Competitive Advantage and Ethics, Two Sides of Oversigning
The topic of oversigning is somewhat complicated, the numbers are hard to track, especially when a school redacts them from public documents, the terms used in the recruit game are hard to understand (greyshirt, redshirt, count forward, count back, medical hardships, medical redshirts, etc), and the NCAA bylaws combined with the NLI process can make the whole world of recruiting hard to truly understand. Most fans simply follow rivals.com and the other recruiting sites to see where their team is ranked and give very little thought to how rosters are managed and whether or not coaches are abusing the oversigning loophole or any other loophole.
This site has been the epicenter of the oversigning debate since it was launched roughly a year ago. Since being discovered by Stewart Mandel in May of 2010, its popularity and traffic has grown to the tune of 200,000+ unique readers and 6.6 million page visits.
This is why I love the Internet. I must confess, I was not aware of oversigning.com until receiving this e-mail. (I've since seen it referenced numerous places.) Hats off to the authors. They've done a tremendous job of shedding light on a largely under-covered topic through meticulous research and easy-to-digest data. They seem most concerned with the overlooked human consequence of this practice: coaches quietly cutting loose underperforming or injury-riddled veterans to make room for a new crop of recruits. Currently, the site is closely monitoring Alabama, which, as of the most recent post, still had 91 scholarship players on its projected 2010 roster, in its "March to 85."
Needless to say the topic is viral, as it should be. It's a topic that is years and years overdue for the spotlight.
For those of you who are new to oversigning, there is plenty of material on the topic readily available all over the Internet.
In the past year of following and writing about this topic, we have found that there are two main components to the oversigning debate: competitive advantage and ethics.
Competitive Advantage:
Where most people get lost in this argument is in that they think that the team that oversigns the most is automatically the better team. Often times people will say, Huston Nutt is the most notorious oversigner in the country - he signed 37 in one class, if it was such and advantage why doesn't he win the National Championship every year? Well, it's not that simple. You have to look at when the attrition takes place in order to determine if a coach is upgrading his roster by signing more guys than he has room for, having those guys qualify and enroll, and then having upperclassmen or guys already on the roster pushed out via transfers, medical hardships or simply not renewing their scholarship, OR, if a coach is signing a bunch of guys that won't qualify and have to go to JUCO which ultimately has no tangible bearing on the roster in the short term, a practice commonly known as signing and placing. Nick Saban and Les Miles would be the former, Huston Nutt would be the latter, and that is perhaps why we see a difference in the results on the field, not to mention Saban and Miles are simply better coaches, much better.
There is absolutely no question that oversigning creates a competitive advantage against schools that are prohibited from the practice or elect on their own, as does Georgia in the SEC, to not exploit the loophole.
Oversigning provides coaches with the opportunity to hedge their bets against attrition, gives them leverage in the recruiting process by not being as restricted in terms of the number of players they can pursue, and gives coaches a mulligan should they miss on a recruit. We wrote a post a while back comparing the numbers for National Championship Coaches.
National Championship Coaches 2002 - 2010
| Coaches | Conf. | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | Total | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saban (03/09) | SEC | 26 | 28 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 32 | 27 | 29 | 193 | 27.50 |
| Miles (07) | SEC | 28 | 31 | 19 | 13 | 26 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 27 | 220 | 24.44 |
| Meyer (06/08) | SEC | 22 | 19 | 25 | 18 | 27 | 27 | 22 | 17 | 27 | 204 | 22.66 |
| Brown (05) | BIG12 | 28 | 18 | 20 | 15 | 25 | 24 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 192 | 21.33 |
| Carroll (04) | PAC10 | 22 | 28 | 19 | 19 | 27 | 18 | 19 | 18 | 20 | 190 | 21.11 |
| Tressel (02) | BIG10 | 24 | 16 | 24 | 18 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 18 | 180 | 20.00 |
The first thing that jumps off the screen is that despite being out of college football for 2 years (2005 & 2006), Nick Saban still signed 193 recruits, which is second only to Les Miles his successor at LSU when Saban left in 2005. Saban also has the highest average recruits per year at 27.50. In 7 years, Nick Saban has never signed less than 25 recruits in a single year.
Let's compare that to the same set of years (2002-2004 & 2007-2010) for the coach with the lowest numbers, Jim Tressel. Tressel signed 142 players in the same years that Saban signed 193 recruits. That is a difference of 51 players over the same period of time, 7 years. That is mind boggling to say the least.
Note: we would add Gene Chizik to the table above, but he only has two recruiting classes as a head coach: 2010: 32 and 2011: 24.
Ken Gordon at The Columbus Dispatch asked former Head Coach of LSU, Gerry DiNardo, about the competitive advantage of oversigning:
"At LSU, I could do whatever I wanted," said DiNardo, now an analyst for the Big Ten Network. "The athletic director trusted me. If I signed 30, he knew I would be at 25 when I had to be. There was always a way to manage to numbers."
Then in 2002, when DiNardo was hired by Indiana, he was in for a shock. The Big Ten had the most restrictive rules against oversigning of all the major conferences.
The NCAA allows 85 scholarship players. DiNardo found that he could sign only the number of players that would bring him to 85. Not only that - he could offer only 20 scholarships.
What that meant was that if any of the 20 players he offered went elsewhere, he was short of 85 that season.
"The Big Ten puts itself at a competitive disadvantage," DiNardo said. "You would never be at 85. When I got to Indiana, the numbers were awful. We had 50-some players on scholarships. My only chance to catch up was to oversign."
Mike Farrell, national recruiting analyst for Rivals.com, said, "It's like in bowling, if your opponent gets three balls instead of two."
The analogies are endless, but the point remains, having the freedom to play fast and loose with the numbers when competing against schools that play conservative and tight with the numbers creates a competitive advantage. Jim Tressel, being the senator that he is, took the high road when questioned about it:
This doesn't bother Ohio State coach Jim Tressel, though. The way he looks at it, the majority of his games are against Big Ten schools working under the same rules.
"I don't think (oversigning) is a crisis-type thing," he said. "I don't see it happening in our league that much. Sometimes in a bowl game we compete against another conference, but I've never thought we had an unfair bowl matchup because of that."
But he did make it very clear where he stands on the issue:
Tressel said his staff tries to keep the lines of communication open, so he usually has a good idea who might transfer. But in general, Tressel is in philosophical lock-step with the Big Ten. Where others consider it a competitive disadvantage, he looks at it from the perspective of making sure he treats recruits fairly.
And that means ensuring he doesn't have to sweat out a summer like DiNardo did.
"We're probably conservative in more ways than just play-calling," Tressel said, referring to offering relatively few scholarships. "We've ended up under 85, because we don't want to overcommit.
"To me, the worst nightmare would be if you have got to tell someone, 'We can't fit you.' You're talking about a young kid's life."
