be as much a hero as Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth and that the whole steroids debate will no longer exist. Nobody is going to care about that in the future. We have 150 years of evidence that this is true. When the first pitcher started throwing sidearmed, he was despised. You had to throw underhand with a straight wrist. At the time pitchers who threw anything other than that were breaking the rules and were not liked. The game was about the batter and the fielder (not the batter and pitcher). But fans loved the strikeout from the sidearmer and the sidearmer became overhand.

              Fans hated the home run, but they moved the fences in and by 1935 nearly every single fan loved home runs. The home run replaced the strikeout. The strikeout replaced the great fielding play.

              Nobody remembers any of this because they weren’t really angry. There’s no rational reason for any adult human being to be upset or angry with professional athletes choosing to change the rules or break them. It’s their job. It’s not mine. It’s their business. The fans have proven they’re suckers for 150 years and will follow along and forgive all past mistakes. Just as will be done with the steroid era.

              It’s not unethical to break a home run record. It’s not even unethical if the MLBPA doesn’t care if you do it. The MLBPA clearly did not. It was a workplace issue and like adults, they settled it in their own way. There was nothing unethical about the steroid era except for the law and that’s something baseball fans don’t care about.

              Oversigning is unethical because it hurts student athletes who have no say in the matter. Students are being tricked into thinking the scholarship is guaranteed as quotes from players have proven. I’m sure the school tells them they are not, but that’s probably in the middle of talking to them about how they’re going to be awesome for 4 years. You cannot equate these two because they couldn’t be more different. Most of all, people literally do not care about steroids (that’s proven) so if you’re going to argue people should care about oversigning the last thing you want to do is compare it to something we know they don’t care about. Furthermore, the impact of oversigning is far more damaging than the impact of records being broken. In 50 years people won’t even realize there was a steroid era except for the fan who likes history. The average fan turning on the tv to watch a game won’t know what it is. They won’t care. Just as we don’t care that Babe Ruth was a drunk who changed the game and corked his bats. Just as people don’t remember the first player to not throw underhand or that originally any ball that bounced in fair territory at least one time was considered fair. Or that there were ground rule doubles (they were home runs). The game changes, the era changes and it does so because fans love the game and the players who are employed choose to change it. That cannot be said about oversigning. There is no union protecting an athlete on scholarship. The reality is that the only person who has the athlete’s best interest in heart is the athlete himself. to believe otherwise is naive and at the college level the athlete isn’t allowed to weigh in on important matters. That’s decided by the NCAA and the universities. The athletes have this forced upon them. That is not at all true with steroids. They chose and still do choose to use them. In 10 years it will be gene therapy. There is no stopping performance enhancing supplements. It’s the way of the future and the future is going to look back on this generation and laugh.

    • Great summary, TD!

      Yet again, nice work Oversigning.com!

    • Why do you have to drag politics into this. This has nothing to do with Red State/Blue State or conservative vs. Liberal. Don’t let your personal biases color this apolitical subject.

      • Yes, why would anyone here allow personal biases to color their views. That never happens in discourse. It’s clear that all of the anto-versigning advocates are bias-free.

      • Are you not dragging your politics into this by pretending uncomfortable but relevant historical and demographic details are irrelevant?

    • He does not have to defend himself. Paul Finebaum will do that for him. For some reason Finebaum loves Saban’s Nuts.

  5. College scholarships are good for one year and one year only. It is like anything else in life, if you do not perform or someone else out performs you, you get fired/ replaced. No one should get a free four year ride if they are not cutting it. That is fair. Someone who is not getting it done is perhaps keeping someone who can from an opportunity. Cry me a river. I would gladly take one to three years of free education only to get the boot for somebody else.

    • So, CFB is a business? I bet you will find that not one official from one SEC school will agree with you — especially if an agent of the IRS, DOJ, OSHA or Treasury (which agency enforces Interstate Commerce law?– I admit I don’t know) are in the room. Thus, the hypocrisy is revealed and the untenability of your position is laid bare.

    • Why doesn’t Robert Witt, president of Alabama, come out and make it very clear that his university can and will pull scholarships whenever it so chooses? Why does he hide in the general treatment elsewhere of these as 4-year contracts barring very bad behavior?

      When he committed to Alabama on national TV a few weeks back, Xzavier Dickson said that “For the next 3-4 years…” he would be attending Alabama. Where were Witt, Saban, or other Alabama officials to publicly correct Mr. Dickson’s misunderstanding of the agreement? How did Dickson come to be so confused about the contract into which he was entering?

      • Name one Alabama player who has had his scholarship pulled.

      • Losing your scholarship… if it were to happen, doesn’t mean you leave the school or even the team. You have 85 players on scholarship and 105 guys on the team… not everyone is underscholarship.

        Most CHOOSE to transfer, if they want to play… IE Star Jackson, who was moved to 4th string with the new up and coming talent. He knew he wasn’t going to make the field and CHOOSE to transer. Are you suggesting that he shouldn’t be able to leave a school where he knows he will not make the field?

        I would guess that Saban knows of several players that have discussed with him their options to transfer. I also know of at least one person that will most likely be on Medical as he tore his knee up in Juco and the recove from his surgury hasn’t gone well. My understanding is that Alabama still honored their offer to the kid and he was on the team this year as a scholarship athlete, but will be moved to medical so he can finish his college education at Alabama. (IE, he went to JUCO got injured and Bama still took him in and the after will put him on a medical thus honoring their original offer to him).

        Listen… There is nothing wrong with Greyshirting IMO. Josh, doesn’t seem to see it that way. His whole “OVERSIGNING” press has very little to do with oversigning. It has everything to do with Greyshirting. The Big 10 rule does nothing to stop a coach from running a kid out or stopping the abuse of medcials… The only thing it does is kill Greyshirts.

        Even this year, Alabama had at least one kid that knew his offer was a greyshirt offer. He decided to sign elsewhere… He knew BEFORE signing day what his offer was and as long as the recruit understands the offer, I have no problems with them accepting a greyshrit.

        • I believe you are referring to D Collins (WR who ended up @UK). You are stretching the facts a little IMO. This kid committed, when it became obvious it was going to be an issue for numbers, he was told he might want to look elsewhere. When he did not take the hint, he was told he would have to greyshirt. Intially he agreed to come in next years class, then the reality of paying for a couple quarters of school set in and his parents talked him into taking the full ride at UK. Not eaxctly on the up in up IMO. You can committ, but only if no one better decides to show up at the door? I will leave it up to everyone to decide if they believe that is fair.

          • My view was that he was told BEFORE signing day where he still had an option to commit to UK…. In fact he was noted in the media two or three weeks ahead of signing day to be signing a greyshirt offer for Bama. Did he know before this time that he would be greyshirted? I have no idea… I would love to see seperate offer for greyshirts so they are fully aware of it. I would love to see some rule changes that make it CRYSTAL clear as to what they are being offered. I would be open to the idea of allowing a Greyshirt to continue to be recruited also, but I think that idea would need to be tweaked… maybe only allow the recuit to reach out to a coach or team to be recruited and not let it be “open season” for the coach to contact him?

          • Verbal commit is not binding and that is why players continue to visit after they verbally commit. Neither party is bound by a verbal. Since he was told prior to signing he would have to grayshirt he had the choice to look elsewhere and he did.

            Now I could see the concern if he signed and then was told he would have to grayshirt. That is a whole different ballgame there, but lets not make it like the same.

            How many kids verbally commit to a school and a school that maybe does not oversign holds a spot for that kid and on NSD they sign somewhere else.

            • I agree with both you and Bathel. He did know before signing day and yes kids change their mind. Commits are verbal and non-binding. Even if you sign the LOI, as long as you do not enroll, you can get release in some instances (See Sentrel Henderson last year). There is no perfect solution, but you have to admit it is a CONVENIENCE to the coach to know when a kid really wants to play for your school, commits early (I believe last march for this kid) that you ALWAYS have an out by forcing a greyshirt or no scholly scenario. The flip side of this is kids who verbal early are often threatend with their scholarhship being pulled by school X if they decide to enjoy the visits they have earned at schools A, B, C, and D. All the verbal committing aside, I will say that the thing that makes me the most skeptical is the number of “medical” issues Alabama seems to has compared to other universities. To me that indicates a deliberate management practice by the team/coach/AD, which then makes me question other aspects of the process and how kids are handled.

              The end game here is an education and awareness of the practice until or unless the NCAA steps in to change the way business is done. Standardization and transparency will be the only things to end the debate. Currently NCAA has been hands off and lets the school/conference monitor their own outside of the 25/85.

              As an alternative on a marginal recruit, why not just tell them there is an interest in them, but you need to see how things play out with a few others kids before they could accept the committment? This is very open and fair to the player. The kid could committ to a different school (if they choose) and switch later if the offer comes through. A perfect example of this was the second QB in Ohio States class this year, Cardale Scott. Kid wanted to play for OSU from day one, but didn’t get the official offer until a week before NSD, because of grades and the coaching staff thinking they had a chance at some big OOS players. OSU’s staff stayed in touch, but never told him he had an offer unitl they were sure he could come. Also – the kid will deliberatly greyshirt – to provide space between he an the other QB in the class. Contrast that with the WR in question for Alabama. Again, I agree he was told before signing day, but maybe shouldn’t have even had an offer to start with from the way it sounds. Maybe Alabama should have slow played the WR. The problem being, many of the schools try to offer early to gain favor and then cool on a recruit. The last example: I know Les Miles pulled a kids scholly that had already moved into a dorm too – that was just low IMO.

              Don’t want to get in a urination contest over it, probably already spent to much time on the topic. In the end, I don’t see a perfect solution. This is more of a moral and ethical issue on how you present the situation to the kids and when (timing), more than a “he broke the rules” issue. Just my two cents.

              • I really do not know why he went to Kentucky, besides he decided not to grayshirt at UA. But again he was told before hand and had the option of going elsewhere. I also do not know all the details of recruiting outside the SEC. It seems alot of conferences players tend to wait and commit but the SEC seems to get early commitments moreso than most conferences other than Texas. Maybe the competition for these players is so great schools take the commits early. I have also read that alot of these players want to get it over early because they get bombarded so much. I guess the nature of the beast in the SEC having its turn on top has created a recruiting nightmare that has created alot of issues.

                It just seems every time I read about a recruitment from a player in like the Big 10 or ACC they are not getting rushed, overwhelmed, or harassed as much as they do in the SEC. Look at the number of recruits announcing nationally for the SEC on ESPN vs other conferences or all the constant update regrading SEC recruits. If this is the trend the next conference in the cycle will probably see the same thing or maybe it is a southern thing.

                Alot of people I hear from outside the south criticize the fans that seem to be so diehard and passionate, but yet I think some fail to realize the importance of college athletics, especially football in the south. Conferences like the Big10, Big12, Big East, and Pac 10 CFB is big but it is also competing with pro sports in the south you have a few team in FL and GA but for the most part CFB is the top sport for sports fans.

                In alot of other places in the country if your CFB is not doing well you follow the pro team in that area. Maybe part of the problem is the culture and hence why so many get defensive.

              • I will also state that grayshirting is not a result of oversigning, oversigning may have perpetuated the process, but it did not cause oversigning. Grayshirting is based on gaining a competative advantage by preserving a recruits eligibility for an additional year.

                Some I think fail to understand the practice. One thing is player does not enroll at a school full time in the fall if they elect to grayshirt. Actually they can not. In accordance to the NCAA once a player is enrooled full time their eligibility starts that semester. If a player such as Collins did accept a grayshirt at UA and sign his NLI and enrolled fulltime in the fall on his own dime he would be counted against the 85 roster for UA. Usually two things happen with a grayshirt. They either enroll part time in the fall or they do not enroll at all and workout and try and prepare for the spring semester and spring season. I have seen several do the workout and hire a trainer, but alot do enroll part time because it gives them an opportunity to get a few credits out of the way.

                Also I have seen and would not be surprised to see a few grayshirt at UA this year for this class. Grayshirt has created another loophole in that for an example UA just signed 3 players who received injuries that required surgeries near the end of the HS season and are recovering now. If those 3 are not fully healthy to practice in the fall I would not be surprised to see them grayshirt. Again this is not an issue of oversigning but delaying their eligibility until they can particpate. Which does give the school an advantage. Almost like MLB where they send someone to rehab in the minors. I am know UA is not the only school to do this but I know of 3 2011 signees I could see might go this route.

                • I agree with your posts and have enjoyed the dialogue. You and Bathel seem to be clued in on the topic.

                  Not sure why the SEC has early commits more than other conferences. That is another pandoras box that I am not sure we can work out on the board. I have a friend who is a huge Texas fan and another who is a huge Bama fan.

                  I can tell you that Mack Brown recruits a little like this “I have an offer for you, but I need to know by XXX date, or I will have to give it to the next guy on the list”. It’s like clock work every year – recruiting opens, Texas has 20+ recruits almost immediately. Texas is one of the states with a ton of D-1 talent (like FL and CA) so its a numbers game. You either sign early or you get left out. I think the getting left out for some of the marginal guys is why they jump so early (SEC or otherwise), which happens at almost all the big schools. If you get that one offer that is head and shoulders above the rest, you go for it early and often, unless you have some tie in to another school (legacy, family tie, state pride, whatever). This is where I see the problem. A marginal player (even if told it is a grayshirt) shouldn’t have an offer until they know they have room.

                  I do understand how the south works with CFB and the lack of other sports teams. My Bama buddy is born and raised, now suffering in Ohio working with me :) Unfortunately in Ohio, OSU is the PRO TEAM (both the bengals and browns suck!!) and the rest of the population roots for Indy or Pittsburgh – OSU is the one item most folks have in common.

                  In reference to the three UA players, why would they grayshirt instead of taking a redshirt or medical redshirt? One of the LBs for OSU this year shattered his leg in a playoff game and will more than likely be a redshirt to start the year – assuming part of that being rehab. Most freshman redshirt and if you do see PT it is on special teams unless you are an exceptional talent. Also, in your scenario – wouldn’t this cause a numbers issue in the following class (capped at 25)?

                  In general, there are a lot of scenarios that play out on a schools roster any given year. I realize this may lead to an exception or two. It just seems from an outsiders perspective that UA has more exceptions than most.

                  We haven’t even touched on admission standards and the treatment of the one year renewable piece of the scholarships! I am sure Vandy has higher standards than UA, just like Northwestern is more strict than OSU. This impacts the recruits you can target. What constitues contributing to the team and upholding your end of the scholarship as a player? Is making class/workouts/practice enough? How many chances do you get if you are a trouble maker before getting the boot? Lots of subjectivity when you view the whole picture.

                  This is a fun topic because the rules are not hard and fast. Kids transfer “for playing time” or get a medical hardship that benefits the team? Why is it a hardship versus a medical redshirt?

                  I definitely see both sides of the coin, but its a lot like the BCS system. It needs work, but what is the final solution that makes it fair for everyone? I do believe there is some envy (of the success), but I also think there is manipulation or gaming of the system. Appearance and perception are realty to most. I am skeptical of some of what I see/hear barring other information. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

                  • That is the loophole for grayshirting that has happened. You get a player suffering from an injury bring them in the fall and if they are not yet fully recovered burn a redshirt and wait until next year. The problem with that though is usually teams uses redshirts for players that need a year to develop. So if you grayshirt a player recovering from a injury they enroll in the spring and train and redshirt them in the fall to develop. In essence a player gets both recovery time and development time.

                    In normal practices a player has 4 years to play unless redshirted they get 5. But a grayshirt essentially gives them an extra year. A player signs and comes in the fall. They redshirt fall and spring. The next fall they have 4 years left to play, but really the school only has 3.5 to train them because the spring of their senior year they will no longer practice and from a business standpoint, sorry for using that term, an investment with no return for the spring. But if they if they grayshirt the players eligibility starts that spring. They train with the team in the spring and the next fall they redshirt if not ready for the fall and spring of that year. So now they have three full semester of conditioning, weight training, and team training under them. When the next fall arrives they still have seasons to play. 3 full years and the fall of their last year. Since they started in January they will graduate in December. So the school gets a better investment. Three season to prepare them vs two and still get 4 full season to play on the field. So there is no dead time for the player like the spring of a senior year for a player who does not grayshirt. Also it allows schools to bring in more for the spring semester. Every player that graduates in December can be replaced on the 85 roseter in January. Just like UA who brought in 9 EEs this year.

                    now some will screamm oversigning gives a competative advantage, it may, but no where near what grayshirting does. Again oversigning just perpetuates oversigning by adding more to the mox but I think this is just a result of so many EEs now.

                    • Joshua needs to add an edit button or I need to stay off the lap top when typing.

                      Grayshirting gives 1.5 have years to devolop and still 4 season to play vs the traditional process. Grayshirting helps to encourage oversigning.

                    • I think you are incorrect in some of this. If a player greyshirts, he cannot be at practice or work outs. The coaches may be able to talk to them, maybe tell them they would like to see him gain 10 pounds or lose 10 pounds by the time they enroll, but they cannot participate with the team in any way as they are not yet on the team. If I’m wrong, then I’m all for changing the participation rules, but not getting rid of the greyshirt.

