Add Nebraska Athletic Director Osborne to the List
Almost everyday there is a new athletic director or coach publicly denouncing oversigning or stating that they will refuse to do it. Today we add Tom Osborne and Nebraska to the list. See his comments in the second paragraph.
What are some of those differences between the Big Ten and the Big 12?
TO: There are some relatively minor issues. In the Big 12, we were able to furnish complementary tickets to all of our student-athletes to football and to men's basketball games. This is not true in the Big Ten, so we've had to notify all of our student-athletes. For other athletic contests like baseball and track, we can give them tickets. That's not a huge thing. There are some minor issues in terms of academics. There are a few changes in the idea of oversigning. At Nebraska, we've had I think an average of 4.4 [baseball] players per year who have opted to go into Major League Baseball after their junior seasons. Under Big Ten rules, it's very difficult to replace those 4.4 players. You can replace maybe a couple of them.
We don't believe in oversigning, signing more letters of intent than you have spots. We've never done that in football, we don't do it in any of our sports, but we do feel in a couple areas, the Big Ten might be a little more restrictive than what we've encountered. Although it's nothing major.
We appreciate the stability, we appreciate the collegiality we've seen within the Big Ten. There is a good deal of concern about the welfare, the health of the league, as opposed to individual desires to get a bigger piece of the pie. That's probably a healthy thing because the long-term viability of the league eventually serves everyone well.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/23462/qa-nebraska-ad-tom-osborne
The rest of the interview with Tom Osborne is really good for those of you interested in Nebraska's move to the Big 10.
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 19th, 2011 - 21:40
Great idea with the good/bad list. Let’s get everyone out there on the record.
These SEC West presidents can’t hide forever.
February 20th, 2011 - 16:41
Agreed. Shouldn’t Spurrier be added to the bad guys list?
February 19th, 2011 - 22:20
I have 3 emails from ADs condemning oversigning, however, without their explicit permission, I won’t post them. To be sure, there are many more out there!
February 19th, 2011 - 22:57
Would you mind asking them for permission or asking them if they would mind providing a comment for oversigning.com.
February 20th, 2011 - 08:04
I think it is good for any school to decide what it feels it’s rules should be. I don’t have any issues with schools deciding not to oversign, but again… I don’t mind if schools do oversign, as long as rules are implemented to allow the recruit to have the proper information to determin what is best for them… and the coaches are not pushing kids out with medicals.
Props to Nebraska and good luck to them… However, I still would not want to see any rule such as the Big 10 implemented NCAA wide. If a school wants to adapt it, so be it… it’s their decision for sure. I think there is a lot of benifit to the school and the recruits if you allow for grayshirting… of course that’s if it is done above board. IMO.
February 20th, 2011 - 08:13
Big time college football needs consistency in recruiting and retaining college football players. There will always be coaches and schools that push the envelope of the rules, but as they stand now, those rules allow for too many abuses.
February 20th, 2011 - 09:35
I still have seen very little evidence to say that the current recruiting practices are leading to malicious practices or abuses. However I do think that the current rules in place in certian conferences does put them at a disadvantage compared to other conferences.
Yes you can question that if a school did not oversign would they still have the attrition some display, but again any answer to that is pure specualtion. We have seen schools that oversign or not still have attrition but no one knows exactly why. Again most that want to point fingers at the schools that do oversign are making assumptions based on their opinion, not fact.
I also feel that a large portions of the posters on here against oversigning also have issues with UA and CNS that is rooted in their deep desire for their own team to be successful in a time schools in SEC are. They are quick to point at one school but overlook their own school. Or will blast someone defending their school that oversigns but will do the same in defense of theirs. Very few have come on here and look at it from an issue only, without involving their passion for their school.
Now again I agree with consistency in recruiting, but relying on the NCAA to get involved might take some while and even then it will probably be something most still will ponder afterwards. People fail to see the big picture sometimes. Right now you have the SEC and Big 12 who have demonstrated varying degrees of oversigning outside of what seems to be the norm to meet normal attrition. We also have the Big 10 who says they are against it with the exception of grayshirting. But we still have 3 conferences from the BCS(Big East, ACC, and PAC-12) who have yet to say anything either way. It seems that most of the anti-oversigning crowd on here and anti-Saban crowd are Big 10 fans, but they are mistaken if they think the Big 10 dictates the rules in college footbal. If a change is going to be made it will be determined by all 6 BCS conferences, because they control the revenue in CFB for the most part. When they come together I believe the NCAA may act but until then very little will happen.