Ethics
The direction of the ethical side of the oversigning debate became pretty apparent to the general public when University of Florida President, Bernie Machen, called the actions of other SEC members morally "reprehensible," "disgusting," and "nefarious." Those are STRONG words from an SEC President aimed directly at other SEC member institutions who are notorious for oversiging.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/01/31/bernard.machen.letter/index.html
When it comes to the ethics side of oversigning you have to look at several areas:
1. Honesty in recruiting.
2. The spirit of the NCAA rules vs. The Written Bylaws.
3. College football being "Big Business" instead of Tax-Exempt Institutions of Higher Learning.
With the increased attention on recruiting rankings, college football's second season has become more competitive than ever, especially in the SEC where the recruiting battles are just as hard fought and nasty as the actually games on the field. Greg Doyle recently wrote about this very topic.
Honesty in recruiting:
How honest are coaches being with recruits? Are they telling them upfront that they plan to oversign the roster and that there might not be space for them? Why are we seeing guys who commit and then on signing day are surprised with greyshirt offers, or even worse after signing day and after they have moved onto campus? Is it unethical for a coach not to prepare for roster management and ensure that there is never a need to push someone out? After all, most coaches make more than the smartest, most-credentialed professors on campus, surely they should be able to manage their roster in such a way that doesn't force them to push a greyshirt on an unsuspecting kid or push out an upperclassmen.
Recently, Nick Saban alluded to a possible ethics issue with recruiting in the SEC when he compared how coaches in the SEC react to a verbal commitment to how coaches in the Big 10 reacted to verbal commitments when he was in the Big 10. Paraphrasing, he said that in the SEC when a guy commits verbally he becomes a target for other schools, but during his time in the Big 10 when a guy commits verbally he was off limits unless the recruit approached another Big 10 school, in which case the coach that was approached would contact the coach the player was originally committed to and discuss the matter. If coaches in the SEC are not handling verbal commitments ethically, according to Saban, which he admitted he was just as guilty of because of the competitive nature of recruiting in the SEC, are they handling roster management ethically with regards to the oversigning?
Just today, Sports by Brooks published an article called: Player's Parents Outrage Illuminates Nutt's Deceit, in which he claims any credibility that Houston Nutt had left in recruiting has been driven off of a cliff.
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/players-parents-outrage-illuminates-nutts-deceit-29491
The Spirit of NCAA Rules:
Obviously, there is a loophole in the recruiting bylaws with regards to the number of players that can be enrolled each year and the total number of players allowed on scholarship each year. 25 new players can enroll and no more than 85 can be on scholarship at one time; 25*4=100 plus any redshirt seniors obviously doesn't even come close to the 85 limit. However, the NCAA used those numbers to provide a little bit of cushion and probably had no idea that some coaches were going to use that cushion as a way to manage their roster like a professional football team. The Spirit of the NCAA bylaws for recruiting is that if you have 17 openings for new scholarship players then you should sign and enroll 17 new players, not 25 and push 8 guys out the door.
The NCAA bylaws are enormous and they grow every year. Much of that growth is in response to coaches abusing the spirit of the existing rules, such as the Huston Nutt "28 rule" because of his abuse of the signing process and the Nick Saban "bump rule" because of his abuse of bumping into recruits while visiting their coaches.
In the Big 10 Conference, there is not a problem with oversigning. Although schools are allowed to send out 3 extra NLI than they have room for under the 85 limit, most coaches avoid doing it at all costs. Why?? Because they like competing at a competitive disadvantage? Probably not. They probably avoid it because they all know oversigning is a dirty little trick that is played with numbers in order to gain an advantage and it comes with the price tag of messing with the lives of young people. The Big 10 Conference has embraced the spirit of the signing process by developing a culture devoid of oversigning. It didn't happen overnight--the rules on oversigning have been on the books in the Big 10 Conference since 1954.
College Football as Big Business:
Often times, supporters of oversigning will point to the 1 year renewable scholarship and infer that college football has become big business and schools need to manage their rosters like NFL teams. That argument falls on deaf ears because despite the growth of college football these are still institutions of higher learning, governed by an organization with a mission statement that states athletics only exist to enrich the educational experience and that the educational experience is paramount, and they enjoy a tax-exempt status that the NFL does not enjoy. Somewhere along the line, there is a disconnect between the spirit of the NCAA's mission statement and what certain schools are doing in blatantly managing their rosters like an NFL team. How ethical is it for a coach or school to hide behind the tax-exempt status of an institution of higher learning while attempting to run a NFL style team with roster cuts and an injured reserved list; at least in the NFL guys on the IR have half a shot at making it back.
Against Oversigning
In Favor of Oversigning
Blogroll
- Atholon Sports
- CFBDataWarehouse
- CFN – College Football News
- NCPA – Website
- NCSA – Athletic Recruiting
- POPA – Parents of Players Association
- RTN – Reform the NCAA
- The Drake Group
2011 Oversigning Cup
ESPN OTL Oversigning Video
Oversigning.com on Twitter
- @GerdOzone imagine what that number would be had he oversigned at the rate of Saban/Miles/Nutt/Petrino.
- @greggdoyelcbs someone tell the NCAA to call me.
- Fwiw, I just wanted to ban oversigning, you guys.
- @BryanDFischer @andrewjbone remind me again how many guys were in that 2008 class and how many had to be cut to make room for them all.
From People on Twitter
- Alabama and Mississippi were scary places in 1950. But the grandkids are doing a bang-up job: http://t.co/OiKZzyaC
- @JoePas_Doghouse @RowlffDogg Yes, he did.
Reader Survey – Vote Today!
Loading ...Pages
Meta
Categories
- ACC
- Announcements
- Baseball
- Basketball
- Big 10
- Big 10 Expansion
- Big 12
- Big East
- Coaching
- Feedback
- History
- MAC
- NCAA
- Non BCS Conferences
- Off Topic
- PAC 10
- Quick Links
- Rants
- SEC
- SunBelt
- The Oversigning Cup
- Uncategorized
Recent Comments
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- WTF on Elliott Porter 2.0
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
February 13th, 2011 - 21:24
if its not a competitive advantage, why are so adamant about defending the practice?
if it lends itself to questionably ethics, and its not a competitive advantage – why would anyone not wish oversigning cleaned up?
The only reason anyone defends the practice is because they benefit from its use, as a fan, as a coach, as a school.
if it weren’t an advantage, nobody would care if it came or went. If it didn’t lend itself to any number of ethically questionable issues, nobody would be debating its ethical value, this site wouldn’t exist, and the countless people who are going to respond to my comment here wouldn’t bother.
guilty on all counts.
February 13th, 2011 - 21:51
Nobody disputes that it is an advantage to oversign when compared to those who don’t. The problem I have is how it is portrayed as a “competitive advantage” to oversign, insinuating that it is cheating when in fact it is perfectly within the rules. The Mike Farrell quote used here couldn’t be farther from the truth and illustrates my point perfectly.
Completely wrong. Using three balls in bowling would be against the rules – cheating. What we have here would be better illustrated by one player using both balls while his B1G opponent sits down after his first bowl knocks down 8 pins. They choose to not use all the resources available to them – their choice. The problem is that they now are starting to demand everyone only bowl with one ball.