                    • The fall when thay grayshirt they can not participate because they are either not enrolled or part time. But when they enroll for the spring they can.

                      Grayshirting still gives the team an extra spring season to train and get ready for football.

                    • But is the Spring not available to any of the players who signed an LOI? Any person who will be on scholarship may enroll whenever they want can they not? I know Alabama already has a handfull of their signees enrolled. I realize that most recruits wait until the fall to enroll, but my understanding is that early enrollment is available to anyone on the roster for that next year. If the team had room on the previous class, he can count to that year, but if not, he can still enroll early and count for that year’s class. If I’m wrong please correct me.

            • Sorry misposted some info: QB is Cardale Jones for this class, Cardale Scott was a kid we lost out on a couple years back.

    • Again…with the “free” education…How many times do I have t point out this myth? Also, you didn’t have the talent so you didn’t earn the opportunity for a scholarship. You cannot bargain with something you don’t have. I’m sure you would have been happy with a scholarship. You don’t know anything about the work necessary to earn one.

      Show me where the objective performance standards are written or stated for scholarship non-renewal. You can’t. You are just another idiot who thinks that athletes get a “free ride”…

      Don’t forget about the primary goal of education.

      • Losing a scholarship doesn’t kick you out of school… there are plenty of people out in this world tht pay their own way though school via loans or jobs… I haven’t seen anywhere that the UofA kicked any of thses kids out of the school because they where no longer under scholarship on the football team… actually, they don’t even have to leave the team. There are plenty of kids that are on the team that are not under scholarship….

        • I’m not discussing Alabama specifics. In many cases, losing a scholarship unexpectedly on July 1 would kick you out of school. Out of state students would particulary be affected as the tuition rates for out of state students is dreadfully high. (Many are forced to transfer because of this reason)

          And your argument about still being on the team is ridiculous. I can see that you have no experience in this area. If a coach doesn’t renew your scholarship, what do you think he is telling you?

          Your statements fail…

          • First off, I don’t know of any scholarships that were not renewed (except for violation of team rules)…

            Second, there are plenty of kids not on scholarship that are on the team.

            Third, there are plenty of student loans that can be hand to pay for school… and if after a year at a school you haven’t qualified for in-state tuition, you might want to consider looking into what it would take to qualify.

            Forth, this isn’t a cradle to grave nation or at least it shouldn’t be. If the kid wants to stay in school at Alabama or any other school he CAN find a way to do it IF he looks hard enough.

            • lol…you are beating a dead horse….Many schools don’t allow you qualify for in-state tuition by just being there for a year…You can come to Wisconsin for four years and you still don’t qualify…

              It’s unfortunate that you are not addressing the unethical issue of oversigning…you are still screaming about entitlements… and personal responsibility but you let the schools treat their students like cattle…you and I will never see this issue the same way…thank you for your contribution…

              • Just what is so unethical about oversigning? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you, but you have come across as having no problem with a greyshirt (which is at the heart of oversigning) if done properly. I know you have some issues with the way some things are done with the LOI and the one-year scholarship, but I am at a loss to see this comment from you.

                • Greyshirts should really be just be used in extreme cases…Say I have two seniors that are graduating in december, I should be able to bring on two players in January or offer he scholarships to Juco transfers or someone on the current roster.

                  When I think of oversigning, I think of someone signing 30 players with just 15 scholarships open. Then, you will have to purge your roster. I am not in favor of signing a player then forcing them to greyshirt because I couldn’t count or because i was being greedy trying to horde talent.

                  You could use a greyshirt for a late qualifier that you wanted to bring in on January 1 (only if you are under 85 scholarships). Note, I wouldn’t allow them to sign until they qualified…

                  I hope this makes sense.

                  • That makes sense, and is reasonable – though I fail to see how using the greyshirt is so immoral. What if a team only has 10-15 seniors one year, but has 25-30 the next year? Why not offer a handfull of greyshirts to balance out the roster for future classes? What if there is a pretty good WR that wants to come to Alabama, but there are a lot of solid WRs in the Jr and Sr class. By delaying his enrollment a year, it opens up positions on the roster. I see where this may be seen by some as hording talent, but if it is the kid’s desire to go to Bama, and he would rather delay enrollment a few months for that opportunity than play anywhere else (and you know those kids are out there in huge numbers) then why is this not a good thing?

                    • I don’t find anything wrong with it if it is being disclosed in a timely manner and used properly. When it is used as it was in the Elliot Porter case, then I have a problem.

                    • Mario I posted on the bottom a link. The NCAA has changed the rules now regarding grayshirting. If a player signs a NLI and after like with Porter is told he has to grayshirt the NLI will now be null and void and the player can go elsewhere. It looks to be a start in the right direction.

              • You obviously don’t read my post… I am for rule change that would limit the abuse of medicals, would give kids 4 year scholarships instead of 1 year renewable, and I would be for limiting the use of greysirts AND changing the rules to make a greyshirt offer more clear….

                Still in the end, it’s up to the kids/parents to do what they need to understand what they are signing and what is going to be require of them.

                • The above post was/is in response to Mario….

                  • To Bathel,
                    So you want all schollys to be for 4 years. Well, tell me this , what if that kid comes in and after 1 year decides I’m just gonna cruze for 3 more years. I’m on the team so to hell with trying, I’ve got my 4 year scholly. That really makes sense to you??

                    • He he shows up at practice and does what is required for him to be on the team and doesn’t care to see the field… then the school loses out…

                      But at the same time, just because you bring in more or better talent the next few years… you can’t force a kid to transfer if he doesn’t want to. Now he may still want to transfer as he may want playing time, two a days in the heat and the pads is pretty tough if you aren’t going to see the field.

                      I’m sure rules would need to be tweak, I’m not saying I have the correct answers nor am I smart enough to know all the unintended issues that would/may come from such a rule.

                    • But Bathel your are assuming the coaches have not determined prior to NSD who is going to leave. This site makes that assumption that UA signs as many as they can and later decides who to cut. Just because it is announced after NSD, in the spring or the beginning of the summer does notmean they did not know before NSD.

                      The assumption could be just as easily applied that certian players are giving the opportunity to succeed on the filed in the fall and fail to succeed so the coaches decide then who to replace come NSD.

                      This site infers that every situation at UA is malicious in nature but that has not been made evident. I know I have seen two recruits that have been referenced so that it might imply something malicious transpired but with all the numbers of attrition that this sites records for UA two players are not that great of a % to base claims on for every player no longer on the roster.

                    • Soccer…

                      I don’t have issue with what UA does… it isn’t against any rules and really isn’t even bending any rules. They have never been over the 25/85 limit…

                      My thought is if you are going to change the rules, you need to look more at the root of what is going on IF you believe a team is running kids out and using medicals… I personally, don’t know if UA is doing that or not… nor does anyone on this site. It’s just speculation, but if you want to create rules to help stop something like that from happening… you have to look at the structure of the system. Addressing the symptoms will get you no where.

  6. I am still trying to find a way to comment on Mr. Gerdeman’s article. Can someone please tell me where I go to post a comment?

  7. Long but has important facts about athletic scholarships at the University of Alabama and Texas:

    Please read from rolltide.com: http://www.rolltide.com/genrel/121302aae.html

    Reduction/Cancellation of Institutional Financial Aid

    If a student-athlete is receiving institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability, that financial aid MAY be reduced or canceled during the period of the award (e.g., during that academic year or term) only if the student-athlete (NCAA Bylaw 15.3.4):

    • Renders himself or herself ineligible for intercollegiate competition, or
    • Fraudulently misrepresents any information on an application, letter of intent or financial aid agreement, or
    • Commits serious misconduct which warrants a substantial disciplinary penalty (the misconduct determination must be made by the university’s regular student disciplinary authority), or
    • Voluntarily quits the sport for personal reasons. In this case, the student-athlete’s financial aid may not be given to another student-athlete during the term in which the aid was reduced or canceled.
    Institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability MAY NOT be reduced, canceled or increased during the period of the award,

    • Based on a student-athlete’s ability, performance or contribution to a team’s success, or
    • Because injury prevents the student-athlete from participating, or
    • For any other athletics reason.

    Institutional Financial Aid Renewal/Nonrenewal

    Aid based in any degree on athletics ability cannot be awarded in excess of one academic year, the decision of whether a student-athlete is awarded institutional financial aid is made on a year-to-year or term-to-term basis, depending on the regulations of the institution.

    If a student-athlete is receiving institutional financial aid based upon athletics ability, the institution must notify the student-athlete in writing on or before July 1st whether the aid has been renewed, reduced or not renewed for the next academic year. This written notification must come from the university’s financial aid authority and not from the athletics department.

    If the institution decides not to renew the aid, or is going to reduce the aid, the institution must notify the student-athlete in writing that he or she has the right to a hearing. This hearing is held before the institutional agency making the award (NCAA Bylaw 15.3.5).

    From the official website of the University of Texas regarding athletic scholarships:

    http://www.texassports.com/compliance/financial-aid.html

    Your scholarship may be reduced or cancelled for any reason on an annual basis. The most common reasons are:

    • Inability to reach reasonable athletic performance goals;
    • Motivational problems;
    • Incompatibility with the coaching staff.

    Now the tution factor, etc. The numbers can fluctuate based on several factors, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but…

    Average cost per year for an Alabama resident taking 12 to 16 hours each semester is $7,900 and for a non-Alabama resident is $20,500. Now take that and multiple it by four to five years, and that is not cheap.

    Average cost per year for a Texas resident taking at least 12 hours each semester is $9,438 and for a non-Texas resident is $31,350.

    A student-athlete receives an athletic scholarship based on athletic ability. If the athlete is not meeting expectations at the university or college, the university has every right to take said scholarship from the student. Show me any university of college that explicitly guarantees a four or five year scholarship, which is not renewed on an annual basis or renewed on a performance basis, and I’ll rethink my position on this matter. No university or college should be required to fund a student-athlete for four to five years who is not meeting the expectations, within its policies, at the university or college. This is life…you have to perform. No such thing as a free lunch.

    • Did you even this vague “criteria” that you posted? Motivational problems??? lol…show me that clause and how to measure it in an academic scholarship…thank you for your google search…

      • Did you read this vague criteria..

        “free lunch” …I guess you think athletes are welfare babies..your are the kind of fan that disgusts me. Idiot….NCAA rules prohibit members from offering more than one year of aid but most schools honor the contracts in good faith and support the educational mission…

        • But I will disagree with you here Mario because until the NCAA and all the universities decide to recruit students by raising the requirment to get into school the “student” part of student athlete should be removed. The requirments to get in are a joke and hence why the graduation rates are so poor.

          I find it amusing that people on here scream about protecting the integrity of the game we love but I wonder how many of these same posters on here would supprt that every DI school in the country be required that all athletes meet the same requirments as the regular student body to get into school. The masses would be silent.

          • 2 points. We don’t really disagree here.

            1. The student-athlete graduation rate is very close to the regular student body graduation rate at many schools. (We could talk about the degrees awarded, but that is a different conversation).

            2. I would like to see the admitted student-athlete academic profiles more in line with the admitted non-athlete student academic profiles. Nobody wins if SA’s are admitted with significantly reduced standards. (one problem here is that there is a lack of information regarding this issue. I would jump at the chance to research this issue and publish the findings)

            • I agree and would love to see that same data. It amazes me though a student who is not an athlete is only required to be a student which means they have the free time to do with what they want. It it their choice if they want to study extra and be the best student they can or decide to use that time to socialize, but yet an athlete is required not only to be a student but an athlete. There time is even less to be student and they do not have that choice. To me it seems the standard to qualify should be higher because it is even more demanding for them to succeed in the classroom. A school should only accept the athlete who has demonstrated in the classroom they can handle such a demand on their time since the athlete is at a disadvantage compared to regular students.

              • Ideally and logically, that is the way it should work. But for the love of the game, we take the students with let’s say “subpar” academic credentials, saddle them with a ful time job and say, excel at both.

                Logically, standards would/should be higher but we are not going to win that argument for awhile…

                • I concur, but that is why I am torn with the issue of 1 year scholarship renewel. On one hand the athlete no matter what is told to them up front comes in with the expectation they will be there for 3-4 years and no expense to themselves. Again no matter what is being told to them they assume they do not need to worry because if they are being recruited they feel they are good enough to make it until they get their degree.

                  But the issue here because of the low standards set by the NCAA they are not being recruited to be a student but just an athlete. The NCAA has basically given schools the greenlight to recruit athletes with no regard for them in the classroom. So if they are not being recruited to be a student and again the NCAA is demonstrating that than why should we be concerned about whether they get their degree? People seem to show concern once they are in and transfer or scholarship not being renewed but I do not see alot of these same posters advocating for their school to recruit students first.

              • You make a good point, but you don’t acknowledge the tutoring and other extents that the athletic programs do to help the student aspect of the individual. They have assistance (free of charge) that is not available to the average student paying his own way. This added assistance helps cancel out the load all the damands of football add to the student.

                • Which makes it even more of an issue when you consider some of these colleges who graduation rates are so low. Especially when looking at minorities.

                  Take UGA for example. They have a graduation rate of 18% for their basketball program. One of the worst in the country. A 58% difference between the basketball program and the general students. But yet like their football team that are priviledged to study aides that the genral students are not.

                  • That may be, but the graduation rates of most school’s football teams are higher than the student body at large – even with these higher-risk players and those that leave early for the draft. When done properly, football can be a benifit to the student – especially those struggling with academics. 18% is really bad. I know basketball produces a much lower rate when compared to other sports – I think the earlier draft eligability into the NBA has some effect on that, but we should demand better than 18% from our schools – I’m with you on that.

                • I disagree. The reason you have the academic tutoring and support is for several reasons and it doesn’t cancel out the demands of the football job performed by student athletes. Trust me, I know this personally.

                  1. SA’s have different schedules than most students and traditional tutoring and student support services are not available to them because of this.
                  2. Truthfully, some SA’s are further behind than other students and they need the extra help.

                  Again with the free of charge…What do you think they work for? Don’t you think that the revenue that they produce should be used for academic purposes? Have you forgotten about the educational mission?

                  You must have better arguments to debate me.

                  • I think we are making the same statments on this one Mario. I agree that the rigors of being on the football team require a more determined approach for academics (though I worked full time and went to school full time for several years, pretty tough on me without a scholarship). The “free of charge” comment is not a complaint, but rather stressing how the university does it for the benefit of the student as they have no direct gain from the assistance (indirectly by having the player eligable, maybe).

                    • Mario youre right. The demands of a student athlete are by FAR harder than a traditional student. Does everyone just seem to think they go to practice for 2 hrs and day during the season and then off the rest of the year? If you think that you are severely mistaken. The student athlete is awarded a scholarship due to the revenue they bring the school. Athletes bring school hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue but I guess they dont deserve to be compensated with an education. I played at a division II school on scholarship and a serious injury ended my career (on my own will, NOT forced out) and then I worked full time and went to school part time and the rigors still didnt compare to football. Just sayin.

                    • Ok. I understand your point better. Thank you for your comment.

      • Mario, how do you quantify effort? How do you measure physical and skill progress? These things cannot be measured, and thus they cannot be put in writing what they expect. The lack of this, however is considered reasons for non-renewal by some and are valad. If it could be measured, I’m all for what you keep asking for, but I don’t know how you do it.

        • And hence, you have proven my point. If you are going to base the decision to non-renew for these reasons, there have to be objective standards otherwise you cannot use these criteria for non-renewal.

          • But it is the same non-quantifiable elements that brought on the scholarship in the first place, no? The evaluation of the player – whether he is given a scholarship in the first place is based on the coach’s judgement, why not the continuation of this scholarship?

            I’m not advocating wholesale removal of scholarships – there are appeals and the like afterall. A coach should be able to revoke a scholarship from a player that does not hold up his end of the deal – namely a lack of effort and failure to develop his skills. These would not fall under players that give the effort but don’t make the 1st team, rather players that have more potential but for whatever reason don’t do the things necissary to hone their skills to the desired level. These players are rare, and I would not expect it to happen often. I would still expect to see transfers for more playing time as this is a different issue entirely.

            • You have to speak about revocation and non-renewal distinctly. They are two different things. You still want players to be athletes first and this is where we will always disagree…

              Who are you to judge who develops their talents or not. This reminds of the old coach who thinks someone is loafing when they really are not…It is a more sophisticated problem than the argument you are presenting.

              • I make no representation that I (or any person like me) should judge anyone’s talent (beyond my armchair quarterback conversations). That should be up to the coaches – is that not part of their jobs?

                I admit that my personal interest in any individual football player on any college team is strictly about their football skills. Anyone who says differently (including the moral elite on this site) is lying – unless they go enmasse to the graduation ceremonies of these players and cheer just as enthusiastically when they get the diploma as when they score a touchdown. This is not to say that I don’t desire the players to get their education, I do – but rather my view of them as a fan of the football team is that of the athlete. This is, afterall the reason for their scholarship – they posess a set of skills not commonly found in the general population. As such, they are awarded an athletic scholarship, not an athletic/academic scholarship. The emphesis of the aid is on the athlete, so it is natural that the athletic part of the player will be stressed. Again, this is not to say that the academic part is to be tossed aside or ignored – no, the kid is there for an education (for the most part) on his end – that is his compensation if you will, but his value (such as it is – the reason he is given tuition) to the school is as an athlete, and if that means he is seen as an athelete first by fans, then so be it. Where is the harm in it?