February 20th, 2011 - 11:46
Its common sense. Alabama is one of the biggest oversigners and to make up for that, they have also had more medicals than any other school in a 4 year period and they suffered “attrition” of 12 players last year. Those numbers are extremely high and this is just common sense. Im not going to go back and forth with you on this like I was the other night. EVERY school suffers attrition from transfer, medicals, etc, it just so happens Alabama oversigns almost more than any other school in the country and they also sit on top of the all those categories. Coincidence? I think not!
February 20th, 2011 - 11:56
Says the guy who holds Tom Osborn up as a shining example of ethical behavior. Common sense indeed!
February 20th, 2011 - 16:11
I do. And you brought up 2 cases in 31 years of coaching and 3 years as athletic director to discredit his ethics. Good job bud you really started a fire there. In case you cant tell I am really laughing at your weak attempt there. Just like your weak attempts to condone oversigning. Saban has 13 signs of unethical behavior in one year and you are attacking Osborn for 2 in 34 years. Just funny.
February 20th, 2011 - 16:57
What you fail to overlook is that when Osbourne played by the rules and showed what most feel for the majority of his career used exceptional judgement when controling his team and upheld the character of the Nebraska team even though they never won a national title for the first 21 of his 25 years as the Cornhuskers head coach. But the pressure to win forced him to skirt the rules and not worry about what the preception of Nebraska would be in the eye of the public over the next four years. Years that saw arrest after arrest and players that should have been kicked off the team, that a coach like Saban would have, but he did not care except to win it all.
You can laugh it off but the same thing you call out a school like UA or the other schools in the SEC for oversigning because they will do whatever it takes to win you fail to see it with Nebraska that it is so obvious that even the press started to question him as a coach. Not surprised his career did not last much longer.
February 20th, 2011 - 18:15
I never said I condone oversigning. I just don’t think Osborn deserve to be held up as a model of ethics, because he obviously is not. It’s common sense!
February 21st, 2011 - 10:12
keep spouting garbage ruining your credibility. You stated 2 cases in 34 years he has been in major college football. Doesnt matter if it was in the beginning, middle or end, that just a matter of you trying to turn your garbage any way you want. Osborne has 2 cases you stated where ethics were in question, Saban has 13 in one year.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:37
So a man cheats of his wife, but as long as it is with only 2 women over a course of time it is acceptable along is it is not with 13. But again I am for one that believes a crime is a crime and someone should get a lesser punishment because it was their first time or not. I guess our philosphy on what is acceptable really varies.
Again no matter how you spin it is wrong, in this case college football, to win at all costs when the integrity of the sport maybe devalued by the product then created.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:01
wow comparing this to cheating on your wife?? Still another attempt to derail the integrity of an a very honest man. I am sure you were there the entire time and you know exactly what happened? However, this has nothing to do with oversigning and still isnt anywhere close to the atrocities Saban commits with recruiting and “roster management”
February 21st, 2011 - 15:03
Laughable dude, laughable. Im sure you were there back in 1995 to see exactly what was going on. Has nothing to do with oversigning and Osborne is a saint compared to Saban.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:11
It does because Joshua and many posters on this site has said that oversigning is a result of a team doing anything they can to win at all costs. The decisions he made the last years while he won those championships were based on winning at all costs. You saw the article I posted and that is one of many that questioned he motivations for allowing those players to play.
Does it make him a bad person, not really because up to that point he would have never allowed that and I think that is why many raised all the concerns they did.
Just like when OSU played those players in the bowl game many felt they should not of, and that includes a lot of their fans I saw posting on their boards. I even think when CJT announced they would play he looked uncomfortable saying it. But things happen and pressure sometimes is overwhelming to win.
You made another statement today in another post that the only reason the SEC is winning right now is because they oversign. So in 1995 do you think Nebraska would have won the national title if all the players arrested including those 2 top players would have been kicked off the team they would have won the NC? Or do you think OSU would have won the Sugar Bowl this year if those players were not allowed to play? If your answer is yes why keep them around than. Why have people question your decisions or have doubts how good that team really was even without those players?
February 21st, 2011 - 15:15
BTW these atrocities you keep bringing up where is the evidence other then the assumptions being made. People have asked you and others to provide actual documented evidence but yet you have not. Atleast I did provide that talking about the 1995 Nebraska team. Do you see the difference there between fact vs opinion.
Do the practices at UA regarding roster management raise some concerns that even to the point some may be malicious, yes, but again right now it is pure speculation and nothing more.
February 21st, 2011 - 17:34
I said the reason why they are having so much success is because od oversigning. I would never say they would not win if they didn’t oversign.