February 13th, 2011 - 21:53
Hey Joshua, if Tressell’s quote about oversigning not really being a big deal is taking the high road, how would you then describe this blog were you to look at it in the same light?
February 13th, 2011 - 22:08
As usual, a good job by you, and quite a timely post to re-state the involved issues as we all wait and observe the “March to 85″, hoping to see just how it underscores what we already know and understand about this harmful practice.
One point of difference, however.
For me, the connection is all to clear. As I wrote elsewhere on the site, it is the ethically acting schools that have shown that in terms of competitive balance, college football functions well under 85/25 and one-year scholarships (which these schools continually renew for the purpose of having their players obtain a degree) – until the bad actors step in to exploit rules by way of unethical practices that aren’t explicitly prohibited – thereby upsetting competitive balance.
In other words, the desire for a competitive advantage drives coaches to be evermore creative in exploiting the spirit of rules – too often to the detriment of the student-athlete. I don’t see that these two aspects of the oversigning issue can stand alone when the particular competitive advantage you and I are speaking of only stems from the mistreatment of student-athletes.
February 13th, 2011 - 23:05
You are exactly right they are directly connected — not sure why I said they weren’t — updated post.
February 13th, 2011 - 22:50
Miles’s # is skewed by taking over a blown-up class at LSU in 2005. Take that one out and he’s closer to Saban than Meyer.
Meyer won legitimately. Saban and Miles won via oversigning.
February 14th, 2011 - 10:04
then why was he offering grey shirts to recruits?
February 13th, 2011 - 23:18
Excellent post and very good analysis. As already mentioned, there is a strong and positive association between poor ethical behavior and adoption of oversigning. By necessity, these two behaviors go hand-in-hand.
February 14th, 2011 - 00:05
Question why was the article about C Jones a recruit for UA not used here where he states upfront that he was told that a scholarship was for only one year. I know it might be only one player but no different as only one player that ever has suggested he felt he could still play. As mentioned the WSJ article only one player showed concern.
Also in the box it state that CNS has never signed less then 25 in one class but yet this year signed 23. I guess if you are wanting to create bias I can understand why you would not use current class numbers. But if someone new comes to this site all they will see is incorrect info.
But here is my question to many on here. If oversigning based on your opinion is unethnical, and I am not saying it is or isn’t, but if it is and the ones on here who believe it is would you call the team out you support when they do other things that would be considered unethnical?
February 14th, 2011 - 07:19
That quote about not signing less than 25 came from a post from last year — if you notice the numbers in the grid do not include this year. I do find it very, very interesting that saban and miles didn’t go to the full 25 limit this year. I guess our hard work here is paying off.
February 14th, 2011 - 10:01
yes, im sure he is quaking in his boots about whatever you write on here. He goes to sleep every night worrying about you.
February 14th, 2011 - 13:15
Score a point for willful jackassery here. You did well. Let’s just pretend that this site isn’t being referenced by scores of other highly influential media outlets – national and local to Alabama. Let’s pretend that Saban has never heard of it. Let’s pretend that Saban has no idea there’s a growing national discussion about his recruiting tactics. Yeah, let’s just pretend this website isn’t having an impact.
February 14th, 2011 - 13:27
not saying he hasnt heard of it. Just saying that someone who makes the kind of money he makes, a few years from retirement, isnt going to change the way he handles his things unless he has to.
February 14th, 2011 - 13:24
Josh… my guess would be with the limited space we had, we made many Grayshirt offers. Saban recruits are educated to what their offer is and I would guess a lot of them decided they had better offers in other places. That’s their choice and how it should work.
February 14th, 2011 - 18:55
Or perhaps he has turned over most of the roster he inherited from Shula.
February 15th, 2011 - 08:39
or had more scholarships available as the debacle of Dubose ended.
February 14th, 2011 - 07:07
SoccerMike, unethical is unethical. If my alma mater was unethical in its actions, I would not come here to defend it. I would help expose it and would expect all to do the same thing.
College football fans are a much larger mass that alumni. Any alumni that defends these unethical actions or ANY unethical actions does harm to their institution. Unfortunately, some alumni and non treat college football in the exact same way they treat the NFL, “just win baby”.
February 14th, 2011 - 13:57
Is it unethical if a kid knows he is being offered a grayshirt and would count to the next class AND he is willing to accept that to play for the team he wants?
To my knowledge, no scholarships have not been renewed due to lack of performance. Is it unethical to allow a kid to transfer to a different school because he wants to get playing time and the current school has recruite kids that are better than he is? Should the school pass up a “Cam Newton” game changing type player because they already have an OK kid on scholarship? School recruit backups and sometimes those backups see the light that they won’t be good enough to play fr a school and will always be 3rd or 4th stringer… they choose to transfer to a different school to get on the field.
Is it unethical to tell a kid his playing days are over due to an injury… even if the kid dosn’t agree? Isn’t it a bad thing to try and be your own doctor, especially if you’re not a doctor? I worked as an athletic trainer for Auburn University and was a scholarship athlete at Univ of Alabama… I can tell you that most, if not all athletes don’t want to believe a doctor when then get that news… and they rarely agree with it years later when they lock back at what MIGHT have been… However, I’ve never seen a Doctor make that call lightly… it’s a serious thing to clear a kid to play or to cut a kid to injury…
What I think is unethical, or at misleading, is recruiters telling kids one thing and knowing the reality is something else. There is no need to kill grayshirts to stop the misleading recruiters. It’s pretty easy to seperate out grayshirt offers from current NLI’s so kids know what they are being offered.
If you can put the correct information in the hands of the parents and the kids, then they can make an informed decision on what is best for them.
February 17th, 2011 - 12:39
If a kid is told prior to signing his LOI that a grayshirt is a possibility and under what conditions it would happen, he has the information to make an informed decision. Key is prior to the LOI and clear conditions.
One rarely hears of the reason a kid transfers to a lower school or even to another school. The couple of LSU transfers (the quarterback in the video above was a lack of performance) and the kid enrolled and told he would then have to grayshirt are two exceptions. The DE at Miami that lost his scholarship because they signed Henderson late is another. There are undoubtedly many who just want to play ball and get a better chance a starting. I am by no means convinced that what the school claims when announcing the transfer is 100% accurate every time as none would ever say it was to clear space for better players.
I’m not against a medical scholarship allowing a kid to continue his education at the school he chose. I think it is best used for juniors and seniors who would not have the recovery time necessary to get back to playing condition. Yes, there are cases where younger players also need a medical scholarship. I can remember three instances at PSU. One a pretty good tackle was diagnosed with a constriction in his neck that could cause real problems if he continued to play football. It was diagnosed during his frosh year and he ended up graduating from PSU. The second was a cornerback from Philly that was diagnosed with a heart condition prior after signing the LOI and prior to enrolling. The third was a kid from Virginia that was offered a scholarship and was hurt swimming and lost the use of his legs. The scholarship was honored though the kid ended up going to a local school to be closer to the family.