    • When you handle things like Nick Saban did and your university purposely marks out the scholarship numbers in an attempt to hide something it makes you a target.

      • What claim do you have to this information?

        Do they give this information to the NCAA to prove that they are within the 85 limit?

        Saban obviously keeps much of what he does a secret when it comes to recruiting – but as long as he stays within the 85 limit, what business is it of yours who is on scholarship?

        Another thing Saban keeps secret is the depth chart (which he will say does not exist). The press is always asking who the 1st, 2nd and 3rd string players are for different positions are, and he never releases this information. Is there something sinister behind this as well? Or is it just the way Saban operates?

        On one of the earlier threads, someone insinuated that Bama fans don’t care as long as they are winning. There is some validity to that, but you overlook other factors. The players are graduating (GSR has increased every year and is now above the NCAA average), they don’t get in trouble with the law, and yes, they win football games.

        I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll say it again – reducing or eliminating oversigning will not turn the SEC into the Beast. No, kids want to play in the SEC. They like the better weather, the campuses and some of the best coaches in CFB are in the SEC. No, all it would do is restrict opportuinity to play at a top-level program to borderline players and academically questionable players. Less players would be offered scholarships, and less academically questionable kids would receive assistance via JUCO and other avenues. That, to me, is worse than having a kid transfer who isn’t getting playing time, or having a few more medicals than the average school.

        • One point here is the reason that the academic requirments we lowered so bad is to accomodate more students more for scholarships. Which is really bad that some still do not qualify.

        • “… reducing or eliminating oversigning will not turn the SEC into the Beast. No, all it would do is restrict opportuinity to play at a top-level program to borderline players and academically questionable players. Less players would be offered scholarships, and less academically questionable kids would receive assistance via JUCO and other avenues.”

          Perfect. By all means, I hope you are correct because I believe that this is one of the top objectives of those will are against oversigning: stop creating a process where more and more academically questionable athletes are signed and then parked at a JUCO.

          I hope you are correct — that as a result of a reduction in oversigning, this is practice would be severely restricted and high school athletes would know that they have to improve their academic preparation in high school.

          • Hence one of the problems with HS athletes. The environment has been created so that athlete can do minimal work in the classroom and still play. Even if their dream is to play in college the NCAA has set the bar so low that these players understand what little they need to do to get in. I am sure there are many that could meet h a higher requirment but yet see the point because the NCAA requires so little.

            • Notice that the defenders of oversigning will not enter into this arena — because their primary interest is to ensure that the framework that is currently in place is preserved if it allows their teams to win — they could park a 100 kids a year in JUCOs and have 30 of them graduate from a JC — it would not matter since oversigning is not about “the kids” but about ‘the wins.”

              • Another solution I see is to force any college that signs and places a student into JUCO is reuired to resign that player if they meet the requirments and graduate JUCO. Schools do try and sign some of these players back but alot of times the player does not develop while at JUCO at the rate the original college they signed with would hope and that player is forced to look elsewhere and more than not finishes their career when they graduate JUCO.

              • I’ll argue about that if you wish. I don’t care if you want to raise the standards. If you do, raise them to that of the student body at large. This is not an oversigning problem, however – although it would create a new “advantage” to the SEC schools because of the lofty requirements of the elite B10 schools. We would likely see the rise of a new website: raiseyourACTrequirements.com or something similar.

                …stop creating a process where more and more academically questionable athletes are signed and then parked at a JUCO

                At least you come out and say it. If you feel this way, fine – it is something we can debate (the value of an education for an academically questionable high school athlete) but if this is your position you better not be one of the “oversigning is immoral” or “oversigning screws over the kids” crowds as you have just shown that your goal is not the best interest of the student.

                • First if you have read any of my post you would know I am a UA fan. Second I have stated that we are recruiting athletes not students and hence renewel based on athletic ability is the criteria for renewel.

                  My concern however is that the schools, every BCS conference, does not look out for the best interest of the athlete. They recruit high risk students that have very little chance to succeed in the classroom or as Mario has eluded to get put into a degree program that is designed for athletes. I say this because many of those that oppose the practice of oversigning scream that these students when removed are unethnically taking advantage of and get their education robbed from them. Their defense is oversigning does not allow the player to get the 4 years of education they were promised or when they transfer they get a lesser education.

                  So my agruement for that is if these same posters are so concerned about education than why do they not get upset when their school like UGA has such a low graduation rate especially with minorities or that only 18% of the basketball team graduates. I am sorry that seems to me to be more unethnical when you purposely take an athlete that you know will not succeed in the classroom to exploit him for his athletic ability then forcing players to compete for a scholarship based on their athletic ability.

                  I guess in short people seem to use oversigning as an excuse for their teams inability to compete and not as a real cause for concern. Not saying all but more than those that actually see is as a concern. Becuase if oversigning and the issues that do come from it are truly their concern they would also have to question their school on the other practices that are just as bad if not more than unethnical in the exploitation of an individual.

                  • Mike, I’m fairly familiar with your posts and generally agree with you. You raise good questions about the custom courses and the like – something I have not given as much thought to. My previous response was to Rich and his attitude that high-risk students should be kicked to the curb and not recruited.

                    • “…Rich and his attitude that high-risk students should be kicked to the curb and not recruited.” This is interesting, we are uncovering the bleeding-heart liberal that is hidden in the SEC fan. Yes, you oversign because you want to do good for the kids.

                      Oversigning lowers the academic bar and encourages poorly prepared students to hang out at a JUCO. What is the graduation rate from your university for athletes who first go the JUCO route and then matriculate to a four-year institution?

                      I know your — concern is for the kids. By the way, does this concern extend to all high-risk students? For example, should every high risk student who really wants to go to Auburn be allowed to enroll as long as they graduate from a JUCO? You know — it is good for the kids.

                    • There lies the problem Rich. NCAA and these schools have created an exception to the athlete that was not a college bound student by lowering the standards to include them so they could. Which in return has increased oversigning which is a byproduct of this culteral acceptance that if you can run fast or hit hard you can go to college.

                      I have always believed that oversigning itself is not the issue but a result of greater issues and if those issues are truly addressed oversigning will go away on itself.

                      In regards to the JUCO I have read somewhere that most recruits that end up in JUCO finish their career there and alot of them never even graduate. I will see if I can find that link and post it because it sheds light on the topic.

                    • Oversigning lowers the academic bar…

                      No, the NCAA has done that for athletes. This is what SoccerMike has been arguing. I honestly don’t know how I feel about that. I do think that if you feel the way you express here, you should be directing you ire to the NCAA to make the entrance standards the same for all students – including athletes.

                      …and encourages poorly prepared students to hang out at a JUCO.

                      OK, what’s the problem with this? The alternative being that they don’t further their education at all – kicked to the curb to get into who knows what kind of activities.

                      we are uncovering the bleeding-heart liberal that is hidden in the SEC fan. Yes, you oversign because you want to do good for the kids.

                      Now you’re just being mean. Those are fighting words :) No, what it is, is finding a way to provide opportunity to more people, not guaranteeing it. The kid still has to make the grades, he still must make the most of this opportunity. This is a very conservative outlook actually – provide opportunity, but it is up to the individual to make the most of that opportunity.

                      What is the graduation rate from your university for athletes who first go the JUCO route and then matriculate to a four-year institution?

                      I don’t know, never seen this tracked before. I do know the GSR for Alabama (last year) is at 67% – this includes every student who enrolls at the university whether they complete their degree at Bama or transfer away. This also includes any JuCo transfers:
                      http://www.rolltide.com/genrel/102710aaa.html

                      For example, should every high risk student who really wants to go to Auburn be allowed to enroll as long as they graduate from a JUCO?

                      Why wouldn’t they? If they meet the entrance requirements – whatever they are, why would you keep them from enrolling?

                • Sorry I thought you directed that at me but I see you did not.

                  • “every BCS conference, does not look out for the best interest of the athlete. They recruit high risk students that have very little chance to succeed in the classroom or as Mario has eluded to get put into a degree program that is designed for athletes.”

                    This is complete bullshit. There is a reason why you see the same schools recruiting certain athletes. Nebraska, Stanford and ND go rounds recruiting some of the same guys with good academics and these three schools arent exactly “easy” to get into.

                    • Again another poster who fails to read what I wrote and spins it for their soapbox.

                      I would wager that in every BCS conference there are schools they have the same standard that the NCAA requires for being accepted. No where did I say all schools. Every BCS conferences have schools that are geared towards a football factory and education. If you honestly belive they are not not point in arguing with you, because you are just plain naive.

                      These same BCS conferences have a school or 2 that are above the standard for acceptance and for graduation, but do not kid yourself to think all schools do. The majority do not.

                      Like alot of people on this site you get defensive and then mention 3 schools when I am talking about what 70 schools. You want to call bullshit show me date and all BCS schools not the minority. By the way ND is not in a BCS conference for football. I will give you them and Stanford for being above the average and through in schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern among a few others. Know little about Nebraska but sorry will not put it up there with those schools.

                • Of course my interest is in the best interest of the student — all students. If more schools did not park hs football players in a JUCO then more hs football would work harder to be prepared academically. And, going to a JUCO to “major” in gaining eligibility helps a small percentage of football players — those players who were so completely ill-prepared academically that they could not clear the NCAA minimum standards, gained eligibility to a four-year school, went to the NFL and then had a multi-year career. Otherwise not preparing and then flunking out of JUCO does not help a player.

                  • Oversigning allows the deleterious effects of lowered NCAA academic standards to have an even more negative impact since HS players (particularly in the South, but not exclusively), to believe that a lack of academic preparation is remedied by enrolling in a JUCO program. I have not taken the time to research the question but 25 yrs of experience in higher ed suggests to me immediately that:

                    Lower academic prep + JUCO is worse for the future academic attainment of a student – athlete (graduating for a 4-year school with a recognizable degree and actual earning power outside of the football industry) than greater academic prep and directly enrolling in a 4-year school.

    • If you continue to stay on here that you will have to accept. Somewhere on here I posted a direct quote from Joshua from the Ozone. He stated clearly the reason he started this site was because he did not like Saban. Does that mean oversigning is not an issue no but understand every chance he gets he will use UA and Saban as an example. What people who are truly concerned about oversigning need to do is read through that bias to better understand the issue and address them.

      The only issue I have with the bias is just helps to cultivate banter on here and very seldom does it produce anything productive. People continue to defend one side by either saying it is not an issue or the other side calling them unethnical but yet very few solutions that would change how the practice should be handled have been submitted.

      I once tried to discuss with one poster on here and he got mad when backed into a corner and he did from there was call me a racist. As long as posters like that continue to post or respond in general the issue will never be resolved.

  8. Your hatred and envy of the SEC have been noted. Not too uncommon to see a Big-10 supporter crying about the SEC. Have a great day and get some VISINE® for all those teary eyes.

  9. The fact is that oversigning is oversigning. If people are going to preach it is wrong and want it stopped fine, but 1 oversign is the same as 10. It does not matter more scholarsip were offered and accepted than there was room for. That includes schools like USCe and OSU. No matter how you spin it they oversigned.

  10. One solution may be to move signing day to sometime in June. This will guarantee that a recruit’s eligibility is verified and he is eligible to enter college. That takes the guesswork out of it there’s no need to compensate for a recruit who might not qualify.

    • Or just do not let a player sign a NLI until they have qualified.

      • This would be the best move and one I would fully support.

        • Either that or any school that takes signs a player and that player does not qualify the school has to count them as a counter for the next year. It would make the school a little more weary of recruitint athletes that may not qualify.

          But the simpliest way is to not allow them to sign until they qualify.

          • Mike… that’s the issue. If you do it the Big 10 way, you punish a school for making an offer to a kid that doesn’t qualify or that just chooses a different school. They will only offer kids they KNOW will sign and will qualify.

            I would be fine with not allowing a kid to sign until he qualifies or better making the greyshirt offer seperate from the NLI offer AND allowing the recruit to still be able to reach out to other schools to be recruited if he is a greyshirt…

  11. I think some of you may be too harsh. Sometimes the kids last semester in school is a “do or die” one for the kid. Or maybe taking the ACT one more time will do it. If we are talking about “being fair” then all colleges need to wait until all recruits senior years are complete. The owner of this site has talked about different rules for the Big 10 and the SEC over and over again. Let’s have the same rule for everyone. Waiting until a recruit is deemed eligible to sign may put some schools in some parts of the country at a disadvantage and we wouldn’t want to do that. After all we want to give the student athlete every opportunity. Isn’t that what this site is about— treating all student athletes fairly and ethically.

    • But now you simply are giving the athlete an advantage over the normal student. Why does the athlete have to focus so much on one semester just to barely meet the requirments but yet a nonathlete has to focus on all 4 years in HS. And if that athlete has to use the last semester to hope to qualify what would lead one to believe that they will ever be successful in a college classroom over 4 years.

      • You’re effectively proposing tightening the non-qualifier restrictions by moving up their deadline to signing day. That, in turn, effectively means kids must qualify by the end of the first semester of their senior year. And if you do that, people who genuinely believe (with some real merit) that US public schools have serious educational equity issues will howl. Why? Because you’re not giving kids their entire high school window to qualify.

        College presidents remember the Prop 48 fights vividly, even if you don’t.

        • Plus plenty of academic admissions and financial aid packages are contingent to final semester performance.

        • What I am saying is do not let any athlete sign a NLI until they qualified. If that means until the end of their senior year so be it. It would eliminate sign and place issues. The only person it might be unfair is the student because a spot might not be there when they do qualify but why should the university be held hostage because the athlete did not take classes serious for the first 7 semesters.

          BTW Go Heels

        • Who says that a university is “bound” to admit a poorly prepared student who does well in the last quarter. I know for a fact that UNC would not feel “bound” to admit under this circumstance. The current restrictions for athletes are the minimum. If a student clears the minimum that does not mean the university has to accept him. I don’t understand your point.

    • Actually, if a coach wants to hold a scholarship open for someone to see if they will qualify, then they should do that. They just can’t sign 4 kids hoping one of them qualifies for the last scholarship. It’s unethical.

      • I is if there are enough players signed on with the understanding that they will likely be asked to greyshirt, no? Please explain how it is unethical if done properly.

        • It is continually being abused. I would be in favor of the athlete signing a greyshirt agreement at the time they sign the NLI or GIA to insure that they were informed. I am an attorney. Freedom to contract is a value that I believe in.

          • Whats bad is what USCe had to do. They have signed more they can. Not just oversigning but over the 28 limit. They look to be asking players to grayshirt without signing a NLI. If a player grayshirts they should have the opportunity to still sign. UA has their grayshirts sign. The NLI requires a school honor the NLI in regards to the one year that a school must uphold. Meaning a grayshirt that signs a NLI and enrolls the following January will be guaranteed one year from that point. I know they have them sign a new NLI in the spring but it more for show. A player taking a grayshirt without signing has no guarantee next January that a spot will be available.

            • Mike, not sure on the USCe idea…. my understanding is they have 4 guys early enrolled and qualfied back to the prior class. That leaves them with 27 NLI’s for this current class with the room for one more (Clowney). THis leaves them with 3 guys that have greyshirt offers to the next years class that would/could be moved to this years class IF there is room.

              Now the question is… do those 3 guys know they have a Greyshirt offer? I don’t think there is anything wrong with a guy taking a greyshirt, but I do think it is wrong if he doesn’t know it and I would be for a seperate Greyshirt NLI that would have to be signed by these recruits that would allow them to be moved to the current class if there is room AND keep the standard NLI offer, but change it so that it CANNOT be changed to a greyshirt offer.

              • BTW, this is partly why i don’t agree with this site… THey don’t take into account any guys that qualify to a different class. It just uses Rivals or Scout numbers so they can MAKE a point. It’s a spin of numbers to make their argument look better. It’s much better to say USCe signed 31 guys then to do the research and see they only signed 27 to this class and I’m also going to guess that if they end up greyshirting 3 of the guys from this years class they will not only show up in the 31 singed cup points this year, but next year as greyshirts as well….

              • Because when you look at it as a whole… and go back and count the kids to the proper class, you’ll see there IS NO OVERSIGNING…. USCe will sign 25 kids to this class, 4 kids to last years class and 3 kids not next year classs… Given that they still stay under the 85 limit. However, it makes much more impact to inflate the numbers to mak it look like USCe is signed 31 guys for this class when in reality they won’t sign more than 25. Also, they won’t have to RUN a single player off or use as Single medical to incorporate the 3 NLI’s to the next years class. They would just come off the the next years numbers as PRE-SIGNED.

      • I still can’t believe you’re betraying the family by supporting Joshua and his Big10, anti-Saban bias.