February 21st, 2011 - 21:04
You ask if the 95 team would have won without the players that should have been kicked off the team, the answer is YES. Phillips back up was Ahman Green (Green Bay’s all-time leading rusher), and the other two backups were Damon Benning and Clinton Childs (players who would have started at most schools).
Christian Peter was the only player that would have been missed by dismissal. Riley Washington was a blocking WR that did very little. Tyrone Williams was a great player, but they had tons of depth at CB too. That’s it.
The Huskers won the national championship because it had Tommie Frazier, an amazing offensive line, and a ton of speed on defense. Not because T.O. (It’s spelled Osborne guys, so if you can’t spell his name, your argument starts to fall on deaf ears) tried to help his players turn lives around. Everyone always wants to see it as a negative… he tried to make it a positive, and it came back to haunt him. He admits that LP was a mistake, but LP didn’t beat Florida 62-24 by himself…. Tommie Frazier ran for 199 yards, and the defense kicked ass in the second quarter to build a huge halftime lead. The closest game they played all year was a double digit win over Washington State… and LP wasn’t on the team then.
February 22nd, 2011 - 06:50
Saying over and over that something is laughable, pitiful, lame, whatever does not make it so. That is like the classic five-year old argument response of “Did not!”….
February 24th, 2011 - 19:04
Im pretty sure Airpear just shut you guys up. 62-24 against and SEC team. No big deal.
February 24th, 2011 - 19:16
Just as I suspected. Nebraska fans only care about winning. Winning at all costs. Sad.
February 26th, 2011 - 14:20
yep. Thats just what was said. Glad you can read and comprehend.
February 20th, 2011 - 18:16
Using the standard that you apply for “attrition” at Alabama, Nebraska suffered “attrition” of 10 players last year including 6 players whose careers ended due to injuries/medical problems. You’re probably not the best person to be throwing stones.
February 21st, 2011 - 10:15
do you just keep adding people to this list? There are 2 scholarship players who are receiving a medical hardship. Holt and Lawrence. You numbers are seriously flawed.
February 21st, 2011 - 10:21
If there is such good evidence Nebraska is using medical hardships to flush kids from the system because they are supposedly oversigned, where is it. Your information you posted was completely incorrect. You had 3 guys on there who never should have been mentioned on the list and another 2 who are currently on scholarship, healthy and on the team. You put something together and submit it to the site so Josh can post it. Provide current links where it says they have been put on medicals or are going to transfer.. NOW unlike before, this does not include athletes who Nebraska recruited who couldnt graduate JUCO or who were not able to meet the requirements to enter the University of Nebraska. That is not attrition if they never signed. You know who I am talking about, Heard and Haper. Also, do not include the one grayshirt we have because he still counts toward a scholarship this year (Marsh).
February 21st, 2011 - 11:37
Are you seriously complaining to me about listing a grayshirt as part of NU’s attrition when I only added NU’s grayshirt to my list after you named Love and Carswell as part of Alabama’s attrition? This whole same standard concept really isn’t sinking in is it?
I know you don’t want to believe that Heard and Harper signed NLI’s, maybe you read on some message board that they didn’t sign NLI’s, but the reality is that they did sign NLIs. The fact that Harper didn’t graduate JUCO may have voided his NLI with NU but it doesn’t change the fact that he signed an NLI with NU.
I’m not claiming that all 10 players were run off by NU to make room for more signees on NSD. I’m just providing perspective. When someone claims that Alabama has “extemely high” attrition, I ask “what is the average amount of attrition”? Then I check the amount of attrtion at the school supported by the one making the accusation to get an idea of what normal attrition is. Apparently, 10 players in one year is ok, but 12 players is “extremely high”.
February 21st, 2011 - 11:40
Use the same standard. Go back and look at Josh’s Alabama attrition lists. They list players who didn’t qualify, so to be consistent, you should as well. Also, how does a guy grayshirt but still count toward a scholarship?
February 21st, 2011 - 13:48
Alabama’s is extremely high. You posted 10 players from within the last 3 years in the attrition. Take away Okafor, Kling, Heard (who is still gonna be on the team), Young (who is still on athletic scholarship) and you have 6 within a 3 year time period. NOT 13 like Alabama in one year.
On the grayshirt topic. Marsh was from the 2010 class, not this last class signed. In terms of numbers, he filled a scholarship that was taken out of this years budget. He is not currently on scholarship but he will be next academic year. He is a grayshirt so he filled one spot on this years recruiting budget.
February 21st, 2011 - 20:22
For the millionth time, not 3 years, 1 year. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? 1 year. Pop quiz. How many years? That’s right, 1.
I listed the 10 players that were a part of NU’s 2010 attrition in the other thread. Was Okafor’s name on the list? Answer: No.