What I don’t like, and it is unlikely it would ever be proved to happen, is for a coach and medical people to get together on a decision and have the decision be based on if the kid can get back to his potential. My only issue with Alabama in this regard is the wildly out of the norm number of medical scholarships given and the cause for them. It can’t all be bad luck or hitting harder in practice that the rest of college football teams.
February 17th, 2011 - 13:15
I understand and can respect this stance, but I disagree. A player is awarded his scholarship based on the level of play he exhibits is he not? If he is injured and cannot recover to this level of competition he can no longer contribute what he was given a scholarship to do. This is not due to his lack of effort or inability to develop. Quite the opposite – often it is because he gave all he had that he was injured – so the school still should honor their end of the deal. But if he will never again contribute on the field, why not move him to a medical where he can still pursue his education? If he still wants to be part of the team, he can still participate as a student coach (or whatever it is called). It is a win-win at that point so I see no harm in this use.
Again, I can respect this. By all means if you have reason to suspect something is wrong, look into it. If you find that doctors are falsifying physicals or medical tests to help Saban clear the roster, then I’ll agree that wrong-doing is going on. If you find that trainers are intentionally over-working and/or under-preparing certain athletes in hopes that they sustain an injury I’ll agree that is wrong. In both of these cases I believe that criminal charges and/or professional liscence revokation would also be in order. If you find-as I suspect you would-that what I described above – that Saban may simply have a lower bar for what qualifies for a medical than some schools – then I cannot agree that anything evil or malicious is going on. If you can find a way of standardizing medical evaluations then I’ll be for that, but that is quite unlikely as medical liability is a very dangerous thing that I doubt the NCAA will touch.
February 17th, 2011 - 16:11
If a player came in as a 5* recruit and played up to his potential, got hurt and could only come back as a decent player but didn’t have the burst he once had, he should still be able to play football for the school that signed him. I wish to avoid the, we had a better option medical given to a kid that still has ability to contribute to the team and continue on course to get a degree, just not what he once was. I suspect, though admit know insider knowledge, that this is part of Saban’s lower bar. Paterno would never do that.
February 17th, 2011 - 17:12
Again, I don’t have a problem with this viewpoint, but I don’t think that is exactly what is going on. In your scenario, a 5* player has been a significant player on the team, no? Upon his return from injury, he no longer has the ability to play at his previous level. This means, even were he to decline the medical and pass the physicals, that he would be sitting on the bench during the games – something he is not used to. At this point, the player is faced with three options: stay on the team and ride the pine, transfer to another team where he can get playing time (assuming they overlook the past injury), or accept the medical hardship and complete his degree at Bama as if he were still on athletic scholarship. I don’t have a problem with any of these. This player may still be able to contribute through his leadership and pushing others during practice – point accepted, but I can also see where this player will not want to be there if he isn’t starting on Saturdays anymore. It is very difficult to go from being the star on the team to being a benchwarmer and be happy with that – especially when the medical option is available. Which would you rather do?
February 17th, 2011 - 20:30
In you options, the only one I don’t agree with is being cleared to play and still getting a medical. This should not be an option available. If he can plan, he can play. Medical is reserved for football ending events, be they singular or multiple over time.
February 17th, 2011 - 13:41
I would agree with what you wrote. But like you said we do not know for sure and probably never will. I guess in regards to the medical hardships maybe the NCAA needs to define a certain criteria. I know that several of the players are players that just continue to get injury after another, where one or two was a recurring injury. The satff probably evaluates what the think is in the best interest of the player and team. I am sure there are players that could continue but with no idea if they will stay injury free. The team if they continue risks severly hurting the player, so where does a team draw the line.
I do think that a few of the players that went on medical hardships might have been in that grey area. But I think it is part of Saban’s MO. CNS is hired to turn a program around quickly and get results. The reason he can deman such a high salary for his services and he has proven he can. I think his roster turnover is more about cleaning house of recruits that came in under Shula that were undisciplined or had other issues that new coaches do not want to have to deal with in there system. I will be the first to admit that CNS had a few players he helped show to the door with options of medical hardships or transfers. It happens every time a new coach comes in and we see players leave the program. I will criticize a coach for cleaning house when the expectation is so high for them to win.
But the true determination that he will always oversign will start next year and every year after that he is at UA. See while LSU in that short before leaving for the NFL and at UA he was still using other coaches players they recruited. Before I crucify him lets see what he does now when all the recruits are his. Because one of the arguements Joshua and others like to make is oversigning is a product of poor evaluation, which I doubt is a trademark of CNS. Now if he continues stay at UA it will be one of his longest stints at a program and my guess would be his classes will not be oversigned and if they are maybe by 1 or 2. If that happens I guess the site will shut down and many posters will have to find another forum to attack UA. By the way I said before the fall season that UA would sign between 18 to 22. They signed 22 and next will probably be a little higher but he will one of the largest classes UA has leaving with seniors and projections of juniors leaving for the NFL. Again I think the number will see a huge drop off in the next couple of classes, but there are still many on this site that will never accept that logic because they dislike UA and CNS.
February 17th, 2011 - 16:19
I wouldn’t state that poor evaluation is as important and poor development and frankly, development is not something under a coach or players direct control. It also isn’t poor evaluation. Many a kid came in to college ahead of the pack only to be passed because they had already reached their potential earlier. Regardless, that kid should remain on scholarship pending discipline and academic performance, IMHO.
February 14th, 2011 - 10:00
I dont quite understand. So Saban signed players at LSU and then at Bama, and you combined the 2 without any reference. Like for example that Bama had had scholarship reductions from when Dubose was the coach, so that when they got those scholarships back, Saban was able to sign more players. I wont claim to know the situation at LSU when he was there so i wont comment on that.
February 14th, 2011 - 13:30
Tre… The chart means nothing…
Saban this year had 14 spots, he signed 14 spots.. period. 9 NLI’s are signed to Grayshirt and if there is room for this year will be moved to this year. If not they will be in the 2012 class.
Josh just doesn’t like grayshirts… period. He has an agenda and will try to spin any number to make his point look better. He hides his bias in a spin that makes it sound like teams are cheating. No team is going over the 25/85 limit, no team is cheating… not even close to cheaing.
Are some recruiters being dishonest…. absolutely… and I’d like to see that “talk” cleaned up. I think that can be accomplished WITHOUT killing the use of grayshirts, but that would not be part of Josh’s agenda so you will never see it brought up as an idea by him.
February 14th, 2011 - 14:30
9 grayshirts…lololol…unbelievable.
February 14th, 2011 - 14:41
Yes, Josh. Bama’s senior class next year is rather large if what I have read is correct. Why not even it out with some grayshirts? What do you have against allowing these kids to play for the team they want to? Where is it unethical? Afterall, OSU is doing it.