        • For me, It’s not about supporting or not supporting Alabama. I’ll always be from “Red Clay Dirt!” This issue is larger than Alabama. This is about educational institutions maintaining integrity and honoring their contractual and ethical commitments.

          If my brother is doing something wrong and I stand by and watch, then what kind of brother am I?

            • That’s just blind faithfulness. At some point you have to have morals and ethics. I wouldn’t want you as a fan…

              • I don’t agree that anything unethical or immoral is being done. Maybe I don’t like that you’re a former player, snitching on a site that is critical of the team, and usually only them, that you played for.

                • Snitching indicates that there is some unlawful activity occuring and that I have inside information about such activity.

                  Maybe you should look at it as if I am standing up for the ethical treament of student-athletes…my brotherhood of which you will never know anything about.

                  You are just an fair weather fan who only cares about winning whatever the cost. I know a little more (sarcasm) about this game and these issues than you ever will.

                  • You mean a fair weather fan that has been contributing to the athletic program since 1994? Yeah, that’s totally fair weather, don’t you DARE try to talk down to me like that.

                    I’d sure like to hear from some other players who haven’t joined in with an Alabama basher and turned against their own program.

                    • That’s your interpretation (which is false). Please point out where I have bashed Alabama. I have more pride in Alabama and being from the state of Alabama than you will ever know. You can’t win this argument. I am Alabama through and through…Let’s see who can get access to the program the easiest??? lol…

                      Thank you for your contribution.

                    • Fair enough. Though I do consider you siding with Joshua, being against Alabama, since he has a specific ax to grind there.

                      It IS us vs. them.

                      And I am sure you can get more access. But don’t dare call me a fair weather fan when I’ve stuck through the lean years and never once canceled my Tide Pride.

  12. I don’t think that I am giving an advantage to the athlete over a normal student. Many normal students barely make it through high school and still somehow make it into college. There are many “feel good” stories about college athletes and normal students that defy the odds and make it. Many of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds but make it through hard work and perseverance. I was born in Massachusetts, spent some time in the south and mid west and have seen kids from all walks of life. I saw many more from the deep south that had major struggles but still persevered. I admire them. The problem I have with this site is the author is from the Big 10 and has a grudge with the SEC and I believe it is all about winning. He also appears to have a major grudge against the Alabama coach. Your suggestion that all must qualify before signing their letter of intent may put some of the colleges recruiting the struggling kids at a disadvantage because they won’t be able to complete their signing class until later in the summer. That would probably give those elite institutions in the Big 10 an advantage. As everyone on this site points out “it wouldn’t be fair” and might keep someones team from winning.

    • Meg, I appreciate your sentiments but I disagree. Eventually, the students and their families would get the message. They would qualify sooner. They would become more similar to non-student athletes. We shouldn’t be offering scholarships to people that haven’t passed minimum qualifications. It should be about the educational mission.

  13. NCAA Standard for all schools should be this:
    Maximum 85 scholarship athletes on the roster at any time.
    No team can sign more scholarship offers than they currently have room for.
    Maximum 25 scholarships offered during any year.
    Mandatory 4 year scholarships. Only terminated
    All career ending medical redshirts shall be assesed by an outside source selected by the NCAA and that source shall be used by every school as to ensure that the same standards are utilized. (Schools requesting career ending MRS’s will foot the bill.)
    All Grey shirts should lose a year of eligibility to play football but not the benefit of that year of education, unless it is for academic reasons.
    So what if players don’t pan out? Well, that’s what they call you “Coach” for. Teach them. It is the coach’s responsibility to ensure they are getting the right kids for their system. Evaluating players is a very essential part of a coach’s responsibility. This is one area Saban admits he does a poor job on, but in turn blames the NCAA for their policies causing him to do this. Why is everyone piling on Saban? Troy University is the worst, true. Troy doesn’t win National Championships true. Troy doesn’t have the ability to bring in top notch recruits like prestigious programs can. That’s why Nutt never amounted to much with his numbers. It isn’t just getting a bunch of people. It is getting a bunch of great people that give you quality depth that the issue holds true. That is why Saban is the focal point along with his arrogant, non empathetic responses.

    • Nice idea. Big problems:

      1 – Already done.
      2 – Simply means kids get cut earlier and then picked back up after. Effectively a waiver wire for college. Opponents of movement restrictions would actually welcome this window.
      3 – LOI’s are one-sided employment contracts. No way the NCAA ties their hands on termination language, no matter how much this site moves public opinion. And if they don’t change termination language, 4 years or 1 year just becomes a matter of semantics.
      4 – Impossible on two fronts. First, that effectively means another NCAA committee and another layer in the budget, meaning more financial contributions from NCAA members. No way the NCAA presidents agree to pay for that. Second, and more importantly, it effectively transfers liability from the schools to the NCAA. A kid sued Auburn not so long ago for holding his scholarship over his head to keep him playing (funny how no one ever mentions that). Under your scenario, he sues the NCAA.
      5 – You can’t punish a kid for in effect taking a partial scholarship, and taking away a year of eligibility hurts only the kid. Superstars don’t need 4 years. Grinders do.
      6 – Projecting which kids will work in college and which ones won’t is hardly a science. My straight-A nephew bombed in college and spent 2 years getting his courage back. He lost his academic scholarship and the university sent him home until he could get his grades back up and file for readmission. You’re talking about 17-21 year-olds here. As an employer, I’m dealing with adults, and I have about a 75% success rate after interviews, back ground checks, and the like. Saban’s is closer to 90%.

      Fine, Tressel’s is more like 100%. Give him some extra scholarships. Create incentives, not righteous regulations that do nothing to address the real problem.

      • 1. How do we know if Alabama was at or under 85 scholarships last year if they won’t release their scholarship numbers? THey’re the only team in the country who didn’t. What are they hiding?
        2. Even if it did, it would give the cut players more time to figure out what to do, and it would penalize schools who ended up cutting more players than they ended up signing.
        3. LOIs have nothing to do with employment. GIAs deal with the scholarship agreement, and if players were employees they’d be getting paid.
        4. The NCAA has the resources to pay for it; just reduce funding to schools to pay for it. If a medical hardship committee costs $3 million dollars per annum, that’s a cost of $25,000 per Division I football school, and less when you include I-AA football schools, Division I basketball schools, Division II and Division III schools.
        5. There shouldn’t be grey-shirts, period, only walk-ons and scholarship players. The grey-shirt should be abolished.
        6. If a player can’t for college with scholarship sports’ reduced standards, then he or she shouldn’t be going to a university. He or she should go to a junior or community college, or not go to college at all. Giving people extra scholarships for good behavior is an unfair competitive advantage. This is a subject where the NCAA needs to use the stick, not the carrot.
        7.

        • 7. There is no #7!

        • 1. “THey’re the only team in the country who didn’t”

          Do you have a link that supports that claim? In yesterday’s article, Scarbinsky stated that UA was the only D1 school in the state of Alabama that didn’t release scholly numbers, not the only one in the country.

          5. You can’t abolish greyshirting any more than you can ban a typical student from enrolling in January instead of August. There would be no support for abolishing greyshirt as pretty much every school does it. Ohio State is greyshirting a player this year. Georgia is greyshirting a player this year. For all Machen’s whining, Florida offered a greyshirt a couple of months ago.

          Here is a quote from the guy who runs this website: “There is absolutely nothing wrong with greyshirting a player provided there is an understanding between the school and the player way in advance”

        • 1. The NCAA has mechanisms for verifying scholarship counts. Alabama’s simply refusing to release the information to the media, not the NCAA. They are hiding information from people determined to cast every detail in the worst possible light. It’s PR-101: you can’t win with some people, so don’t even try.
          2. I stated in my original post it would provide some freedom of movement for the bottom rung of a roster where currently none exists. While I think that’s a good thing for the student, I don’t see the NCAA allowing that. People have been howling about it for too long, with no movement whatsoever.
          3. The LOI locks a kid into very strict commitment-transfer protocols and a highly one-sided quid pro quo. It’s an agreement that favors the institution in all respects, and that’s an NCAA thing. Technically, no, it’s not an employment contract – it’s stricter than one of those. Again, this issue has been around awhile, with no movement whatsoever by the NCAA.
          4. Of course the NCAA has the resources to pay for it. I can pay for many things that I choose not to. But even if they were so inclined, they wouldn’t because of the liability alone. Think about it – you want that commission to prevent Saban from issuing frivolous medical hardships. Suppose a player comes back 13 years down the road with a degenerative spinal condition and blames the NCAA, turning it over to some specialists on percentage. Best case scenario: NCAA spends a million or two fighting the thing all the way to the Supreme Court. These players have ties to a university. They have no loyalty whatsoever to the NCAA. People would be coming out of the woodwork just to shake the organization down. I’m not an expert on liability premiums, but you’re talking a potential lawsuit from more than 12,000 different directions annually, 12,000+ being the number of D-1 participants annually. And if you do it for football, I’m betting you have start doing for all sports at some point.

          The medical commission simply isn’t feasible.

          • -The media is not the enemy unless you make it the enemy. Alabama isn’t refusing to release that information to the media because it’s being persecuted, it’s refusing to release the information because they want to avoid criticism. They’re inappropriately denying requests for information, and they might even be denying FOIA requests wrongly.

            -I’ve lost a lot of faith in the NCAA, but they’re okay at changing/reforming rules where there are abuses. I don’t know how cutting somebody and picking them back up would work, but having that happen in the winter/spring instead of the summer is a definite improvement which I’m reasonably confident the NCAA would make.

            -There’s way, way too much power for the institution and way too little power for the student in LOI agreements. This is a hugely necessary change, even more important than the elimination of oversigning. I think we have common ground here.

            -The NCAA is already responsible for determining whether players get a 6th year of eligibility because of previous injury, and at least one player (Ben Mauk) has sued the NCAA for denying his appeal, unsuccessfully. A medical hardship is to be used when a player is too injured to compete for the rest of his or her college career; the NCAA denying a hardship wouldn’t be a prognosis that the player can play. Like it is now, if a player gets crippled on the field, it’s the school that’s liable for putting him or her out there.

            • Media As Enemy: “being persecuted” versus “avoid criticism.” Same thing in their eyes. You see that dynamic every day in every White House press conference over the past 30 years. The press thinks the WH deliberately dodges questions; the WH believes the press intentionally ignores context in order to make a story more sensational. They’re both right, which makes the situation intractable.

              NCAA: Just don’t forget its sole purpose for existing, which is to protect the larger interests of the universities. If they get involved here, it will be because they see an escalating arms race somehow which will cost all the schools more money in the long run. They put in recruiting restrictions relative to contacts solely to cap the amount of time and money schools were having to spend to impress recruits. It had nothing to do the sanity of said recruits and everything to do with their common bottom line. If you want progress on this issue, relate it to that issue.

              We do agree on player movement. It’s insane. And frankly, I think a solution here goes a long way towards solving oversigning. It would make the coach more accountable to the players already on his roster on a number of fronts. And if a coach truly went way beyond the pale on something (mangino, leach) he could face a mass walkout. Which is why university presidents (NCAA) fear this one so much.

              NCAA Medical Committee: It’s nice to think the issues would remain so black and white, but that’s being naive. The eligibility committee already exists and isn’t making a medical determination at all with respect to additional years of eligibility. That remains entirely at the discretion of the school and the player.

              Under your scenario, the moment the NCAA creates that committee, they expose themselves in some way to the medical liability of every player who puts on an NCAA uniform. They end up in between players who want to go and universities who want them to stop, or universities who want a kid to go and kids who want to stop. It’s a huge no-win situation for the NCAA – to accomplish what, exactly? Eliminate a WSJ article in which two kids say, “Well, it was basically my decision, I stayed on scholarship, but I felt I could have contributed something more as a player?”

              Risk-reward waaaay out of whack on this one, IMO.

            • Since when is it yours, mine, or Joshua’s right to have the information that Alabama doesn’t want to release. Answer, we have no right, and since never.

              • That is silly and uniformed opinion. This isn’t a classified state secret. As a tax paying citizen, you do have the right to demand transparency in the operation of a public entity. As long as it doesn’t intrude on personal privacy and FERPA, the infomation should be available for the public to review. It’s not just my opinion, it is the law.

                • No, it’s the opinion of someone who is sick and tired of everything being in the public. From what the President ate, to the smallest things. The media think they have the right to everything.

                  I disagree. They have the right to what a person wants to give them a right to.

                  It’s not a silly or uninformed opinion. You’re very quick to go to the name calling. Some former prideful player you are.

                  • I am not name calling and I apologize if you took offense. I am just stating the truth. You do know that I am an attorney, right? You are uninformed if you think that public institutions don’t have to be transparent and produce (reveal) information through the FOIA.

                    My pride will always be there. I have not discussed the Alabama situation specifically in public. I am standing for principles in intercollegiate athletics.

                    • An attorney? God that explains so much. SO much.

                      How is it different for Alabama to black out things, compared to other governmental entities? There are redacted information ALL OVER the place. Doesn’t mean that they aren’t complying with FOIA.

                      But why is it YOUR principles that have to win? Or be placed on others? That is a problem in America, where other’s values are forced upon people who don’t agree.

                • Looks like CT is trying to demand transparency:

                  If we haven’t yet, let’s go ahead and call this the Offseason of Oversigning. No topic has proven to be a bigger hot button since Auburn polished Oregon off in Glendale, with everyone from Nick Saban to USA Today to Bernie Machen to Sports Illustrated’s Andy Staples to compliance officials to (as of today) Jay Paterno weighing in on the subject … and we’re not even halfway through February.

                  Such has been the topic’s rapid rise to critical mass that it’s even being debated outside the world of college football–in this case, inside the halls of the Connecticut state legislature , where a bill called the “Connecticut Student-Athletes’ Right to Know Act” would “require universities to spell out the details” on how and why their athletic scholarships could be revoked or unrenewed.

                  Appearing before legislative officials to argue for the bill were local professor (and former Notre Dame football player) Allen Sack and former UCLA Bruin Ramogi Huga:

                  While NCAA rules state that athletic aid cannot be reduced or cancelled during the one-year period of the award because of athletic ability or injury, Sack said, “the rules are murky when it comes to conditions for the renewal and non-renewal of the scholarships in the subsequent year.”

                  “Some universities renew scholarships for four years as long as athletes continue playing and adhere to team rules,” said Sack. “Others cancel scholarships for poor athletic performance or for injury” …

                  Huma, a former UCLA football player and president of the National College Players Association — a California nonprofit made up of more than 14,000 Division 1 student athletes — also testified at the hearing and went one step further. He said the majority of high school recruits decide which college to attend based on “false information given to them by athletic recruiters.”

                  Most recruits and their parents have no idea, Huma said, that colleges can “leave them with sports-related medical expenses, take away their scholarship for any reason, leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in educational-related expenses, and hold their eligibility and scholarship opportunities hostage when they try to transfer schools.”

                  Though neither Sack nor Huga specifically refers to the practice of oversigning, the controversy over whether teams (in Sack’s words) “cancel scholarships for poor athletic performance” in order to make room for new recruits nonetheless puts it at the heart of the bill. It’s hardly coincidence it appears just as the debate over oversigning reaches its most heated point, just as it wasn’t coincidence Saban prematurely echoed Sank’s words by saying “We have never gotten rid of a player because of his physical ability” in his defense of his recruiting practices.

                  The bill still has many hurdles to clear before passing, including a check with the NCAA to make it sure it doesn’t run afoul of (or further complicate) NCAA regulations. And, of course, there’s a massive, massive gulf between one such bill passing in Connecticut (where UConn would be the only FBS program affected) and nationwide oversigning reform enacted by either the NCAA or the government.

                  But the point remains: more than ever it appears college football is sloping towards some kind of oversigning legislation, and that the only real question is how slippery that slope will be.

                  http://college-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/27471448?ttag=gen10_on_all_fb_na_txt_0001

  14. Here’s what is funny. Say JClowney were to sign with Michigan State or Northwestern. You are telling me that these coaches would tell him there was “no room at the inn?” Yeah right, they would do whatever it took to get this kid on their team and you know it.

    • Pat Fitzgerald: “We have 85 scholarships. We had 17 to give, and we’re at 85 right now.”

      You think he could add Clowney without getting excoriated after that quote? I’m pretty confident that he wouldn’t take him on.

    • Would that put them 11 over the limit?

  15. “I didn’t think I was going to be grayshirted,” Collins said Wednesday. “It affected [my decision] big time.” Does that qualify as “creating an opportunity for a guy to come here, not taking one away?”

    I love how in this article Saban uses “replaced” over and over. Comical to say the least.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/02/04/saban-oversigning/index.html

  16. He was told weeks before NSD he would grayshirt if signed with UA. That is why in Janaury he started looking around at other schools and took visits. Again I love some people on this site. If UA grayshirts it is wrong but alright for other schools if they tell them that before signing. But when UA does that it is still wrong. Got to love bias.

    • Told weeks before Signing Day… after committing in March 2010:

      http://blog.al.com/tide-source/2010/03/gadsden_city_wr_daryl_collins.html

      Solid.