I’ll take Heard’s name off my list, if you take Alfy Hill and Deion Belue’s names off your list, deal? P.S. Same standard
I’m starting to realize that it doesn’t matter how many times I state the facts or provide supporting links, you will never accept reality which is that attrition at NU is comparable to the attrition at Alabama. You will never accept it because it doesn’t jive with your personal reality which is Nebraska=good, Alabama=bad. This is evident by the fact that you give Nebraska every conceivable benefit of the doubt when it comes to attrition while spouting Josh’s attrition numbers for Alabama with no regard whatsoever for the circumstances surrounding each case. We all have our biases. However, be rest-assured that everytime you throw out an Alabama attrition stat, I’ll be right there to throw out Nebraska’s attrition stats as well.
February 22nd, 2011 - 11:25
Aren’t you the same genius that was talking about how Alabama’s “team doctors” were signing these medical schollie papers, and it was immediately proven that that is NOT the case?
Do you write ANYTHING on this site (or elsewhere) that is supportable, or do you just throw crap at the wall and hope some of it sticks?
February 22nd, 2011 - 22:07
HS – Seriously?
The standard line of attack here – “It’s unethical for reasons I cannot or will not explain, I cannot cite a single specific case of abuse at Alabama, but it must be happening, because everyone says so, everyone on this case being 10 guys on this board who feel it’s unethical for reasons they cannot or will not cite….”
Again – I see the POTENTIAL for abuse in the system, but there are a TON of assumptions being made here relative to actual abuse. I really don’t care if you agree that or not – I’ve read over a 1,000 posts in the past month, and the trend seems extremely clear to me.
February 23rd, 2011 - 07:47
Inthemiddle–I was talking about BetterRed, not you. Your posts here are outstanding.
February 23rd, 2011 - 08:21
Whoops. Sorry. Violated a cardinal rule — never post near midnight.
February 24th, 2011 - 19:39
Here is your original list of people. I will post links. You said 1 year ago……I say within a 3 years range.
REMEMBER WE JUST FINISHED THE 2010 season
Jaivorio Burkes NOT on the 07/08 roster
http://www.huskers.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=4&SORT_ORDER=2&PRINTABLE_PAGE=&SPID=22&DB_OEM_ID=100&Q_SEASON=2007
GONE SINCE THE 07 season
Patrick Witt He left April 2009, right after the 2008 season.
http://www.cornnation.com/2009/4/29/858310/as-the-world-turns-cody-glenn
Quentin Castille- kicked off Aug 2009, WOULD BE THE 2009 season. Notice the date….Aug 22nd. No need to make room because the 85 Scholly limit is already passed.
Justin Rogers- I dont see Rodgers on the 07/08 roster. Gone since the 07 season.
http://www.huskers.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=4&SORT_ORDER=2&PRINTABLE_PAGE=&SPID=22&DB_OEM_ID=100&Q_SEASON=2007
John Levorson NOT on the team for 09′ season
http://www.huskers.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=4&SORT_ORDER=2&PRINTABLE_PAGE=&SPID=22&DB_OEM_ID=100&Q_SEASON=2009
NOW for this years attrition!
Blake Lawrence- Med hardships
Matt Holt- Med hardship
Ryan Hill- Med hardship
Dontrayevous Robinson-Transfer to Montana State
Nebraska lost 4 guys this year to attrition. 3 med hardships this year, none in the previous 3 years.
Removed from list:
Faron Klingelhoefer- Removed from list because he is a walk on.
Dreu Young- Removed from list because he remained on athletic scholarship
Collins Okafor- Still on the team as you have agreed to.
GRAND TOTAL OF attrition for Nebraska is 4 for 2010 season!
February 24th, 2011 - 19:40
headscratcher,
and if my claims were proven, they would not be doctors anymore but doesnt explain why some of the players they pushed to get medical hardships went on to other schools to play.
February 24th, 2011 - 19:44
Really? Which players? Which schools?
February 24th, 2011 - 23:54
Burkes has been gone since the ’07 season? Really? According to his husker.com bio he played in all 13 games in ’08 starting in four games: http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=831166
I don’t know why he isn’t listed on the 07/08 roster or the 08/09 roster since he started 4 games in each of those seasons according to his bio. He had to sit out the 09 season because of unspecified medical conditions, and it was reported that he had left the team on January 6, 2010: http://huskerextra.com/sports/football/article_88463d8e-0e28-5f73-a474-b2148f17a839.html
Patrick Witt – we’re in agreement. He left 2 years ago. He was not one of the 10 players I listed as being a part of NU’s 2010 attrition.