February 14th, 2011 - 15:27
Dude, 9 grayshirts, 9! Osu has used 2 in 10 years…lol
February 14th, 2011 - 15:41
i dont know the exact #’s on next years SR class. But if 9 players are made aware of the facts, and are informed that they will be grayshirts, i dont have a problem with that. I have yet to hear a Saban recruit say they didnt know they would be a gray shirt. I have in fact heard the opposite, that they are informed from the beginning. Just because OSU doesnt use it, doesnt mean it is a bad thing. But then, you always give the feeling on here that anything Tressel or OSU does is the best and everyone should model themselves after him.
February 14th, 2011 - 20:17
Alabama’s senior class will depend on how many he gets rid of to make room for incoming recruits.
February 15th, 2011 - 09:12
That’s a seperate issue and is only specualtion by anyone on this board that he runs kids off. Keep in mind the kids/parents have to sign the transfer papers or the medicals. Having said that, I think there are some rules that could be made to help make any abuse of that practice go away. However, the Big 10 rule doesn’t do crap to stop it.
February 15th, 2011 - 20:24
parents have to sign medical or transfer papers? I dont think this is true. Saban will just not renew the scholarship so the athlete has no other option but to transfer. Of course this is all speculation but seems to hold true with Saban’s teams because very few make it through 4/5 years with him.
February 23rd, 2011 - 15:38
Name an instance where Saban didn’t renew a player’s scholarship – apart from disciplinary reasons.
Quite an accusations to make of a coach who has barely been at the school 4 years.
February 15th, 2011 - 09:10
What’s your point? Alabama sees talent in the current class they can use vs the uncertainty that they can fill those spots in the next class… If the recruits are willing to wait, and they seem to be willing… I see it as being a very smart move. You know the saying, bird in the hand is worth two in the bush…
February 14th, 2011 - 15:35
Here’s the real problem…some coaches are either behind in their evaluations or they are too lazy to pinpoint exactly what they need to fill their classes, so they just go out and offer anyone and everyone, if there is not room then use a grayshirts. This is just as much about keeping players away from rivals as it is anything else.
February 14th, 2011 - 15:51
Fine, but if a player would rather play at Bama (or OSU) after sitting out a semester than start right away for another school, why is it a bad thing to let him? Even if it is 9, 9!? Yes, Bama has a large Sr class, so why not have a few more grayshirts this year to balance it out? Is it wrong or not? OSU does it and you don’t make a peep, but Bama does it and it is the most evil thing in the world.
By all likelyhood, there will be a few transfers and I’ve heard rumor that another medical may be given. Also I’ve heard that one player is contemplating a move to baseball. It is very likely that that number will be closer to 4 or 5 by the time fall comes around – but I would imagine that there are 9 out there with grayshirt offers. Where’s the harm?
February 14th, 2011 - 16:00
I have to agree. There is nothing wrong with Alabama greyshirting 9 kids as long as the kids were aware of the fact they would be greyshirted. Is this the case?
I call this good recruiting by Saban because greyshirts have to pick up the tab for their greyshirt year/semester and still have a chance of not getting in the following year. Is this correct?
What is wrong is when the kids are not clear they will be greyshirted?
February 14th, 2011 - 16:28
I think you are wrong with your assumption. My understanding is that when a player signs an LOI, they are guaranteed financial aid for one year, and this starts when they enroll. This means that if they grayshirt, they must delay their enrollment until after football season is over. They do not have to pay for this semester because they are not enrolled. They do not face the chance of not getting in, as the accepted LOI guarantees the one-year financial aid, and is still binding when they enroll early the next year. This one-year scholarship would span from spring to spring as opposed to fall to fall like the rest of the class (this is what I have inferred, correct me if I’m wrong)
February 15th, 2011 - 09:04
That is exactly how it works.
February 15th, 2011 - 09:18
They can attend school in a partime capasity at their own bill… they cannot be enrolled full time.
February 14th, 2011 - 20:21
I would be willing to bet my left nut Saban did not tell all these 9, 12, whatever grayshirts there is what is going on. They were offered a scholarship and now Saban is going to try and make room and if he doesnt he is going to have to break the news.
February 15th, 2011 - 08:43
then they would call you One-Net Red. Read any interview with any Bama players that were grey-shirted, they all said that they were kept informed of what may happen and that they were cool with it. no one was ambushed with a grey-shirt.
February 15th, 2011 - 08:44
err, One-Nut Red
February 15th, 2011 - 20:26
Oh come on? Every? Thats 100% since Saban has been coaching. I feel even better about the left nut bet.
February 16th, 2011 - 09:04
yep, every recruit that was grey shirted knew about it ahead of time. EVERY one, at least at Bama. I didnt follow him at MSU so i cant speak on there.
February 15th, 2011 - 09:23
I’ve never said I would agree with misleading a recruit… only that they should have the information to make the decision.
Personally, from what I’ve seen and read… I don’t think UofA recruits are being mislead; however, I would agree that you could easily mislead a recruit. I would be 100% for seperating out the grayshirt offers from the current NLI offers… maybe even allowing for a early signing period only for grayshirt offers… There are many ways to make it easier to get the proper information to the kids and parents without killing grayshirts.
February 15th, 2011 - 16:10
Actually, Daryl Collins from Gadsden chose Kentucky because he did not want to grayshirt. He said he would have chosen Bama if he had a scholarship for this year. I would imagine Saban was honest with the rest as well.
February 14th, 2011 - 15:54
Also, are you really accusing Saban of being lazy?
February 15th, 2011 - 09:17
That may or maynot be the case, but I fail to see where it is a bad thing IF the recruit is willing to wait to play at the school he wants to attend…
I would agree it is bad to mislead a recruit into thinking he won’t grayshirt, when it’s a pretty high chance he will.
Let the parents and the kids decide where they want to go. Give them the information to be able to make an informed decision. The problem is that your arguement falls apart when you look at it in the light. Killing grayshirts ISN’T a good thing, period… because grayshirtting isn’t the problem.
If you want to call for a stop of purging rosters, then you might be on a better route to success… but you can do that without killing grayshirts for sure.l
February 14th, 2011 - 16:47
I will actually have to disagree here because I have not heard any player yet mentioned as to the fact he would grayshirt/ That does not mean it will not happen. But also in regards to the new legislation UA can not require a kid to grayshirt or the NLI is nullified. Again it does not mean the player will not defer homself but I can maybe see UA at most grayshirt 3 players.
As a UA fan I follow the recruiting and team alot. I saw possibly 6 names in November of players that will probably transfer to get more playing time. One of those was BJ Scott which is already made official. All these name were listed by someone that usually has legit info. I have also seen 3 players who graduated in December that will not return for their 5th year but probably has not been released yet. One of the reasons we were able to have so many EEs in the class because of graduating players in December.
With Scott UA had 13 spots available for the fall class. Now there are atleast 2 players who since at UA have battled injuries that I could see possibly receiveing a grayshirt. One a top WR recruit he did not fully recover from a HS injury and was medical redshirted his freshman year and this year not even sure what the injury was that kept him from playing. Another player who was a starter to begin the season also got hurt and it is the 3rd year in a row for him. Could be others but I could see those 2.