      • Since when is there an early signing period? Being committed in march doesn’t stop any school or any kid for being recruited. Until the 1st Wednesday in February, a verbal means nothing… as has been shown many many times by recruits changing their verbal commit over and over again.

        I’d be for an early signing period though… Make it a non greyshirt period… if a kid wants to sign in march, let him… but make the school offer him a NON greyshirt offer.

    • I don’t think so at all. I am against all greyshirting by all universities and believe the more you greyshirt, the worse is the institution. Where is the bias?

      • You might want to read the whole site before you post. Several times on here it has been pointed out that UA grayshirts players after they sign them. That these players are unaware until after they sign because UA needs to make room. But yet the same people say if the player knows ahead of time it is alright. But now that UA tells someone before they sign it is wrong.

        Now beofre you get on your high horse with me I have never said one way or the other if a grayshirt is alright. So do not pick a fight here because I am pointing out bias by posters like tdawg. Just like tdawg likes to chime in but yet UGA offered X Ward a grayshirt before they had room. So he is showing bias but yet fails to talk about how unethnical the practices at UGA are.

        See bias is simple. You point out one person for doing something wrong and then look the other way when in this case is your team. Just like this site. Joshua has made it clear he does not like UA and just like when he was quoted on the OZone that he created this site because he dislikes CNS. Plain and simple. He is quick to call out any SEC program especially UA but yet where are all the screaming OSU fans that come on here about oversigning but yet I have not heard them call out OSU who just oversigned.

        • I’ve never seen a recruit say that UA didn’t tell them beforehand that they may have to greyshirt (when they did). Bama certainly has used the greyshirt a lot, but I have not seen one instance where it was used unresponsibly.

  17. Since when does saying a word once classify as using it over and over?

    Based on what I’ve heard, Collins was told before commiting that a grayshirt was a possibility. He committed anyway. Human nature being what it is, he didn’t think he would actually have to grayshirt. About a month ago, he was told that the grayshirt was probable and he started talking more to Kentucky and Louisville. About a week before NSD, he stated in interviews he planned on signing with Alabama and grayshirting. Kentucky kept on him and he decided to sign with them.

  18. Oversigning is a non-issue but see for yourself. Visit the following NCAA website regarding important information about athletic scholarships: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/Home/.

    I have not listed everything because it is too much information but you get the idea.

    On the website, under the “Document Library” folder, and on the athletic scholarship PDF:

    Does the NCAA award athletic scholarships? Individual schools award athletic scholarships, not the NCAA. Division I and II schools offer athletic scholarships. Division III schools offer academic scholarships only. NCAA members provide more than $1.5 billion in athletics scholarships annually.

    Is an athletic scholarship guaranteed for four years? No. Athletic scholarships, like most merit-based scholarships, are limited to one academic year. Athletic scholarships may be renewed and the school must notify the student-athlete in writing by July 1 whether the athletic scholarship will be renewed for the next academic year. Individual schools have appeal policies for scholarships that are reduced or not renewed. In most cases, the coach decides who gets a scholarship, what it covers and whether it will be renewed.

    What do athletics scholarships cover? Per NCAA guidelines, full scholarships do not exceed tuition and fees, room, board, and required course-related books. But it is important to note many student-athletes receive athletic scholarships that only cover a portion of these costs.

    On the website under the “Frequently Asked Questions” folder under “General:”

    When I sign a National Letter of Intent what do I agree to do? When you sign the National Letter of Intent you agree to attend for one academic year the institution listed on the Letter in exchange for that institution awarding athletics financial aid for one academic year.

    How do I fulfill the National Letter of Intent? You fulfill the National Letter of Intent in one of two ways: (1) By attending the institution with which you signed for at least one academic year as a full-time student; or, (2) By graduating from a junior college if you signed a National Letter of Intent while in high school or during your first year at the junior college.

    By signing a National Letter of Intent am I guaranteed that I will play on a team? No. Signing a National Letter of Intent does not guarantee you playing time or a spot on the team. Rather, by signing a National Letter of Intent, the institution with which you signed agrees to provide you athletics financial aid for the academic year.

    Am I required to sign a National Letter of Intent? No. You are not required to sign a National Letter of Intent but many student-athletes sign a National Letter of Intent because they want to create certainty in the recruiting process. Specifically, by signing a National Letter of Intent, you agree to attend the institution for one year in exchange for the institution’s promise, in writing, to provide you athletics financial aid for the entire academic year. Simply, by signing a National Letter of Intent you are given an award including athletics aid for the upcoming academic year provided you are admitted to the institution and you are eligible for athletics aid under NCAA rules. Furthermore, by signing a National Letter of Intent you effectively end the recruiting process. Once you sign a National Letter of Intent, a recruiting ban goes into effect and you may no longer be recruited by any other National Letter of Intent school.

    So in summary, the university or college only guarantees one academic year and that is all. The scholarship may or may not be renewed. That is up to the university, college, or coach(es). It is a one year contract. Nothing can be misunderstood by the terms of the contract/agreement.
    And Mario, I have always found that respectful communication is much more effective than personal attacks, such as calling someone an “idiot.” People might take you more seriously in the future through respectful communication. Only a suggestion but you obviously can do as you wish.

    • I appreciate your links to the different sites but know that they don’t always state what actually happens. Take this statement.

      “Am I required to sign a National Letter of Intent? No. You are not required to sign a National Letter of Intent but many student-athletes sign a National Letter of Intent because they want to create certainty in the recruiting process. ”

      The truth is that many SA’s sign because they don’t know any better. Similarly, many schools are very vague about the 1yr ; 4yr education guarantee and many schools have higher standards for its coaches and administrators. Many in the Big Ten schools recognize the reality that you obtain your education in 4-5 years and renewal of the scholarship is pretty much automatic unless you commit a crime or major school violation. (Also, realize that the NCAA standard is the minimum).

      Let’s face it, some schools focus on the educational mission as the primary goal and some focus on the business aspect of intercollegiate athletics as the primary goal. The good ones can do both while keeping student-athlete welfare (education, well-being) at the forefront of their mission.

      I try to refrain from personal attacks but I consider it a personal insult when uninformed members of the public proclaim that we athletes or former athletes in my case receive a “free ride”. It is a myth that holds no merit. When you see that statement repeatedly on this board, it reminds me that many people just don’t know what it is like to have participated in intercollegiate athletics at the highest level. I’m sure I won’t put “idiot” in my dissertation…As Spartacus would say “apologies”….

      • “Let’s face it, some schools focus on the educational mission as the primary goal and some focus on the business aspect of intercollegiate athletics as the primary goal. The good ones can do both while keeping student-athlete welfare (education, well-being) at the forefront of their mission.”

        Excellent!!!! Great comment

        And this is why oversigning.com is an important site — to continue to force those schools who treat cfb players as “at-will” employees to defend themselves — since they are dragging down the entire world of cfb to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator. As has been mentioned before, one of the more enraging aspects of this “business mentality” argument is that: universities could not possibly actually admit that cfb is a business for all kinds of tax and regulatory reasons and yet they encourage their fans to hold onto this vision — thus intentionally allowing their fans to be misled. If this was done by a politician or CEO, this would be par for the course, but the leader of an institution of higher ed should be different — this is why the comments by the President of UF are most welcomed.

        • Point of clarification. You make the statement that this site is in place ” to continue to force those schools who treat cfb players as “at-will” employees to defend themselves”.

          That suggests the site has already forced that to take place, and it has not. Not close. Not by a mile. I would hardly categorize any statements made by Saban or any other coach on this topic to address in ANY way the treatment of their athletes as at-will employees. That is YOUR assessment, and it couldn’t be further off the mark.

          • Interesting that your only response is to say that coaches currently are not being asked to address oversigning.

            First, five years ago would Nick Saban (or others) mention or refer to oversigning in any way. Second, five years ago would, for example, Finebaum have back-to-back shows centering on oversigning. Third, five years ago would the SEC have implemented its toothless 28 scholarship limit.

            You point is that there is a long way still to go. Could not agree more. And I expect that there will always be coaches denying the legitimacy of the claim until the very end. Still the shift in the conversation is undeniable. This site is a key part of this change.

            • This site is not that key to the change anymore. When it first started the converstaion carried over to boards and some people started questioning the practice. But now the site has fallen way behind in addressing the issue. The site to be productive needs to not only inform people but discuss how to fix the problem. It does not except for require a recruiting budget which will not solve anything. This site is in the same place it was when it started with people defending one side or the other and no direction for resolution on how to solve the isuue. Most of the time people defend without actually understanding the true issues or seperating the many issues that arise in regrads to oversigning.

              If this site was so key why was it not mentioned on Outside the Lines. Because it only discusses the issue which is now known but it does not offer any legit recourse to address it.

              • This site has been mentioned in just about every article. It was a shame that OTL did not reference this site, as they surely examined it, and ripped a few things off.

                The site has stated that the SEC needs to adopt something similar to the B10, so there is a solution. You folks just don’t like it.

                • Since you seem to be so informed on the rules how do you explain that the Big10 even with thier rules in place oversigned this year. Even OSU oversigned. So how do those rules prevent oversigning? Please enlighten us.

                  • You are being just being obtuse. Following the B10′s lead would be a major step in the right direction, so why not take it?

                    • Who said I do not agree with it, but it still needs to be enforced for it to work or some penalty be levied and only the NCAA can do that across the board.

                      Oversigning 1 player is the same as 10. It is still oversigning and without some penalty schools will still oversign even with a rule in place as we just saw this year.

                      The rule has merit but right now it is windowdressing until the NCAA steps in. Not to mention preventing oversigning on NSD will only expedite the process of moving players of the roster prior to NSD. It may shed more light on schools who have so much more attrition for whatever reason, but it only changes the timetable of when things happen.

              • Since when is ESPN a source of journalism. They are in the entertainment business.

                In a movement, not every component needs to expand its mission. The mission of this site appears to me to continue to shed light on unsavory practices associated with oversigning and ensure that more and more people discuss it.

                At this stage of the conversation, I don’t think it needs to expand its mission to provide “solutions” when, as evidenced by many who post on this board, there is widespread denial that there is any problem whatsoever.

                Keep up the good work!!

                • There are always widespread denial with issues. Issues alot bigger than oversigning, but that does not mean because people have denial we overlook finding a solution until they all agree. If that was the case we would get no where. Some people are just never going to be convinced. This site has very little traffic in regards to the number of people it states outside of the site are talking about it. If the word is out than solution should be sought. I think that whether 15 or so posters on here that post are in denial will liltte effect of the situation.

  19. I think Joshua will like this link and it provides some insight on how the practice of grayshirting is done and not an idea certian organizations agree with. They have implemented a new rule that should hinder coaches and grayshirting. It would eliminate any coach trying to sign a recruit to a NLI and afterwards telling them they would have to grayshirt. If the coach tells the player they will have to grayshirt the NLI will be null and void. So a player who feels they were wronged as some of alluded to on here can now opt out and go to a different school. They language is interesting but it is a step in the right direction.

    ……Susan Peal, who administers the National Letter of Intent program, said the Collegiate Commissioners Association (the program’s governing body) doesn’t support grayshirting. The program has a policy that nullifies the National Letter of Intent if an institution or coach asks the student-athlete to grayshirt. However, if a student-athlete decides to delay enrollment, the NLI remains valid. Determining the instigator of the decision can be difficult.

    “The NLI declares intent to enroll the following fall,” Peal said. “I tell kids and parents that they have every right to that scholarship if they signed an NLI.”……….

    http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/February/Oversigning+still+a+problem

    Oh and by the way it is grayshirt not greyshirt.

  20. The chronic-oversigning schools are scum…and their fans are too!

    And the NCAA just sits by while these schools trample the lives of young student-athletes in their pursuit of national titles.

    Now we know why the SEC wins titles…They CHEAT!

    • Thank you for your insightful contribution to this site. Your repartee may be the defining moment sought to finally shed the light on this issue and hopefully help preserve the integrity of college football. I hope you continue with such fervour in this quest and we always welcome such an intellectual diatribe to this site.

      • Thanks, will do. And thanks for your irrational drivel justifying an obviously unfair and unethical practice that only certain SEC fans fail to see as wrong on any level.

        SoccerMike writes:

        “Oversigning 1 player is the same as 10.”

        No it is not. It is different by a factor of 10.

        Even OSU oversigned.

        Is this what helps you justify how the Bama’s and LSU’s of the college football world churn through student-athletes, discarding them like collateral damage in the quest for national titles? Then keeping fooling yourself.

        Also, OSU did not oversign, get your facts straight. They had 23 scholarships to give and signed 24 players, one of which was a grayshirt. The player in question, Cardale Jones, is going the prep-school route and will not enroll in OSU until next year, where he will be counted as a scholarship in the 2012 class. This is entirely different than what happened at Bama with Carswell and Love, both of whom grayshirted on July 31st, months after NSD.

        Jones at OSU knew weeks before NSD and was able to take that into account. Whereas Carswell and Love were simply victims of Saban’s underhanded expulsion tactics.

        • You might want to tell the owner of this site to get his facts straight. Again like I pointed out earlier people need to read the whole site before posting. According to Joshua the owner of the site, if you read and apparantly have not OSU had a recruiting budget of 22. Now in case you do not know that means OSU had only 22 available scholarships to give out. So not even considering C Jones they still signed 23 which means OSU oversigned. Again read the site before you post because I believe Joshua knows what the numbers are especially for OSU and you seem not to.

          BTW 1 player over is still oversigning no matter how you want to spin it.

          All the recruiting for the info on schools available is on the home page if you scroll down.

          • WRONG. They lost an offensive lineman a few weeks back. They had 23 schollies to give out.

            • Do not tell me I am wrong tell the owner of the site Joshua he is wrong. I am only going off the site info provided by him regarding the numbers for OSU.

              I also guess Jim Tressel was wrong after he signed this class which is over and said it could still grow. That he might even add more to it. If you have read this site you would have seen that quote as well, but again I doubt you have read anything on here.

      • Smike,

        It’s best to just ignore Tdogg… He/she seems to only have personal attacks when you strip the arguements down to facts… it’s kinda a typical response from those that are not well informed.

        • The sad part is it happens to much on here from both sides. We do not all have to agree but we can debate, discuss, and challenge in a civil manner.

        • Didn’t I bitch slap you a few weeks back when you came here trying to tell everyone that there is no such thing as “oversigning”.

          Now I have to educate SoccerMoron.

          • Based on your post I doubt you could educate anyone or enlighten them for that matter. Maybe your mom dropped you on your head to many times when your were small.

            But again your post as always seems to fail at providing anything useful whatsoever to this site and your contribution is that of a preschooler needing attention.

            • You are wrong about OSU. Why do you post blatant falsehoods? Link? Support your facts with evidence. Show me where/how OSU oversigned.

              • Show me your link. Because based on all the info on this site which is created by an OSU fan his numbers state that OSU had a recruiting budget of 22. OSU signed more than 22, fact. Now you say they had 23 scholarships to provide not 22 fine show us your evidence because mine is based on the links that Joshua posted not my opinion or falsehood you seem to think.

                Now here is the link that Joshua posted with the info and links to support the number of scholarships available.

                http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2011/01/20/sticky-for-now/

                • The link clearly shows that OSU is at zero in the cup signing. Ohio State did not oversign. They had 23 spots and offered 23 scholarships. They were not over by 1. In fact, OSU might be under depending on a few players. The link assumes that Tyler Moeller will get his 6th year of eligibility (NCAA petition) and that Keith Wells will get back on the team (i think grades…they lost him during the season). It is possible that neither of those events will occur. If so, then they would have two more available spots.

                  Additionally, 1 week before NSD, Longo transferred from OSU (This is probably where the 22/23 confusion came from).

                  Anyway you slice it they are not oversigning.

                  Honestly, if Alabama, LSU or Ole Miss were going over by only 1 or maybe 2 a year, that would not be so bad because there typically is some attrition of one player here or there during the season (getting arrested, not going to class, offseason injury). However the objection here is clearly directed at the chronic over-signers. We are not talking 1 or 2 guys but more like 6-10 per year. The fact that you guys don’t get that and continually come here and post falsehoods you cannot backup in defense of this outlandish behavior is ludicrous.

                  • Again fail to read because no where have I said that UA or any school did not oversign. And no where did I say it was not an issue. I have stated that oversigning is a result of larger issues that need to be addressed first.

                    Even with Longo gone I just read that Carter will sign and that gives OSU 24 signees. I do not want to hear about sign and place because from the start this site has condemed that practice as an excuse for people that support teams that oversign. So I do not care if C Jones is a sign and place the fact, again fact, is that with the addition of Carter OSU accepted 24 NLIs. So even if OSU had room for 23 they still oversigned. Sorry fail to see where that info is false.

                    • Also if you follow those links they show that the total of 85 includes Chris Carter and C Jones, because as we know he signed and place but still signed. So 85 on scholarship plus 1 more that signed a NLI is 86. Math is so simple.