Quentin Castille – we’re in agreement. He was booted in August 2009. Again, he was not one of the 10 players I listed as being a part of NU’s 2010 attrition
Levorson and Rogers – Both redshirted during the 08 season and left the program in February, 2009: http://huskerextra.com/sports/football/article_034e6ca5-70e2-5925-ab64-d9fd43cdf53f.html
Again, they were not included on my list of NU’s 2010 attrition. Intersting though that you said that Rogers hadn’t been with the team since the 07 season when he was part of the 08 recruiting class.
Lawrence, Holt, Hill, Robinson – we’re in agreement. 2010 attrtion
Klingelhoefer – I’ve seen nothing saying that he is a walk-on. If Pellini issued a list of scholarship players, wouldn’t be an issue
Young – Not good enough to warrant a medical redshirt
Okafor – Not on my list of 2010 NU attrtion
Maybe you’ve forgotten who actually is on my list of 2010 Nebraska attrtion, so I’ll repost it here:
Jaivorio Burkes – Scholarship not renewed, quit football, might get a medical hardship scholarship (Jan. 6, 2010)
Bronson Marsh – Grayshirt, healthy and eligible
Chase Harper – Academically Ineligible; JUCO
Braylon Heard – Academically Ineligible; attempting to qualify
Blake Lawrence – Medical Hardship Scholarship
Matt Holt – Medical Hardship Scholarship
Ryan Hill – Medical Hardship Scholarship
Dreu Young – Injured before senior year. Not good enough to warrant medical redshirt
Dontrayevous Robinson – Transfer, Montana St. Div 1AA
Faron Klingelhoefer – Quit the Team. May or may not have been on scholarship
See? 10 players.
February 25th, 2011 - 01:02
Middle,
The team who has 12 med hardships in 4 years. Sorry, I guess they just had a bad run of 4 years since Saban got there (and it just so happens he had to make room for the 10+ he oversigned at this point)
There is no doubt medical harships happen, it just so happens Alabama is abnormally high in this category.
February 25th, 2011 - 11:10
Jaivorio Burkes – Scholarship not renewed, quit football, might get a medical hardship scholarship (Jan. 6, 2010) ***Even if this is true, he sat out the 09′ season and transfered 6 days after the turn of the year in the 09′ season—the last time he practiced was in 08′, I would hardly consider this attrition for this year.
Bronson Marsh – Grayshirt, healthy and eligible
**Attrition? on the team, currently on scholarship
Chase Harper – Academically Ineligible; JUCO
**Correct
Braylon Heard – Academically Ineligible; attempting to qualify **still has a scholarship reserved–Neb currently at 84 scholarships, WILL NOT GRAYSHIRT. This is not attrition because he has not signed with any other team, or JUCO and still trying to make the team. If/when he signs with someone else or JUCO, this will be considered attrition.
Blake Lawrence – Medical Hardship Scholarship
Matt Holt – Medical Hardship Scholarship
Ryan Hill – Medical Hardship Scholarship
Dreu Young – Injured before senior year. Not good enough to warrant medical redshirt ** this is NOT attrition since he remained on athletic scholarship for his senior year.
http://nebraska.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=928&CID=1051240
Dontrayevous Robinson – Transfer, Montana St. Div 1AA
Faron Klingelhoefer – Quit the Team. May or may not have been on scholarship ** was NOT on scholarship as the 2010 scholarship distribution chart shows.
http://nebraska.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=928&CID=1051240
my count is 6 WITH Burkes even though he hasn’t practiced since 08.
(3) the number of medical hardships is not consistent with previous seasons UNLIKE the 3 average for Alabama and Saban over the last 4 years. Nebraska has had (3) total in 4 years and this is where the big difference lies. It is all about what a coach is averaging over a certain period. For example, if a coach wins 10 games one season and 2 the next four seasons, he will not be known as a 10 win coach.
February 26th, 2011 - 16:58
You’ll have to explain to me how you count Love and Carswell as attrition at Alabama (both on scholarship and on the team), but don’t think that Marsh should be counted as attrition at Nebraska.
February 27th, 2011 - 16:35
Vesper,
Because a grayshirt is not attrition. Attrition is taking away of numbers NOT adding to them. Count Marsh and I will count Love and Carswell. That puts Alabama at 13 attrition and Nebraska at 5. Keep in mind, Nebraska had 5 lost from attrition but at NO time was their roster oversigned. Alabama was!