In regards to grayshirting the only players I see possibly grayshirting. Three HS player who all received season ending injuries in the fall. A TE, OL, and DL if recovery time is delayed may grayshirt to preserve eligibility.
February 14th, 2011 - 10:34
A few simple rules is all it would take to solve the problem:
1. Each school would be required to provide an accurate listing of available scholarships between the end of the season and NLI day. This would establish the school’s LOI budget for the signing period, which it cannot exceed.
2. Each scholarship opening involving a player leaving early would be scrutinized, up to and including an interview with that player, where he must state that he is leaving of his own free will, and is not being pressured from the coaching staff or anyone else directly involved with the football program. This includes players leaving due to academic defiencies, medical redshirts, grayshirts, and transfers.
3. No player may sign a binding LOI until he is deemed academically eligible through the NCAA clearlinghouse, PLUS he must be accepted for admission by the university.
4. Any dismissal of a player for a rules violation must be accompanied by a full disclosure of the circumstances leading up to the action being taken, and the rules being violated must be clearly specified.
There. Problem solved. You’re welcome. Oh, and Nick, Les, and Houston can go pound sand.
February 14th, 2011 - 11:03
1. The school already reports their scholarship numbers to the NCAA. They already have a budget of 85, which they cannot exceed. Or are you suggesting they get rid of the grayshirts? That would be a very bad idea.
2. Interviewed by who? What happens if he feels he is being pressured? This will do nothing. BTW, a player must request the transfer, and must sign off on any medical scholarships (medical redshirts are different, and I assume you meant the former) so if the player doesn’t want to transfer/accept the medical they don’t have to.
3. Good idea, but it doesn’t work. Spring semesters for college start before high school ends, when many players will know for sure if they passed all their classes. To keep from hurting the chances of kids needing their last grades to know if they qualify (they won’t receive offers, especially if you can’t oversign) signing day would have to move past graduation. Doing this would hurt kids who are JuCo transfers and those who graduated early wanting to enroll in time for spring. It is not a great set-up now, but what you propose may solve one problem, but it opens up several more.
4. So you want to know all the details of an 18 year old kids discretions? Why do you have claim over this? This is a private matter, and if the student wants it public he can do so, but the school should not and will not ever release this information. It is not our business.
February 14th, 2011 - 14:47
Not scholarship numbers, LOI numbers. Put a specific limit on LOI’s each school can accept based on their departure numbers: add the number of players whose eligibility has run out to the number departing for other reasons. The sum of those two numbers will determine the maximum number of LOI’s the school can accept for that particular year, maybe 1 or 2 more to account for natural attrition.
On some of the other points you rightly state that there are legal issues regarding privacy (FERPA, etc) that would prevent such measures from being enacted, so I stand corrected in those instances.
As for academic eligibility, this in my opinion is an absolute must. Most colleges are making admission decisions before Christmas of an applicant’s senior year, so why should athletes be any different? Like other students, blue-chip football players should apply to the colleges in which they’re interested in advance, and maybe the athletic department can get the application fees waived or something like that. This prevents coaches from stockpiling academically shaky players, simply to farm them off to JUCOs. This way the kids know in advance they can’t qualify, can apply to the JUCO of their choice, and once their academic standing approves they are free to sign with whomever offers them instead of being held in indentured servitude to the school that originally (over)signed them.
February 14th, 2011 - 15:11
If I read you correctly then, you want to basically restrict grayshirting to two or three. Not unreasonable, but I don’t see the reason for it. What I would like is what SoccerMike has been proposing, and that is a seperate offer for the grayshirt. A team would effectively be restricted to accepting LOIs for the number of spots they have immediately available (their “budget” as described on this site). They could then accept as many grayshirt LOIs as they felt they could handle for the next year, with the option to upgrade this to a standard LOI should a spot come available before fall enrollment. This way, the recruit is aware of what he is being offered, and a player who may not otherwise get an offer from his preferred school would be given that option with the grayshirt. No downside to this, nothing unethical about it.
I don’t have a problem with your reasoning or line of thought about qualifying before signing the LOI. The problem is that it would make it much harder on the schools in trying to determine who they can offer without being short on scholarship players. If you move signing day, as I discussed earlier, it hurts the players who do qualify early and want to enroll in time for spring. I’m open to this idea, but it is not so simple – and may not produce a better environment, despite the intentions.
I don’t think you understand the JuCo route. While the school often helps “place” the recruit in an JuCo, that player is no longer bound by the LOI they signed, and are free to sign with whoever they want once they qualify. Likewise, the school is not bount to take them at that time. JuCo placement, to me, is mostly a bonus for both, especially the student who would most likely never go anywhere without the encouragement from being recruited – something that wouldn’t happen if oversigning didn’t exist.
February 17th, 2011 - 12:50
While technically correct that a recruit “placed” at a JUCO is free to sign anywhere, you probably also know that the coaches at these JUCOs, who depend on this feeder system, do everything possible to ensure they player stays with their original school lest they stop receiving placements from the coach/school.
February 17th, 2011 - 13:48
The JUCO is a farm system. The only problem I have with it is when they are placed and do not meet their potential, which happens, they sometimes do not make it back to the program they wanted to go originally. CNS though has a pretty good track record for bringing back JUCO placements. Nothing can be done though about that, but it is a great system for the teams in areas like the south or states like Kansas that has a lot of JUCOs.
JUCO is like the minor leagues in baseball. Develops the player and only cost the DI program they go to half the amount of money.
February 14th, 2011 - 15:27
What you are propsing essentially is a recruiting budget but it would prevent any roster managment prior to signing day.
Now in regards to acedmic concerns I for one support that a player shold not be allowed to sign a NLI until they qualify. I mean it does not take a genius to qualify per the NCAA. A student only has to have a 2.0 in 16 core classes not all of them and then the rest evolves around a sliding scale for test scores. Still schools may have other excetpions for players that fail to meet that requirment.
In regards to JUCO a player that goes to one is not obligated to attend the school they origainally signed with. A player who fails to qualify voids out the NLI they sign. Now maybe you are implying that since the schools help to find a JUCO, one that usually supports that institution, for them to enroll it infers that they are going to get pushed back to that original school. It may be but I see a different approach because of another issue. I have no problem with a sign and place in prep or JUCO. Because the player did want to attend that insititution and most of the time unless a coaching change they want to get back to that school. I think players that are signed and place by a school should force that school to honor the original NLI signed. I have seen more players that sign and place and never attend the original university they wanted because other players have come in or they did not develop in JUCO. Especially if the NLI and NCAA will allow a player to sign when not qualified.
To address EEs and early signing or later signing dates. EEs that enroll in the spring can not sign a NLI per the NLI website. They sign a financial agreement and school will except an NLI in February for show only. Because once the player attends classes fulltime in January they will have to go through the transfer process at that point to leave. Alot of EEs that enroll in spring also graduated from HS in December. So the signing date has no real effect on them.