                      See the problem is people like yourself like to blast people from teams that oversign. Any excuse they use such as sign and place you say in an excuse until you need to use. Now it is alright to have 2 or 3 as you would say over because of attrition.

                      Again 1 over equals oversigning no matter how you spin it, count it, or defend it.

                    • Meant to say 85 includes Carter and not Jones but 85 + 1 = 86.

                    • Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

                      OSU signed 24 (which I wrote above, which includes Carter). Jones is a grayshirt and is going to a prep school and does not count against the 23 limit. He knew this and agreed to sign anyways. This is different than the Alabama recruits that did not know they were asked to grayshirt. I brought this up and you completed ignored it. Your silence on this issue is duly noted. Get your facts straight and think clearly.

                      Here is the link for the 23 +1:

                      http://cfn.scout.com/a.z?s=451&p=9&c=8&toinid=687&yr=2011

                      Just because you constantly repeat and fabricate facts does not make them true. The math works out. They did not oversign. This is what the cup points on the front page clearly shows, which you disengenously referenced to support your assertion. You are not slipping anything by anyone.

                      A review of the facts.
                      OSU had 23 spots.

                      OSU signed 23 players for 2011 and placed 1 on grayshirt who will count in 2012. No deception, no lies, nothing unethical.

                      Got it?

                    • Actually my understanding is Jones is going to prep school not grayshirt. Big difference. Grayshirt would mean he enrolls in the spring, but maybe that has changed and in the end it does not matter. You are as bad as those that defend oversigning when you can not accept the truth.

                      Fact ok follow me here. With the addition of Carter signing a NLI OSU accepted 24 NLIs. Fact they only had room for 23 for the fall. Fact since they signed 1 to many they have to grayshirt or send Jones to prep school. If they did not sign 24 or Carter in this case Jones would not have to wait a year to come in. That is called oversigning and why he has to grayshirt.

                      FACT OSU HAS ACCEPTED 24 NLIs 1 OVER WHAT THEY HAD ROOM FOR. ARE YOU THAT BLIND IN YOUR DEFENSE YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT.

                      Answer this and you will probably spin it a different way because so far you have failed to comprehend what oversigning is and why players have to delay their enrollment. But a simple yes and no question. If Carter was not signed which means that Jones would be a part of the 23 players OSU had room would they included Jones for the fall and not ask him to delay his enrollment? Simple Yes or NO question.

                    • He knew this and agreed to sign anyways. This is different than the Alabama recruits that did not know they were asked to grayshirt.

                      You are wrong about this. I have never seen a recruit at Alabama be asked to take a greyshirt without knowing it would be a possibility from the time he was offered. I’ve never seen that said from a recruit, and if you have, please provide me the link to it and I’ll agree that it was wrong. You won’t because you can’t.

                    • It doesn’t matter anymore because the new rule by the NCAA would nullify the NLI if a player is told prior or after they sign a NLI that the school wanted him to grayshirt. So they basically could sign elsewhere if they wanted without penalty.

          • Tdogg said:
            Didn’t I bitch slap you a few weeks back when you came here trying to tell everyone that there is no such thing as “oversigning”.

            Now I have to educate SoccerMoron.

            You mean where you were faced with facts that proved you wrong and you resorted to calling me names?… Yeah, I got owned there, because I choose to not respond to the name calling… I can see your logic.

            SoccerMike said:

            The sad part is it happens to much on here from both sides. We do not all have to agree but we can debate, discuss, and challenge in a civil manner.

            Yes, I find it the typical response from both sides… Pro and Con… In the end, it really shows how little that person is. If they can’t support their ideas or even open their mind to a new view, there is little hope for them in this world anyway… So I tend to just let them live their delusion…

  21. Challenge to SoccerMike: Justify your assertion that OSU oversigned. Show a link?

    So far…

    We are waiting.

    • Tdogg, support your assertation that Alabama doesn’t inform thier recruits that they may need to greyshirt. I’ll wait.

      • You are an idiot. I never said such a thing.

        If you weren’t deficient in reading comprehension, you would realize that the claim is not that Alabama doesn’t tell recruits they MAY grayshirt, but rather Alabama is not forthcoming in telling a recruit that he WILL grayshirt before NSD.

        An example is Lions and Carswell. They both showed up for summer camp and then grayshirted in the middle of the summer. There is no link or publication explicitly stating they were going to grayshirt before NSD.

        Compare this with the Cardale Jones situation. He knew before NSD that he was going to grayshirt. Totally different situation.

        I can only handle one moron at a time. I have no time for you. Buzz off.

        • This is different than the Alabama recruits that did not know they were asked to grayshirt.

          That is your quote. Support it. This doesn’t say that they don’t tell them they may or will grayshirt, it says that recruits don’t know they were asked at all.

          I can show several articles where recruits have stated they were told beforehand. You can’t show any that support your accusations. If such a claim were out there, you can believe it would be all over this site, but for all the accusations of oversigning and medical hardship abuse, there is nothing about Saban not informing his players what their scholarship offer is.

          Since you obviously have a very high intellect, I’m sure you wouldn’t make such a claim against someone without substantial proof as that would be truly moronic. All I’m asking for is that proof.

  22. SoccerMike wrote:

    With the addition of Carter signing a NLI OSU accepted 24 NLIs. Fact they only had room for 23 for the fall. Fact since they signed 1 to many they have to grayshirt or send Jones to prep school. If they did not sign 24 or Carter in this case Jones would not have to wait a year to come in. That is called oversigning and why he has to grayshirt.
    FACT OSU HAS ACCEPTED 24 NLIs 1 OVER WHAT THEY HAD ROOM FOR. ARE YOU THAT BLIND IN YOUR DEFENSE YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT.

    I will break this down for you one more time.

    OSU had 23 schollies available. They signed 23 players on NSD. They also signed a Jones who is grayshirting and will spend the first part of next year at a prep school. This is explained in this article.

    http://highschoolsports.cleveland.com/news/article/-8918661890103359750/national-signing-day-2011-glenville-qb-cardale-jones-chooses-ohio-state/

    From the article….

    Jones said he will be a grayshirt, enrolling at a prep school for six months before arriving in Columbus. The Buckeyes also have a commitment from highly touted quarterback Braxton Miller of Huber Heights Wayne.

    Grayshirting is applied to a prospect who signs a letter of intent in February but doesn’t report in the fall. He delays college entry until midyear, and the NCAA five-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the player enrolls as a full-time student.

    Now why is this different that what many chronic-oversigning schools do? Examples are Carswell and Love from Alabama. Good question. Because when a school does it up front before NSD, then the recruit has the opportunity to go elsewhere in order to get a full scholarship. If at this point the recruit still decides to attend the school – whether it is Alabama or Ohio State or USC – then that is fine. Because the recruit has this information before NSD and can factor it in to their decision.

    In this particular example, Jones knew before NSD he was going to grayshirt and he still decided to go OSU instead of some other school. This was his choice and every player has there reasoning. This did not occur after NSD. In fact, OSU fans knew weeks ahead of NSD that Jones was a potential grayshirt and most of the OSU message boards did not expect him to sign. It was considered a big bonus that he did anyways.

    In the case of the Alabama players, they did not grayshirt until mid-summer after they already reported to the school. This is the “collateral” damage aspect of this practice. Had these kids known beforehand what was going to happen, they could have gone elsewhere. It is not just the kid that loses out, but other schools. Carswell and Love could have gone to Clemson or Auburn or somewhere else in the SEC. But that is much more difficult to do once they show up for summer camp.

    So you see, OSU had 23 spots and signed 23 kids. That is not spin, it is a fact. The +1 Jones will show up at Ohio State next January and be part of the 2012 class. Since it was well explained and open, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it is just good recruiting. If Tressel or Saban could sign 500 kids and grayshirt all of them, more power to them: As long as they know BEFORE NSD that they WILL be grayshirted, then nothing unethical has occurred.

    • I really do not care since you fail to answer a direct question and like DSB every time you reply you have to add something else to defend yourself and avoid what is being asked

      Again I am not talking about what is ethnical or not. I also agree with you on one point if knowledge of intentions happen prior to NSD I have no issue with it. But as this site and other sites, articles, and interviews have stated…oversigning is when a school such as OSU who has 23 available spots to sign players signs 1 more player over that. OSU had 23 schoalrships available, which means 23 NLIs should have been accepted. They however accepted 24. I do not care and fail to understand why you skirt around that fact. You claim to address it but never call it what it actually is which is oversigning plain and simple. I do not care if the player knew about before hand they still oversigned. Because they oversigned Jones has to grayshirt.

      Why is it so hard for you to accept. It is acceptable before hand se he knew yes but they still oversigned or Jones would not have to accept a grayshirt. Again there might not be anything wrong with this action but they still oversigned according to the definition over oversigning. No where when talked about have I ever seen it is not oversigning when the player knows ahead of time. The situation was handled in a better way but they still oversign.

      DSB used to do the same thing. Point one thing and he would come back with a different approach. First I say they oversigned you say they did not. I then showed where they did, next you say one does not count. I stated they still signed 24, now you come back and say it is different because of the approach and without addressing the simple definition of oversigning start discussing what is ethnical and not regarding oversigning.

      Why do people on here fail to answer a direct question.

      Did OSU have only 23 scholarships to offer out? YES

      Did OSU send out and accept 24 NLIs? YES

      By the definition of oversigning did OSU oversign by 1? YES

      Would C Jones be going to prep school or grayshirt if OSU only sent out and accepted 23 NLIs? NO

      Was that hard to answer those questions. It should not be but like the defenders of the practice you have to skirt around those questions.

  23. I will answer your questions.

    Why do people on here fail to answer a direct question.
    Did OSU have only 23 scholarships to offer out? YES

    Yes.

    Did OSU send out and accept 24 NLIs? YES

    Yes

    By the definition of oversigning did OSU oversign by 1? YES

    No. Per the definitions of oversigning and grayshirting given on this site.

    Since this site defines grayshirting as follows:

    Gray shirt – the NCAA rules state that college football players have 5 calendar years to complete 4 seasons of play. When a recruit enters the program they can defer scholarship benefits until the following calendar year. This restricts them from certain team activities, but in terms of the scholarship numbers they don’t count until the following year.

    So there you have. A grayshirt does not count in the current year’s recruiting numbers. It is a deferred scholarship.

    Here are the definitions:
    http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/definitions/

    Would C Jones be going to prep school or grayshirt if OSU only sent out and accepted 23 NLIs? NO

    If OSU only signed 23 NLI on NSD, then most likely Jones would not have signed a letter of intent with OSU. But since OSU signed 24 NLI on NSD, then via the rules of grayshirting, he is allowed to eventually enroll at OSU.

    Was that hard to answer those questions. It should not be but like the defenders of the practice you have to skirt around those questions.

    How is that? Would you now agree that OSU did not oversign and Alabama/LSU/and Ole Miss did?

    • I understand that a grayshirt does not count against the 25 rule for incoming players or for the 85 rule because the NCAA does not allow a school past those 2 numbers. That is very simple but that has nothing to do with oversigning.

      Since you posted the link I will use it.

      1. Oversigning – We define oversigning on this site as the act of accepting more signed letters of intent on National Signing Day then you have room for under the 85 scholarship limit.

      OSU had room for 23 but accepted 24 NLIs. You answered my question. So yes OSU oversigned by defitinition of this site. I still do not understand why you deny that.

      You seem to not comprehend the definitions here. Grayshirting just like backcounting determines what class a player is assigned to in regards to the 25 rule for a certian year and in regards to the 85 rule. Some schools do not bring in 25 because of the 85 and bring them in the next year as to backcount.

      Oversigning means to accept more NLIs than you have room for in a class. If you take more NLIs than there are scholarshisp you oversign. Next you either have to hope for a transfer, medical hardship or a player to accept a grayshirt. All of those terms happen because a school oversign. The NCAA determines the number per class at 25 max and 85 max total, but they have no limit on the number of NLIs schools can accept. The SEC has implemented a 28 signing rule because of H Nutt but the NCAA did not. That still does not stop teams from oversigning. If they only have room for 23 but accept 24 they oversign. No matter what they do with the 24th player.

      I do not care that OSU is bringing in only 23 players because that is all the NCAA will allow them with their current roster. But they still accepted 24 NLIs and based on the definition from this site that you linked that is oversigning.

      1. Oversigning – We define oversigning on this site as the act of accepting more signed letters of intent on National Signing Day then you have room for under the 85 scholarship limit.

      Again the act of accepting more signed letters, now what they do with the players afterwards to get them under the number needed.

      • SoccerMike wrote:

        But they still accepted 24 NLIs and based on the definition from this site that you linked that is oversigning.

        Are you just trying to make this difficult? When you grayshirt, you do not count towards the schollie count for the upcoming season.

        Here is the NCAA on the matter:
        http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/Frequently+Asked+Questions/General/What+is+Grayshirting

        Grayshirting” is a term used in the recruiting process to describe situations in which a student-athlete delays initial enrollment in a collegiate institution to the winter or spring term after the traditional academic year begins. …. “Grayshirting” is not a formal designation by the NCAA or the National Letter of Intent program.

        Grayshirting is not part of the NLI program as defined by the NCAA. So OSU only signed 23 NLI and 1 grayshirt.

        Is this really your argument? That since you incorrectly believe OSU oversigned that somehow it is ok when Alabama does it.

        Wake up and get real. It is this level of denial that is absolutely unfathomable. Are all SEC fans this biased?

        • Again get defensive and throw stones at another school. Also have I once said UA did not oversign. According to the defintion of this site they did. But you do not agree with that definition when discussing OSU.

          Grayshirting if you have read the NLI website is not something they support but it does not matter if the player signs a NLI. Since the NCAA and NLI are looking at that right now.

          Why do you conitue to skirt the facts. I do nt care how OSU handles the situation with roster management. The simple fact you fail to comprehend for whatever reason is that OSU ACCEPTED 24 NLIs. SIGNED NAD RECEIVED. I do not care if they grayshirt one after he still signed according to every recruiting site and OSU boards. OSU accepted 24 not 23.

          Your last statement you might want to look into a mirror because you are in denial. Every time this is pointed out you go on a different defense and make it more personal. Why can you not accept 24 players signed a NLI and they were accepted by OSU. Maybe Rivals, Scout, and ESPN are wrong and all the writers for OSU. Maybe you should correct them. You seem to know more than all of them.

          Does it really both er you that much that OSU oversigned. I thought I had seen some bad UA fans on here but you take the cake.

          Again grayshirting is a result of oversigning. Jones would not have to grayshirt if OSU did not oversign. Go read the rest of the site and evryone including Joshua will tell you grayshirt because you oversigned. Who cares if they count towards next years class. That is only because OSU oversigned this year and has no room for them.

        • Tdogg, the creator of this site would disagree with you. By your definition, Alabama has never oversigned, as they have used greyshirts the last several years to get under the 85 limit. Josh looks at two numbers, the “budget” and LOIs accepted. By that count, OSU oversigned by one this year. I have no problem with that as my only issue is that the recruit know before he makes his deciscion, and OSU certainly did that. The issue Mike is raising is the hypocracy here, in that Joshua is silent on OSU’s oversigning when he screams from the mountaintop about Bama’s.

          Another point you have incorrect is that the player grayshirts in the summer. No, if a player enrolls in school after submitting (and having it accepted) his LOI, he counts against the 85/25 limits, and could not then greyshirt. What you are referencing are players that accepted the greyshirt with their offers (they have been quoted as such) but could have still been asked to enroll in the fall were enough spots to open up. There was a third player who had accepted a greyshirt last year, but was able to enroll after Alfy Hill was declared ineligable (sorry, I can’t recall his name).

  24. I will have to say that Tdogg rivals DSB in his attempt to defend oversigning for a school. I have not seen anyone go to the length to spin something this much on this site. It amazes that even a fan of OSU would be adament not to accept it at face value for what it is. I mean it is not like OSU has done anything unethnical and they were honest upfront with the player. And I would be the first to say that this situation even though still oversigning is not an issue since the player was completely aware of the outcome.

    • Because you are fabricating your facts. OSU did not oversign. The fact you fail to comprehend that just makes you pitiful. My evidence:

      1.) I linked to the oversigning cup which shows OSU at 0 points.
      2.) I linked to the NCAA which explains how a grayshirt does not count as NLI.
      3.) I linked to the OSU recruiting site that lists the 23 recruits and the 1 grayshirt.
      4.) I linked to a cleveland paper that explained the grayshirting process for the 1 OSU grayshirt and how he knew weeks in advance of NSD that he would be grayshirting.

      You have linked to nothing and have been unable to support even a single assertion.

      And yet you still do not get it. You have no facts and a weak and shifting argument.

      WHY am I wasting my time on this?????

      OSU did not oversign!

      • Because you are in denial. If Jones signed a NLI which ESPN, Rivals, and Scout says he did he count towards the number of signings. You are asserting now that he never signed one. I guess you know more than them. Also the NLI website says they do not recognize a grayshirt because they tell players to enroll anyway if they sign. They say even if a player signs a NLI and grayshirts they still have the right to enroll in the fall and force the school to count them. You might want to read before you post because I know that subject well and apparantly you do not.