February 27th, 2011 - 16:48
12 vs 10 not 13 vs 5
February 27th, 2011 - 19:54
Red – You claim players that Alabama tried to medical hardship transferred elsewhere and played. Frankly, I don’t believe it for the simple reason that evidence of that would have been thrown around at least as much as the WSJ article has been here, because it would be FAR more damning. And yet… no links.
So I ask again – which players. Not a number. Names. Who went somewhere else and played after Alabama tried to medical hardship them.
February 27th, 2011 - 20:03
Zeke Knight. From a year ago on this site.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/03/29/medical-hardship-scholarships/
February 28th, 2011 - 12:05
“It was a life-threatening situation for him.”
He certainly was a player who found his way back to the field. Do you think that means Alabama was lax in their medical evaluation?
From a follow-up article on the player’s site that you linked. I did a brief bio on the author – he apparently works for the Birmingham paper, and his archive has articles critical of Saban on your favorite issue:
“You can’t blame Knight for wanting to return to Alabama one last time for Pro Day, but neither can you blame Alabama for relying on the advice of nationally respected experts and putting Knight’s health ahead of his career.”
Personally, the kid had graduated. I think his case reinforces the idea that some kids just cannot put the game down, no matter what the risks. I admire his courage, but in some ways I question his judgment.
Thanks for the link.
February 20th, 2011 - 14:54
“I still have seen very little evidence to say that the current recruiting practices are leading to malicious practices or abuses.”
And I’ve seen very little from your thousands of posts here to indicate you care 1 bit about ethical behavior. You strike me as an extremely unethical person.
February 20th, 2011 - 15:29
He strikes me as a very rational person, and I enjoy reading his opinions, althought I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. Thanks, Soccer Mike!
February 20th, 2011 - 16:08
If I said you strike me as someone who assumes anyone who disagrees with you must be unethical, would that be fair? Do I really know you who you are, or who you might be based on your posts?
I don’t question the intentions of anyone who takes the time to post here. Differences of opinion stem from differences in experience. Talking it out usually leads to a greater understanding. Shouting it out or name calling leads to more shouting and name calling.
Osborne’s a good person who used every rule to his advantage as a football coach. Strikes me as very similar to Saban in that regard. I’ll say this for Saban’s program – it has not had the sort of off-the-field problems the last couple of years that you usually associate with big-time athletics and win-at-all-costs coaches. Even Osborne had those.
February 21st, 2011 - 11:40
“If I said you strike me as someone who assumes anyone who disagrees with you must be unethical, would that be fair?”
Fair? Not sure. Incorrect? Of course.
SoccerMike is an extremely unethical person. He has made that very clear.
February 21st, 2011 - 19:12
Hmm. You can’t even be bothered to explain the ethics that you claim justify your name-calling. I don’t agree with everything SM has to say, but he takes time to explain his positions, and I’ve never seen him get petty. On that basis, I’ll take SM’s ethics over yours for the time being.
Finally, a movement which cannot explain its position in a few simple sentences runs the very real danger of simply becoming yet another Internet lynch mob, a cure which ends up being worse than the disease. Frankly, the conversation here has become so “Stop Saban” that I’m not sure anyone’s really discussing the long-term impact on the kids.
The Big 10 Rule doesn’t stop Houston Nutt. It perhaps limits the damage, but stopping him requires something a little bolder. Such as more institutional accountability ($$$) and more freedom of movement for student-athletes (relaxed transfer rules).
February 23rd, 2011 - 02:33
“In the Middle Tar Heel” seems very Bammerish.
February 23rd, 2011 - 07:48
Why? Because he doesn’t give blanket consent to your position?
February 23rd, 2011 - 08:04
UNC Class of 1990. Editorial writer for the Daily Tar Heel. BA English and History. Currently living in Asheville. Connected enough to UNC to get free tickets to most games through the athletic department, but not the really big ones. Almost wrote a letter to Baddour when they hired Blake; wished I had.
Why do you assume that people who disagree with certain views on this board must do so from a position of fan loyalty? I love college sports. I think this an important issue, but as I have said repeatedly, the “stop Saban” approach will not fix this problem.
If you want to read through my earlier posts, you will note that I think oversigning should be corrected by giving the players more rights. If you’re paying attention, you will note that the NCAA’s “thou shalt not” regulations tend to be a haphazard, poorly enforced affair. All this energy and advocacy for yet another by-law? That the NCAA doesn’t have the resources to enforce? Please.
Make schools commit to 4 years of education for EVERY player they sign. If the coach removes a kid from the team, then he’s got two options – (A) full ride at his current team, and (B) total transfer rights to any team who will have him.
This puts the school on the financial hook for a coach who wants to run through a ton of players (MUCH more effective), protects the educational mission, and most importantly allows kids to jump from one BCS program to another in the specific circumstances of concern on this board.