February 14th, 2011 - 13:45
The NLI’s applied to the current class never more than there is room for. No school is oversigning. The extras are grayshirt offers to the NEXT class or early enrolls to the Previous class. Please point out where schools are giving out more scholarships to class than they have room for?
The athlete must sign the transfer or medical and the school scholarship renewal board already offers an appeals process… I wouldn’t be against tweaking the medicals to allow for a 3rd party evaluation of the player, but I would rather err on the side of giving the medical than place any kid in a situation where he must practice with a potential to do damage to himself. Remember, a medical doesn’t stop a kids playing ability to play football somewhere else if he thinks he can still play… it stops it at the current school, but affords the chance to keep his scholarship to finish school and get an education. He can leave a take his chances elsewhere if he wants.
Although it sounds like a great idea… the reality of it is that wouldn’t work. Some kids need summer work to be cleared and very few are actually able to be cleared in February. Schools need to be able to over offer with grayshirts and the kids need to be informed on what offer they have. There is nothing wrong with a kid that WANTS to wait to play for a certain team. The issue comes when the kids don’t know. This can be solved in many ways without killing the use of grayshirts.
Again, the school already has a system in place for appeals. There is no need for any of this to be pulic knowledge.
February 14th, 2011 - 14:09
Regarding number 4 above, isn’t interesting how some people claim to have the kids’ best interest at heart, but yet have no problem with suggesting that their medical records, disciplinary records, grades, etc. be made public? As if none of this disclosure could possibly be harmful to an 18 year old. Get a life, people.
February 14th, 2011 - 14:32
That is exactly what CFB has become, win at all cost type of mentality. Coaches with 7 figure salaries forced to focus on winning and going to bowls games to generate income for the institution. I have seen very little to demonstrate otherwise especially with schools in the BCS conferences. As a CFB fan I would love to see a playoff and by all the polls and articles out there so do a lot of fans. But guess who does not and controls the BCS, the conference commissioners of the 6 BCS conferences. Too much income guaranteed for those conferences. People can complain about the student athlete being exploited but oversigning is not the only issue that may do that.
But in regards in defending something unethical I find it to be hypocritical for some posters to come on here and place their institution they support above others. They love to point fingers but yet seem to turn a blind eye when one is pointed at them. I have not defended the issue but I find little value at times in opinion some state as facts. But the one thing I will agree on with posters like Mario is addressing the concern of what should be the true focus and that is the “student” part of student athlete. If oversigning is taking away from their educational opportunity than yes I am concerned about it and against it. But am I concerned with a competitive advantage it may give schools that could affect the integrity of the game, no because every college that competes, at least in the BCS conferences, have demonstrated they are here to win.
Like many have stated some schools are at a disadvantage because their conference does not allow it, but why should another get blasted because they do. If the real concern for the Big10 is implementing the policy to protect the student I applaud it, but the Big 10 and OSU still want to win. Hence why OSU made sure those players played in the Sugar Bowl this year. I could probably care less when those players serve their suspension, but the fact is the Sugar Bowl and the BCS wanted those players playing to help ratings, and OSU needed them to help win. People can spin it how they want but that was not about the student but about winning and the money the game generated. Because their success or lack of regarding the outcome of a game should have no impact of their success in the classroom. Just like why Joshua created this site. He supports OSU and is a diehard fan and wants his team to win and feels the SEC is at an advantage. So again it comes down to winning for most. But even on the Ozone the majority of posters do not respond to the issue of oversigning when brought up on it now. So it is not like he or this site speaks on behalf of all the OSU fans. Just like the posters who defend the practice and are UA fans do not speak on behalf of all UA fans, even though a few on here like to say all UA fans are the same. But again people that make such acquisations to generalize a group as a whole only demonstrate their bias and remove themselves from actually contributing in manner that might add value.
We have one poster on here that supports Nebraska and tries to place them above all SEC teams. But yet in 2003 the Governor of Nebraska tried to pass legislation that would allow Nebraska to pay its football players. Not any other sport except football. He said football was a multimillion dollar industry and it’s a business and the players should be paid since they are a part of it. Now the major objection to this was from the smaller schools that did not have the large sums of money coming in. They cried out that the recruiting advantage it would give to the big schools because the smaller schools could not pay their players. Let us see, a top recruit goes to Nebraska to get paid to play or school B and gets nothing. Where do think the majority of these recruits would end up? Or how about what is ethical when Nebraska along with VT made the story for OTL on ESPN and 20/20 in 2005 for exploiting a loophole for free housing. Let us ask the single mother who brought the issue to light that started the federal investigation when she could not get into free housing and was put on a wait list for 2 years because football players who were getting money for housing via their scholarship and exploited a loophole that allowed them to pocket the money and still get free housing. Again people want to point out teams that oversign are using a loophole to get around the rules, but none different than what these players at Nebraska demonstrated.
Or let us talk about our UGA poster who thinks oversigning is the root of much deeper racial issues in the south as he has called me and others out as racist. He preaches oversigning exploits African American football players. He also uses a quote about a current UA recruit where the recruit says he looks forward to being at UA for the next 3 or 4 years because he claims CNS is not upfront with players about the 1 year renewal for scholarships, but yet nowhere in the article does the player say he was told he would be there for that long but again another poster who likes to state opinion as fact. But there is an article for a recruit this year that says he was told that the scholarship offer at UA is only for one year and not one article where a player has stated he was not told that upfront. Again opinion being stated as fact for their defense, but they fail to address facts that are presented. But this UGA poster claims it is another example of CNS not being honest and exploiting African Americans. If he is so concerned with that, why is he not concerned with UGA and how they fail to help the success of African American football players at UGA? UGA leads the SEC and is ranked 5th in the nation among Div I schools for the largest disparity between graduating football players that are white or African American and that only 48% of African Americans graduate from UGA. I would wager CMR while sitting in the living room with all those families fails to tell them that stat. I could imagine how that would go. I guess he flips a coin, heads your son will get his degree or tails he will not. See that 48% is a fact not an opinion like our UGA poster likes to post. Again I will ask him because he wanted UA fans to name which players will no longer be on scholarship so I ask him which 11 of the new 22 recruits who are African American will graduate from UGA? Talk about unethical. UGA recruits for football and could care less about the education these players were guaranteed, whether it is for 1 or 4 years.
I even have seen a reference to the Ivy League and their higher standards. But yet do people fail to read that the Ivy League is currently under a federal investigation for possible violations of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, among other laws. That if you are a legacy you have 12% greater chance on being accepted at an Ivy League vs. the general student and a 5% greater chance to being accepted if you are an athlete. Is that ethnical practices by the Ivy League. If you feel that way go ahead but I do not and think a student because of family ties but yet poor academic performance should not get into a school that is supposed to be held to such higher standards but yet does not operate on an equal playing ground for all that apply. Wait a minute did I say not an equal playing ground. Even in the Ivy League, but this is another example that very few schools do not have any skeletons in the closet and practice ethical behavior if any.