        ESPN, Rivals, and Scout shows Jones signed and OSU accepted his NLI. So it does count once those 2 things happen. Again read the NLI website before you post.

        Also again he is being grayshirted because OSU oversigned.

        You have completely failed at your attempt to defend OSU. I give you credit because everytime I prove something you said wrong you presented something else. Good try but in the end it does not matter because OSU OVERSIGNED. I am verify that by you r link to the defitnition of oversigning on this site. Thank you.

        • You’re banging your head against a wall… don’t worry about it. He’s blinded by his hatred of the SEC… he only sees what he wants to see… It isn’t worth the time to try to educate someone who doesn’t want to be educated. I would just suggest dropping it and letting him feel like he “won”… like you can win anything on a message board.

        • If Jones signed a NLI which ESPN, Rivals, and Scout says he did he count towards the number of signings.

          Per the NCAA, grayshirting does not count as a NLI. This was linked above. A grayshirt does not count toward the current year’s scholarship numbers. This has been pointed out ad naseum on this site and the NCAA site. Either you are thick or refuse to accept this. Until you accept the facts presented, it is impossible to have a rational discussion.

          Also again he is being grayshirted because OSU oversigned.

          Wrong. He was offered a grayshirt, because OSU does not oversign. You got the causality backwards there.

          You are hilarious! You can’t even show that OSU oversigned by 1 and yet bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, etc, etc, etc oversign by like 10. Ha. Must be difficult being an SEC fan and having to defend this crap.

          Now we know why the SEC wins championships. Because they CHEAT!

          Gotta it. They are the only conference to oversign and the hence, the reason for their remarkable success on the field.

          It is unfair, and unethical. Hopefully the NCAA puts an end to this horrific practice and restores balance to college football landscape.

          • Tdogg dude. You win hands down! You ripped these retards a new one. Good job dude.

            It is so simple….You start with 85 kids. 20 are seniors, 3 leave early for the NFL, and 2 get kicked off the team for poor grades or violating team rules, whatever. Then you only have 25 scholarships to give. These SEC teams want to keep giving scholarships even though they do not have enough spots. The SEC needs to be more like the big 10.

          • I’ll join the oversigning defenders in accusing OSU of oversigning at the moment they show me:

            - the player forced off the roster to make room for Cardale Jones;

            - the player forced into a medical scholarship to make room for Cardale Jones;

            - the player forced into a not previously agreed to grayshirt in order to make room for Cardale Jones;

            - that Cardale Jones was blindsided by a decision to grayshirt him.

            Four conditions there – prove just a single one of them and I’ll join you.

            Unfortunatley for you, you can’t simply strip from the definition of oversigning it’s core essence – abusive manipulation of student athletes. Such a line of attack simply boils down to an attempt to score points at a semantical level while ignoring the obvious harmful nature of the practice of oversigning.

  25. Since we seem to disagre let others chime in here. Answer these questions. Please do not answer anything other than yes or no. No other response is required whatsoever. Again I do not need your opinion but a simple yes or no. Others can determine the outcome.

    1) Was OSU’s recruiting budget 23 coming into NSD? Yes or No

    2) If answered yes to question 1 does that mean OSU can only accept 23 NLIs on NSD? Yes or No

    (Basing this on the defitnition of recruiting budgets from this site which means a school can only accept a total of MLIs that they have scholarships for)

    3) Did OSU accept 24 NLIs on NSD or shortly after? Yes or No

    Please do not add your opinion or anything else except yes or no for each question will let others also do the same and determine if OSU oversigned. I bet you can not just answer and will need to add something, but I promise there is no more needed to be added that you have not already contributed.

    • Sorry… i’ve got to stay out of that one… I don’t agree with the definition this site uses for oversigning… it isn’t correct as no school oversigns… they are all within the 25/85 limits the NCAA has… and to me that is the real meaning of oversigning… being above the 25/85 limit.

    • SoccerMike has stopped listening to reason. I already posted the NCAA rules on grayshirting. I will do it again. He does not want to accept the NCAA definition. It clearly states that a grayshirt does not count as an NLI below. Yet he ignores this and continues on and on and on…When you grayshirt

      Here is the NCAA on the matter:

      http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/Frequently+Asked+Questions/General/What+is+Grayshirting

      Grayshirting” is a term used in the recruiting process to describe situations in which a student-athlete delays initial enrollment in a collegiate institution to the winter or spring term after the traditional academic year begins. …. “Grayshirting” is not a formal designation by the NCAA or the National Letter of Intent program.

      here is the exact question:

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_greyshirt_recruit_sign_a_national_letter_of_intent_and_if_so_then_when

      Someone taking the greyshirt route does not enroll in college until the spring semester. Therefore, in recruiting, he/she wouldn’t be considered a true recruit for that year and sign a LOI until the next years signing day.

      So there you go 2 sources that clearly explain how a greyshirt does not sign a NLI.

      Therefore for the 50th time…

      OSU had room for 23 recruits. They signed 23 recruits (which signed 23 NLI). They also signed 1 more player, Jones, that is greyshirting. He does not count towards this year’s scholarship and will sign a NLI next year and be part of that class.

      So simple.

      • Are you that uninformed and like I stated before you fail to read this site. The link you posted does not anywhere say a recruit who grayshirts does not sign a NLI. I realize now that you have a reading comprehensive problem. All your link does is say that they do not recognize not that a grayshirt can not sign a NLI. If that was the case than why this rule imposed this year per the NCAA and NLI. That states depending on who initiates the grayshirt process the NLI may become nullified.

        ….Susan Peal, who administers the National Letter of Intent program, said the Collegiate Commissioners Association (the program’s governing body) doesn’t support grayshirting. The program has a policy that nullifies the National Letter of Intent if an institution or coach asks the student-athlete to grayshirt. However, if a student-athlete decides to delay enrollment, the NLI remains valid. Determining the instigator of the decision can be difficult.

        “The NLI declares intent to enroll the following fall,” Peal said. “I tell kids and parents that they have every right to that scholarship if they signed an NLI.”….

        http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/February/Oversigning+still+a+problem

        Now I have posted this several times already but again you fail to read. Now if the school was the instigator than yes his NLI will now be nullified but only if he does not enroll in the fall. It is still valid until he does not enroll. Now if he instigated it himself they will and waits until the spring the NLI stays in place. So the question is who instigated and if is was the school it still remains until after he the fall enrollment date passes. But what you seem to fail to understand is they sign a NLI which Jones did. Based on who decided the grayshirt process determines if the NLI will remain, but it does not deter the fact that he signed with 23 other people hence oversigned.

        Also this is the first year that rule has been applied. Before the player signed and it remained active the NLI no matter who instigated it. That was one of the issues for players signing a NLI and later being told they would grayshirt and they were stuck with that school. The new rule allows them to get out of it if that happens.

        I know you will try and reword to fit your defense.

        Now in regards to your sources but Wiki is wrong. Any player that enrolls for the spring semester that is an EE and not a JUCO is prohibited from signing a NLI. So sorry a grayshirt who enrolls for the spring which is called a early enrolleee does not sign a NLI per the NLI website.

        …Prospective student?athletes enrolling mid?year shall not sign an NLI
        except for a junior college transfer in the sport of football…..

        http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/85bbf0004e0dc6ec94fef41ad6fc8b25/NLI+Guide+2010-11.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=85bbf0004e0dc6ec94fef41ad6fc8b25

        A NLI requires one full year of athletic aid to a school. If the player decides to delay his enrollment the still has to honor that agreement. If the player before that one year argeement ends wants to go elsewhere they have to get a release or forfiet one year of eiligibity. Your other link all it says about grayshirting is it is not a formal designation. So many people on here love to to imply something that is not there.

        ….This NLI shall be rendered null and void if I am eligible for admission, but the institution named in this document defers admission to a subsequent term. However, this NLI remains binding if I defer my admission…..

        Again depending on who instigated the grayshirt agreement the NLI can remain. Which in case you fail to understand that it is saying, guess what, the recruit signed a NLI and afterwards the NCAA and NLI determine if it should remain.

        This site shows who OSU received a NLI from. Guess who is on the list C Jones the person you said did not, and I am quoting, sign a NLI.

        http://www.thebuckeyebattlecry.com/?p=12632

        • Now let me make this simple for you. OSU signed 24 players via a NLI. We have now seen links that show even C Jones signed a NLI. I have even showed you a link that states grayshirt still signs a NLI. Even if the NLI nullified the grayshirt because the school instigated it they still had to sign a NLI first. I hope you understand that something to be nullified had to actually happen first. So in this case a NLI has to be signed and accepted before they might nullifiy it.

          Again recruiting bidget for OSU=23 OSU accepted 24 NLIs 24>23 which means OSU oversigned by 1. Again spin how you want but they oversigned.

          • I think tdogg is another alias for Texas_Dawg. They both spew the same drivel, and enforce their own morality on others, while completely ignoring the unethical practices of whatever team they follow, just to grind an ax against the SEC for being awesome.

          • WRONG. They signed 23 NLI’s. The did NOT sign 24.

            Jones, will sign his NLI next year.

            • So now you are so desperate that you are telling me an Ohio State site that I linked is wrong about Jones signing a NLI along with ESPN, Rivals, and Scout and that the link that EEs(grayshirts) cannot sign a NLI which is directly from the NLI website is wrong. There is no hope for you what so ever. I mean you are stating the people that create and govern the rules for NLI are lying because you think you are right. Again every time something is pointed out in your info that is wrong you come back and try something else.

              You ask me to provide links I do with the direct information I have stated. Yet you only provide links with info you than try and twist. My links trump your links because they are directly from sources that govenr these rules not specualtion from someone that tries to answer a question.

              You have now become this sites number 1 defender for oversigning. Every one welcome the new DSB—Tdogg. I find it amusing that a Big-10 now has the title.

              In case you you are still unclear OSU accepted 24 NLIs per every major recruiting network and per OSU websites. Their recruiting budget was 23 for the year. They oversigned by 1. What more facts do you need. Oh and by the way you r opinion is not a fact.

          • REally, what he’s saying is what I’ve been saying…

            Alabama accepts NLIs as grayshirt offers. They move those guys to the current class if there is room from non-qualifiers (same thing OSU would do if one of the NLI signers don’t qualify)… When you look at this sites numbers and count the NLI’s that are signed to the proper class you’ll notice that EVERY team only has the number of NLIs applied to a class that they have room for.

            IE if Bama had room for 14 NLI’s and accepted 23 NLIs… the actual break out would look something like this…

            14 NLI’s would be counted to 2011 class…. 9 guys would be counted to 2012 class as Grayshirts. Several of those 9 guys that Grayshirts won’t qualify and will enroll in Juco or will just stop moving foward with their education; however if all 9 guys do end up qualifiing… ALL 9 WOULD HAVE A SCHOLARSHIP FOR THE 2012 CLASS… Period end of story. If room comes open before the 2012 class and the athlete qualfies, they may be moved to the 2011 class.

            This is where I see a problem… as teams can abuse transfers and medicals to get kids in or to purge the roster… I can support rule reform to help try to stop any abuse in his area. I don’t support the killing of grayshirts as the Big 10 rule does and as many on this site want to happen.

          • They signed 23 players NLI.

      • So if the oversigning cup points are correct, and Bama has 10 more LOIs than they have room for, they are not oversigned as long as 10 of the signees have agreed to a grayshirt. Am I correct here? If not, please explain how it is any different than what OSU has done.

      • So simple, and yet according to this site, unethical. So OSU is throwing stones while living in a glass house. You can’t have it both ways, and to want it both ways is disingenuous.

        You just refuse to admit that OSU did wrong according to the tenants of this site.

        Either grayshirting is unethical for everyone, or it’s unethical for noone. OSU doesn’t get a pass. By the definition of this site, they oversigned.

  26. “we were not being bias”

    The word is ‘BIASED’, not ‘bias’.

    Bias is something you have. Biased is something you ARE or ARE NOT.

  27. WRONG. OSU signed 23 NLI’s. The did NOT sign 24.

    Jones, will sign his NLI next year.

    OSU did not oversign.

    • According to the layout of this site. Yes they did. Especially since this site considers greyshirting abhorrent.

      And by greyshirting, OSU took in one more player than they had room for, to enroll on next year’s class, thus keeping other schools from getting him. That’s oversigning brother.

      Of course, I have no problem with it, because I’m not a hypocrite.

      • It is oversigning that is frowned upon, not grayshirting.

        OSU did not oversign cause they signed 23 NLI for a class with 23 open spots. They did not take in an extra player for the upcoming season. Get your facts straight. What OSU did was honest and upfront and is completely ethical in every conceivable way. OVersigners are dishonest. They only get away with it because the NCAA rules do not follow normal contract law, so schools like Bama can pull scholarships whenever they like and there is nothing kids like Elliot Porter can do about it.

        • funny that you reference Bama, yet cite an LSU player. There is no difference between what OSU did and what Bama has done. Bama informs its recruits before they sign if their offer is for a grayshirt, and they have always had enough of these to cover however many over the limit they may have been. If spaces open up between signing day and fall enrollment, then they move some up a class – something OSU can do if someone decides to transfer or if another member of this class fails to qualify. No difference, just Bama uses it at a higher rate.

          • schools like Alabama (i.e. schools that oversign) and kids like Porter (i.e. kids that are victims). Just because Porter went to LSU makes no difference in the statement.

            There is a difference. Take Love and Carswell. They were not told ahead of time they WOULD grayshirt. They learned about this during the summer of their first year. Jones knew before NSD. Huge difference IMO.

            If a space opens up between now and fall enrollment, then Ohio State gives the extra scholarship to a deserving walk-on for 1 year and has +1 schollie available for the following recruiting season. I follow OSU it has happened many times. Bama has probably never given a walk-on a scholarship during Saban’s tenure because they always had a stack of “oversigning victims” waiting in the wings….

            • You are wrong on both counts. Love and Carswell both stated that they knew all along that their offer was for a grayshirt. They knew before NSD and were fine with it (Love was injured and used the time to recover from his injury – why wouldn’t he know?)

              Bama has given many scholarships to walk-ons. The difference is that OSU gives them as a token to some senior who likely won’t play a down. Bama gives it to a deserving underclassman who goes on to play in the NFL.

  28. Soccer Mike and Bathel –

    Start with some questions:

    1) Are you employed currently?
    2) Are you employed by or for the benefit of UA?
    3) Are you employed as members of a PR firm hired by UA, a UA Alumnust, or UA Booster?
    4) Are you employed by the NCAA?
    5) Are you employed by another recruiting site?

    You two have made your case for the how and why it is happening from the SEC perspective. Great, I get it. Current rules allow it, therefore no violation. I also read where you have offered some potential fixes for transparency. For me, it is being forthright with the kids. I don’t like non-comittable offers. You are either good enough or you get slow played. If you really want to be there, then you may ask for a grayshirt, but that is no guarantee if there is as much or more talent the next year. The slippery slope here is how much time is enough time when numbers are going to force a grayshirt? What is fair to the kid? 2 weeks? 1 month? 2 months? I hold the universities (especially larger programs – OSU/PSU, UA, UT, USC, UF, etc) to a higher standard. One kid doesn’t mkae or break the program. If you lose a kid late, tough cookies, you should have ten more who are bieng slow played to take the spot that are at or near the same level. Losing one late hurts a midtier program that only gets a shot at two to three (3 or 4 star) recruits each year.

    As for OSU and oversigning, as a fan – hell yeah we took 24 NLIs, as we should have. One will grayshirt and knew well in advance and will count towards next years class. With as late as Jones got his offer, and trust me every chance the guy got he said OSU all the way, he was told point blank to use the fall to get his house in order and enroll in January. What you don’t know is that 2-3 players will transfer (Guiton/Berry/DiLillo/Whiting are names rumored already) next year based on the depth chart out of spring ball in late April.

    Here’s a couple thoughts I havent seen yet: If Saban had only signed one extra player a year would we be having this discussion? If Houston Nutt had not signed 37 kids and laughed about it – would we be having the conversation? This site, IMO (sorry Josh) does not give credit for the fact that Saban came in and cleaned house his first two season, thus having more room for his kind of players. Why is the SEC the only conference that seems to habitually engage in the practice? PAC10/12, Big12/10, Big10/12, BigL-East, and ACC pale in comparison. The other conferences utilize something similar to the B10 model discussed.

    Why we are fixing this issue, could we discuss putting the STUDENT back in athlete. Minimum standards by NCAA are very low. I realize that this plays into socio-economic imbalances that vary by region, but damn, have you listened to the interviews of some of these kids? I’m not sure the qualify to run the drive through at McDonalds.

    What about the pay for play issues? Stipends for athletes? Don’t forget tilte IX and that whatever you pay football players has to be paid to women’s lacrosse too. Or that most universities (outside maybe the top 20) actually lose money on their athletic programs and are taxpayer funded.
    What I find suspicious is not how Saban manages the roster, but the number of medical hardships (relative to other schools and relative to a medical redshirt) and deliberate refusal to discuss recruiting numbers.