And so what about ANY of that seems “Bammerish” to you?
February 23rd, 2011 - 10:13
Do you think a program like Alabama is going to care about the “financial hook” of paying a scholarship? I don’t.
February 23rd, 2011 - 10:51
If anything, your approach will only fuel more oversigning by Alabamas of the world who have the resources to pay off scholarships.
February 23rd, 2011 - 12:06
And more kids end with a free education while fewer dollars go to renovating luxury boxes.
The Horror!
February 23rd, 2011 - 12:15
It is inequitable to other programs that lack the resources. This is not the direction that college football should follow.
February 23rd, 2011 - 12:29
KSUfan,
So you were against the Govenor of Nebraska in 2003 when he thought Nebraska football players should get paid to play. Not other sports only football players because he said that CFB was a multimillion dollar buisness. He tried to pass legislation in the state to make it happen. The major complaint were the smaller schools who said they did not have the same resources to pay players, and it would give Nebraska a recruiting advantage.
Why is this any different when Nebraska is trying to pay their players in a hope to get the best on campus.
February 23rd, 2011 - 15:51
KSU –
Was it fair when your 9-2 team went to the Fiesta Bowl over my 10-1 Tar Heels? Not really – your program had more alumni who could guarantee more ticket sales.
Texas has resources K-State can only dream of. (In fact, isn’t Deloss Dodds a K-State graduate?) That’s an everyday reality in CFB. Seems rather choosy to invoke it here.
Again – what is wrong with more kids getting an educational opportunity? Locking a university into a 4 year educational commitment (not athletic) to every kid they sign has repercussions that will make coaches and their bosses think twice – without penalizing the kids at all. Lowering the number of kids who can sign reduces educational opportunity – period. It might be towards a good cause and worth the price (a matter debate and opinion), but it’s an undeniable effect (not a matter of opinion and debate).
February 25th, 2011 - 01:09
and you defend oversigning because Butch Davis is on the borderline who does it….
February 25th, 2011 - 01:11
Middle,
Please explain how a kid “locks down a 4 education?” Please explain. Without athletics he has nothing if Saban deems he is not worthy.
February 26th, 2011 - 21:05
UNC’s a basketball school. Always will be. I personally think Butch and Dick Baddour should both go.
I think asking any institution to commit to an athlete for 4 years is asking too much. But as a student? Not too much.
Guarantee him 4 years of education, but not a spot on the roster. If they move him off the roster, then make him eligible to transfer without any penalty. That way he keeps all options — a free education at the place that signed him, or a new athletic scholarship at a school that feels he is a better fit.
Simple. Easy. Takes the pressure off of everyone who matters in this case — the players and the coaches.
February 20th, 2011 - 16:42
Calling the kettle black are you not. You on numerous occassions attack people because you do not agree with their opinion. That is very ethical I guess that only you determine what is and what is not.
In regards to being ethical how am I not. Just because I expect in a debate people when stating facts to actually have them and not state their opinion as fact. Why is it to much to ask for when people make assumptions to support it with something other than their opinion. You seem to be one that loves to point the finger at UA and any one that supports it because in your opinion you feel they are treating the recruiting process in an unethical manner. But yet you have not provided any evidence except your opinion.
Now if you are referring to when I question someone who makes assumptions about oversigning and do not jump on the bandwagon to support their opinion, sorry but I seek the truth not falsehoods created because people want to believe.
You are quick to call out me like when you made your assessment about me being a racist along with my family. See I remeber that with your comment that me and family before me needs to lay down our hoses and stop the unethical exploitation of African American recruits. But for me oversigning can not be the only issue to look at here. I feel like others who have also posted that there are many issues that need to be addressed. But you seem to turn a blind eye when UGA does something unethical or exploiting their athletes.
So tell me why am I unethical because I feel that first and foremost the conern should be regarding that every student be treated as a student athlete and not a just an athlete. Why is there an issue that in many of my post where I have advocated for education first and football second. Does this not concern you. Why are you are only concerned in how a team brings in only 25 and stays under the 85? Why do you not concern yourself with the education part of the scholarship offer? You seem to only be concerned with the football aspect of it, but not once have you addressed the classroom portion of it.
Again Dawg I will ask you what kind of conversation is CMR having when sitting in the living room of African American recruits? Is he telling them and their families that they have less than a 50% chance to get a degree? When talking to families in the living room does he flip a coin heads your son will graduate tails he will not? Do you not find it disturbing and unethical that UGA leads the SEC and is 5th in the nation for the disparity between graduating African American and white football players? Or do your support a school like UGA that takes advantage of African Americans to exploit them for their athletic ability with no concern for their academic success?