But again this site promotes people to defend their school, because as we know CFB fans are very passionate about their teams, but it also promotes people to come and state opinion as fact, which brings out those that question their basis for the lack of facts. There is more falsehoods printed on this site than actual facts. I not implying everything by Joshua but more so from the posters. Simply twisted or implying what was stated elsewhere to make it fit here. Now in regards to Joshua it is his site to do with as he wishes but does stretch out info to make assumptions he hopes one day may come to light. Maybe a general disclaimer should be on the home page at the very top that states most of what is reported on here is speculation.
….We are not able to obtain all the info we need to draw a conclusion but we feel with the evidence available that something malicious may be occurring and feel that in time we may be able to add more to our theory. But we want each poster to please read the site in its entirety and determine for themselves which side of the fence they stand. In the end no matter what side you follow we look forward to your responses from all posters as we hope you can add value to this site and at no time will we allow others to personally attack you or call you names. Again, remember this site is developed to bring to light what we feel is not in the best interest of college football and we strive to get the facts we need to make a change…..
Right now this site does not do that. It promotes opinion and supports only those opinions that want the truth so bad they will take some piece of info and twist it to work or to imply and then state as fact. It is one thing to say UA under CNS has had 13 players receive a medical hardship which begins to question the legitimacy of each one, it is another to say as a fact that all 13 were players needed to be removed to make room for incoming players in a malicious manner. That is opinion not a fact. Again no matter what the number is nowhere does anyone other than the staff at UA knows what the situation is with each player that is no longer with the team. But many on here are quick to assume and again state opinion because they want to believe. Even if the information was readily available and nothing was malicious in nature I would wager that most on here would still dislike UA and CNS and find something else to point out for his success on the field that is malicious and nothing to do with the fact that he can coach the talent on the field. Because in the end he still has only 85 players on scholarship and they produce unlike some programs that continue to fail to produce.
Just like I can find older post on this site where people criticized UA for grayshirting because they claimed, again with opinion, that it is just another result of oversigning. That if CNS did not oversign he would not have to grayshirt a player. But now that OSU oversigned by one this year and a player will have to grayshirt to stay under 85 posters are support grayshirting and defending it. I agree there are different scenarios that take place to allow grayshirting that is in the best interest of the player, but the NCAA also recognizes this along with the NLI and has measures now in place to protect the athlete. But again it amazes me that at one time grayshirting was unethical and now it is alright to benefit a program or should I say not destroy their defense. Now in my opinion grayshirting a player gains more of a competitive advantage than any other type of roster manipulation. Again my opinion not a fact, but there is more concern with it than oversigning. The NCAA is currently looking at the practice and will address it with rules governing it long before they address oversigning.
But to address a question by 78Lion. Should someone come to defend something if it is unethical? My question is are they defending the practice or are they defending the lack of facts provided to show any malicious behavior? That should be answered first. Some do defend the practice as no concern as long as rules are not broken but there are also some that post a defense because the truth is lacking in the claims of some posters. It is one thing to defend something wrong it is another and a right I feel I have to point out falsehoods and opinion stated as facts with bias. Again I am not condoning the practice of oversigning but I do not support conjecture without evidence other than speculation and feel that there is justification when certain claims are made that are purely based on opinion to question the legitimacy of that claim.
February 14th, 2011 - 15:24
Wow, long – but worth the read. I don’t agree with all your opinions, but I can say that I don’t disagree with your presentation. Well done.
February 14th, 2011 - 19:09
It took a lot of passion to pen that. Well done.
People do not post here to have their opinions changed. They post here to change opinions, and they won’t let facts get in their way. To use a rather charged analogy, it reminds of people who suddenly cannot fathom a federal government running massive debts – even though they had nothing to say on the subject from 2001-2009. They’re not against government spending; they’re against Obama spending. And they’re not different than the people who abhorred federal spending levels under Bush but ignore it now.
I think there’s merit on both sides of the issue, and I see some fine arguments with plenty of room to meet in the middle.
February 14th, 2011 - 20:51
I don’t post in order to frame the debate to help my school gain a competitive advantage. My stance is very simple: the nexus of practices that are performed by schools under the umbrella concept, “oversigning,” encourages schools to treat players as employees (and they most assuredly are not for a variety of federal and state tax and labor laws) and encourages too many athletes to believe that there are viable alternatives to working harder to be better prepared academically in high school (such as being farmed out to JUCOs).
I do have a bias however based on nearly 30 years in higher education and again it overlaps the umbrella concept of oversigning as practiced with a vengeance by southern schools and some schools in the Big 12: I cannot for the life of me understand why alums of universities allow their schools to pursue practices that devalue the “brand image” of their university in order to pursue glory on the football field. For example, every single undergraduate from Auburn University who attempted to apply to a graduate school outside of the state of Alabama was hurt by the Sociology Dept Scandal. Period. It is not debatable. The damage in some instances might not have been great but was there damage – absolutely. There is no “automatic” model that is used to select students for competitive graduate programs. Admissions committees use judgment and interpret application packages. I don’t understand why SEC and to a lesser extent Big 12 grads allow their brand value to be diminished by this nonsense. That is my “bias.”
February 14th, 2011 - 21:17
Chizik has had 5 years as a head coach. He was at Iowa State for 3 yrs from 2006-2008 season. His recruiting numbers go as follows:
2006: 30
2007:25
2008: 25
February 15th, 2011 - 23:11
Chizik signed 32 in the ’10 recruiting season because he had 5 early enrollees (Jan. ’10) that “counted back” to the ’09 class because Auburn only enrolled 20 that August ’09.
February 18th, 2011 - 09:16
For all you Roll Tide Kool-Aid moonshine drinkers, here’s how it works, Sparky:
Because of oversigning, Bama was able to sign Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, and Julio Jones (as the last signees of a 2008 class of 32). A non-oversigning Big Ten team, Penn State, felt the sting of this practice when they played the Tide last season, where Bama was able to easily compensate for the injured Ingram by simply insterting the fearsome Trent Richardson (the last signee of a 2009 class of 27), who ran roughshod over the Lions. If not for Bama’s chronic oversigning practices, it can be argued that Ingram would have ended up at Michigan State, Dareus at Auburn, Richardson at Florida, and Jones at LSU (another notorious oversigning school).
Yes, Sparky, as I think the above example illustrates, oversigning can give its practitioners a ridiculous advantage, allowing them to stockpile four super studs where they may have otherwise gotten NONE of them.
It’s time for the NCAA to put the hammer down and level the playing field. Ban oversigning and stop punishing conferences like the Big Ten who long ago outlawed the practice.
February 25th, 2011 - 07:38
Maybe this has been discussed already, but I’m would think there is fertile ground for a lawsuit when a recruit signs the NLI and is then cut loose, not to mention after he forgoes other opportunities, moves onto campus, practices for a few months, and is then released.