    This site is long on rumor and enuendo and short on solutions. Many on here have offered their opinion, which is great. What this site represent is exposure to a contoversial issue. How much time do we waste/spend arguing on here over trivial issues? Holy $hit people…end of the day, this is for fun and discussion (kind of like march madness basketball pools) or complaining about how bad the BC$ system is at getting it right. No one posting here will impact what the coaches, university, or NCAA will do. They dont care! They’re making money and we are getting our kicks from aggrivating each other!

    • As for OSU and oversigning, as a fan – hell yeah we took 24 NLIs, as we should have. One will grayshirt and knew well in advance and will count towards next years class.

      Actually this is incorrect. OSU only signed 23 NLI. A grayshirt counts towards the following season. So Jones will sign his NLI of intent next season, not this one. Jones has not yet signed a NLI.

      Another thing I learned, is that most of this NCAA recruitment terminology and their bylaws are not actual laws. The NCAA operates much like a cartel (sort of like the NFL) and establishes rules that member institutions agree to follow. Much of these concepts about scholarships are actually being challenged in courts. (Google it.) All this means is that these terms can be used relatively loosely. None of this stuff is legally binding. Anyways..

      A national letter of intent really just means that recruiters agree to stop recruiting the player according to the rules set forth by the NCAA and that the recruiting process ends for the student one he signs it.

      So technically, Jones is not bound to go to OSU and other schools can continue recruiting him if they really want. But much of this is moot point. Jones had full scholarships available and chose to pay for his education for 1 semester before signing with next year’s OSU recruiting class. Had he not wanted to do this, he likely would have selected one of his scholarships. There is nothing wrong with this.

      What’s wrong is when a kid ends his recruitment (by signing a NLI) and then has it pulled away by a Saban or Miles because they need to make the numbers. The issue is clear as freakin day.

      It is just all these bongled and bothced SEC morons don’t want to understand the very simple reality of oversigning.

      • Mole,
        Your post is very well stated and way too reasonable for you to be a B10/OSU fan ;) The only thing I will say is that you are incorrect when you say there is no guarantee. When the player signs the LOI (NLI, whatever) he is guaranteed one year of financial aid. This may start as soon as the letter is signed and the player can count back to the previous class (providing that class had room and the player enrolls in the spring) or to the current class. Or, the player can delay his enrollment untill the next spring where he will count toward that class. There is no option, he must receive the aid (and count against the 25/85) for one year. The idea that the scholarship can be pulled before it has been fulfilled if more talent comes along is not true.

        Tdogg,
        I agree with you that asking a kid to grayshirt after he has signed is wrong. I’m all for any rule that will fix any problems with this – but you continue to accuse Saban of habitually doing this. I have seen no instances where a player has said he was not informed up front about the possibility of the greyshirt when it comes to Bama (Les Miles/LSU is a valad target). If you have evidence to the contrary, please enlighten us as I’m sure Joshua would lead the site with the story. In fact, Saban’s recruits have come across as being some of the most informed – both Carswell and Love (whom you referenced in an earlier thread) were quoted last year as saying they knew and were fine with the grayshirt.

        • TDogg –

          Not disputting it doesn’t count until next year. Whether he inked a NLI or not, he came out and announced hey would be at OSU and enroll in January (winter quarter). Point was a scemantics issue with the other posters – more of a so what. They keep angling at breaking the rule is breaking the rule, which I get. I disagree with their assesment, but WTF cares? Your arguements with them are much like the political debate in our country currenlty – no middle ground, you’re either right or wrong. The other side has already called it how they see it and no matter what you say and how much logic it has, it will not persuade them differently.

          To my knowledge, Miles is the only guy to shove someone out (lineman that was on campus and enrolled got the scholly yanked).

          Catch –

          I do my best to be reasonable. I realize it is guaranteed for one (the first) year. What I was alluding to was the talent level. If you are marginal this year, does the coach really want you next year? What if next years talent pool is better than the current year when you “didn’t make the cut”? This is where I think the inequity and advantage lies in the offer early and often. Universities seem to think they get in early and then manage by telling them they will have to delay enrollment or consider another school. So, you get a kid that wants to be at your school and he says “hell yeah coach, state U all the way”, but you tell him he may have to grayshirt depending on who else comes a knocking…what!? Coach do I have an offer or not? Yes, but its not committable. Huh?

          This offer early and often issue, shotgun approach, throw $hit gainst the wall and see what sticks method bothers me. It is used to gain attention early (possibly even before evaluations have taken place) and sometimes schools cool on a kid or see the new shinny toy somewhere else they like better. I know kids get a big head, get hurt, flunk out, grope a ROTC girl (yes making fun of the OSU recruit acqusations), etc. In the job market, if I hire every skirt that walks in the door and every guy that is taller than 6’2″ I am bound to get some bad apples. Some will be just fine, others, well – not so much. The interview and evaluation of talent is essential to any businesses performance. If I hire poorly, I have to suck it up (coach them up or make due) or fire them and hope I don’t get sued. There is no penalty for a university – and the criteria for pulling your weight is subjective at best. Coach can get fired or leave for his dream job tomorrow, but I am stuck? That’s another NCAA rule that needs changed. It shouldn’t cost the player a year unless they stay in conference.

          Other issues/considerations:
          1) If Saban is this dirty, how come players keep coming? If you screw over enough people, won’t that kill your ability to get in the door? HS coaches talk and move schools. The sandbox is only so big. Everbody knows somebody, who knows somebody, who knows something about it (sorry for pop culture ref). Someone will feel like they got the shaft and speak out. This is the camera phone/twitter/facebook generation.

          2) Every player who has transferred or been medical hardshipped out of the program (with the exception of one) has not come forward to complain. The wall street journal article is the closest to gripping I have heard/read. Now, conspiracy theorist in me says the conversation goes something like this: “son, you’ve been hurt a lot, your down the depth chart, EE knipping on your heels, if you don’t fight the medical hardship request you get your school paid for and we hook you up in the alumni network when its all over” ala HUSH money. They are no longer a player so it isn’t illegal (and hard to prove), but more likely, the kids are actually hurt. My question is why so many hardships versus a medical red shirt year?

          Both 1 & 2 can be challenged by the player.

          3) I think the issue at hand is a style of management. SEC schools treat the one year rule as an “up or out” promotion scenario like many workplaces. JT and OSU commit to the players (to a fault IMO) that they will get an education and be taken care of unless they are absolute turds (See Clarrett & Tat 5). So maybe every school needs to start doing it the SEC way. I saw this today on another site and thought it was relevent to this discussion.

          http://mgoblog.com/diaries/tomvh-how-michigans-recruiting-compares

          4) Medical hardships may fall under the HIPPA laws, which means they have privacy rights, and possibly why lots of details aren”t available from UA. OSU’s program has a kid now that may get this treatment, but it has been farily public with the fan base that he will try this spring/summer and see how it goes. If it ends bad, he is done. family has already stated that they would like him not to try, but he is a competitor and needs to get it out of his system and not wonder. I can appreciate that. I would bet someone could get on a UA paysite and check out the player(s) who got medicals. I guess I find it hard to believe that the people in the know and following it aren’t detaling it early and often. This is news people would read – college kid struggles, chooses school over sports blah, blah.

          5) Sabans recruiting success will catch up sooner or later. Kids will start to look at the depth chart and choose another option. This is natural for any big program, Kids these days think they are the next “whoever” freshman of the year candidate. Most kids get the redshirt b/c they are physically/mentally unprepared and undisciplined in life management skills.

          6) Saban and UA are middle of the pack as far as the abusive signing, but the most visible. I think envy (and NS’s attitude) get him a lot of attention.

          7) Not sure why Josh hates Saban so much. He used to coah at MSU and sucked, everyone took turns kicking his teams a$$. I would say that from an outsider perspective, he seems like an arrogant and smug SOB (even when he was in the B10). kind of reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s demeanor. I would pay big dollars to watch Bill pimp slap her.

          8) And the final problem, B10 schools are upset that Forrest Gump did not play for their university!! :)

          Ok, I’m spent!

          • Good post and by the way I am not from AL or have I ever attended an SEC school. So I have not come out and defended but tried to look at all angles out there. I see issues with the current system but unlike may on here I refuse to create facts based on assumptions and opinions.I fail to understand the bias sometimes that people use when arguing.

            Your reference about the issue between me and Tdogg I understand but it can be frustrating when you provide a link and info and they still deny facts. But again it is what it is and like you said people will just defend it on deaf ears.

      • Again you get defensive when proven wrong. You are like dealing with a toddler. Things do not work out pitch a fit if that does not work out call them names.

        I provided 2 links for your benefit and you either did not read them or do not understand how to read them. I do not care what class a player counts against. I do not care if OSU oversigned or not because it really does not matter because no rules would be broken if they did.

        One link was a OSU link that stated C Jones signed a NLI and OSU accepted it. Now if by the new rule OSU nullified the NLI fine and OSU now only has 23 NLIs, but no matter how you try and spin it C Jones signed a NLI on NSD per OSU. Again argue all you want but I will take the word of OSU over yours.

        Second link I provided stated that any player that enrolls for the spring semester, you do understand that is what is referred to as a early enrollee, is not allowed to sign a NLI unless they are a JUCO which Jones is not and only a JUCO can sign once they graduate. Again I do not care what class Jones becomes a part of but the NLI is the only organization responsible for govern them states clearly in their rule that no EE can sign a NLI. There is no grey area in that rule it is black and white.

        From everything I read it appears that OSU offered the grayshirt which now nullifies the NLI that Jones signed so currently they have accepted only 23 since the one Jones signed is no longer valid. I will give you that but the other 2 things are correct and as you seem to always asked I gave you legit links. Again you will deny and I understand that but I would do it privately because it only deminishes any credibility you might bring to this site when the info is in front of you and you still ignore it. Some of your post even with your bias adds value but denying facts only deters your contributions.

  29. TheMole411

    The more I sat and thought about your post I find myself thinking what is the real concern here. I agree the more there is banter between fans it will resolve nothing in the end. I also understand that the issues are deeper than just oversigning which has been discussed in full on this site. The problem lies to much with one fan from another conference or team lashes out at another and back. Nothing ever is resolved and most of the time it is futile. But one thing you pointed out that I have always felt and said on here is this site is long on rumor and enuendo and short on solutions. I think that is why so many UA or SEC fans get upset. People can speculate and make assumptions. They say that every player that is no longer on the roster at UA is romoved in a malicious manner because 2 players were interviewed in the WSJ. People are grasping for every straw to throw dirt on UA and CNS. Hence why so many in return become defensive because the majority of acquisations are assumptions without any support except their opinion that they share with someone else. But if remotely pointed back to them that their school maybe did something wrong the whole situation reverses.

    Truth be told every school has skeletons in their closet. To think any different is naive. To bring up every thing one has been caught for has no value here. Also making random assumptions because you want to believe has no value either. I am not going to say that all the medical hardships, transfers, or team violations that resulted in a player being removed from the team at UA were in good faith but I will not falsely say they were all malicious. Because we really do not know either way. Just like I do not care how many players UA or any other school signed this year or in the past. It does not matter just like when you said OSU signed 24 who cares. Yes UA oversigned according to the defition and players who could be on the roster come fall will not. Again it does not mean anything malicious will transpire.

    Because now the issue should be concerned with how does a system get put in place that will not allow any malicious roster management. If everything people said has been happening and had actual proof the NCAA would have already been on it. Just like every time you read some poster on a team board say he knows somebody and they told him this happened.

    The focus for those in a position that can actually make the a change and not us posters on this board who apparantly have to much time on our hands, should be implementing a system that can truly monitor these roster moves. So that if something malicious does occur it can be dealt with in favor of the athlete who is being wronged. Right now the NCAA allows players to transfer, they allow medical hardships, they allow for delayed enrollment and they allow for non-renewel of athletic scholarships based on ability. Create a system that makes sure these things are legit.

    You said if CNS only had 1 or 2 a year it would not be discussed. Maybe not but when a team is on top and like you said people outside of UA for the most do not like CNS they would find something to lash out on against UA and CNS. That is college football. Again I understand that because the roster turnover has been so high people begin to ask questions. The nature of the beast. But nothing that I have seen demonstrates that any rule was broken. Now is it ethnical, not if what people assume is taking place, atleast in my opinion, but again I have not read anything that shows how each one of these roster changes has taken place. But people need to realize opinion is not a fact, just an assumption on what you think or want to believe.

    In the end nothing anyone says on this site will change the way players are added and removed from a roster. It might make some feel better to come here to vent and defend their position but it will accomplish very little in the grand scheme of things. Because if what us fans really felt and demanded from CFB I doubt the BCS would still be around.

    In regards to Joshua and his site. I know he is biased and does not like CNS and/or the SEC. I also feel he makes every attempt to paint articles in a negative light against CNS when he summarizes or implies what he thinks the article means if he can. But you know what it is his site and if people get so offended by that you are not forced to stay here. I have come to realize the issues involved in roster management in college football raise some concerns in the direction the sport is heading among other issues out there. So understanding what site I am on I try and look past any bias I see and focus on the issue. But I give him credit for his passion on the subject and his passion for OSU. Whether we agree with him in the end atleast he stands up for what he believes.

    • Now we are getting somewhere. Both you and TDogg are correct. Jones did sign a NLI on NSD; however, he has openly stated that he is going to prep school in the fall (JUCO) and plans to enroll in January. As you pointed out, this nullifies the NLI and he has to resign in Jan. In essence he is a strong verbal commit and early enrollee for 2012. He could change his mind, but I doubt it. This is kind of the honor amongst theives scenario – kids stated what he wants to do and you hope everyone honors his choice and that he is capable of executing the plan as intended.

      http://www.cleveland.com/buckeyeblog/index.ssf/2011/02/glenville_qb_cardale_jones_and.html

      I think you and TDogg where hung up on what the definition of “is” is, as Bill Clinton put it when asked if he had relations with that girl :) Had he only paid for dry cleaning!

      Sometimes the JUCO farm works, other times it doesn’t. The kids may struggle academically, get in trouble with the law (character prevents a return), see an injury, or decides they have a better opportunity at a different school.

      The difference in the Jones case and many others I see is 1) Timing of the offer (very late) 2) Kid really wanted to be at OSU. I have no problem with this one, or any other school for that matter, who follows a similar pattern. On the flip side, I would be irrate had JT/OSU offered the kid last spring, accepted a verbal commit, and then said “wait until next year.” My basic premise is you either have the talent and have a committable offer or you probably shouldn’t have an offer. It takes a lot of the negative perception and slide of hand chicanary out of the process.

      I agree with your assessment, every school has skeletons. I point out what OSU has done because I am familiar with the program and it lends credability to your point of view. Acting like School X is a bunch of angels gets the discussion. I also agree that not all of the roster moves were mallicious, but I have also stated I am skeptical (without additional information) because of the non-transparent way UA and CNS approach the situtation. Sunshine is a good disinfectant.

      I’ve enjoyed the discussion and pondering the discussion points. I think there is a whole lot more to this than the speculation that floats around on the surface, which I think is the gut/knee jerk reaction that most fans have – he’s (CNS) cheating!

      Now for a side bar discussion – How has USCw and Lane “I’m a Pretty Man” Kiffin managed to sign all these kids when they have sanctions? Want to talk about an algebra equation for roster management! They are just kicking the can down the road IMO to spearate the bowl ban from the scholarship losses. Even if the appeal is successful, I can’t see them getting it reduced to much more than 7 lost per year for 3 years.

      • I hvae seen on a alot boards the question about USCw and CLK. Not really sure how they were able to pull in the class in light of the current sanctions. He is either a master at numbers or he has sold his soul to the devil to win. He is starting to become the John Calipari of CFB, but a little more arrogant with his attitude towards the NCAA. It is like he challenges them every chance he gets by his actions and just smiles like he has no fear.

  30. I know CLK has back dated some due to departures of upper classman (ncaa exception) after they announced the sanctions.

    I thought of two more issues.

    UA had just come off similar sanctions when Saban arrived, which would account for having a few extra slots to offer.

    Not confirmed, but my Bama buddy says that UA has 25 graduating seniors. They will probably see some roster moves and ealry departures to the NFL (assuming CBA is pulled together). Is there an exception process to allow over 28 in the SEC?

    Again, this isn’t as simple as the math not adding up.

    • Only if you can backcount like with any other conference. They will have room to backcount next fall because they did not bring a full 25 against this class. The grayshirts that just came in are being backcounted to last years class from what I read. But in regards to the 25 seniors I doubt we have 25 on scholarship since some attrition with that class has happened and early departures of 3 to the NFL this year that would have been seniors next year. We will have however anywhere from 3-5 juniors leave for the NFL next year. But it should be the largest senior class on scholarship to depart next year since CNS has been at UA.

      • And this is why Saban will likely use so many grayshirts this year. He can even out the classes by doing this so he doesn’t have a year with 14 recruits followed by a year where he has 28 seniors leaving, and left with less than 85 on scholarship. If you have a lean year followed by a full or more than full class leaving, that is the perfect scenario to oversign and use as many grayshirts as you need to even out the classes.


Leave a comment