I would hope you do not condone this practice and behavior by UGA and will stand up and speak out against it. Since the true issue as you have pointed out in other post is these recruits have been told they would there for 3 or 4 years and they are promised an education at the university they committed to. But yet UGA does not fulfill that obligation or commitment that they made to players that are African Americans. Because only 48% of them will graduate. Sorry it is one thing to oversign and force a player to go on a medical hardship and make them get their degree that way, or have a player transfer and get a degree at a different school which maybe not is what they want, but it is nothing compared to the atrocity to discard an individual that has served their purpose, in this case football, and not help them graduate. See no matter how many UA oversigns, every player that does not finish out their football career on the field at UA still has a legit chance to get that degree and UA offers them that opportunity, with the exception of players who have major off the field issues. Now I doubt you want to compare Saban to Richt in dealing with players that get arrested. Very few if any stay on the team at UA if they get arrested unlike UGA. Let us start a Cup for the most arrest under a coach in the SEC. Not sure if Richt or Meyer would take that crown.
Why do you speak out against one thing but turn your head at another? Do you not have concerns with these kids not getting the education they were promised? I mean I can understand that there will always be players that will not graduate but we are talking about 52% of a specific demographic, a demographic that is the majority of the team. Come on Dawg stop hiding behind those hoses with CMR and demand they help students succeed not only on the field but in the classroom. Remember these are student athletes and the student part does not need to be overlooked.
February 21st, 2011 - 10:30
attacking someone because of race on this board is just not right and has nothing to do with anything. Every team has many different races on their teams so it just doesnt make sense. Now back to oversigning….. How is Saban going to make room for the 10 he oversigned?
February 21st, 2011 - 11:43
He has offered 10 grayshirts (that’s if he is over by 10) and will upgrade some to this year’s class when players transfer/quit/go on medical over the summer. Where’s your problem with that?
February 21st, 2011 - 12:01
Hilarious.
February 21st, 2011 - 12:07
Please expand on this. Where is the source of the hilarity? What is wrong with it? Why is it wrong or unethical? Or perhaps you don’t know why so resort to quick off-handed remarks.
February 21st, 2011 - 12:12
No thanks. We’ve been over all your lies and unethical arguments before.
You’ve lost. The anti-oversigning majority has won, and the rules will soon be changed.
You can move on to whatever other unethical practices you support.
February 21st, 2011 - 12:59
Yes, we’ve been over this before, and you again fail to even attempt to explain where the unethical behavior lies.
Since you have just accused me of lying, I demad you provide your justification for it – I require more proof than the blather you posted above. If I have misrepresented anything while posting on this site, I will apologize and correct it but to my knowledge I have not been called out on anything up to this point, so please point me to my errors or post your own retraction. I suspect we may be seeing who is truly the immoral one here. Making false accusations, in my book, falls into this area.
February 21st, 2011 - 13:52
it is hilarious.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:16
I hope you are not accusing me of calling someone out based on race here. He was the one that attact me and others by calling us racist and our families. If I am reading what you wrote wrong and you are not condoning what he has done on this board in that aspect than I apologize.
February 21st, 2011 - 17:36
I am not condoning
February 21st, 2011 - 11:35
Blah blah blah blah…
Yeah, you are an extremely unethical person. You’ve made that very clear.
February 21st, 2011 - 11:46
Too bad you can’t explain why. You are the quickest on this board to throw that out, yet I haven’t seen yet where you have given the specifics as to why you make this claim – especially to another poster.
February 21st, 2011 - 12:09
Oh, it’s been explained why. Don’t kid yourself on that.
Anyway, despite all the time you’ve wasted lying here, oversigning is going to be ended. When Florida and Georgia officials are calling it morally reprehensible, it’s just a matter of time. Alabama will once again be forced by outsiders to improve its behavior.
Josh has won. You have lost. Enjoy.
February 21st, 2011 - 12:54
Yes, much clearer now. Glad you could support your accusations so astutely.
Since you have just accused me of lying, I demad you provide your justification for it – I require more proof than the blather you posted above. If I have misrepresented anything while posting on this site, I will apologize and correct it but to my knowledge I have not been called out on anything up to this point, so please point me to my errors or post your own retraction. I suspect we may be seeing who is truly the immoral one here. Making false accusations, in my book, falls into this area.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:34
Bama won a title with Stallings, before Saban ever came along. When was UGA relevant?
February 21st, 2011 - 17:37
Yes the did and many recruiting violations
February 21st, 2011 - 20:41
Husker, there were no recruiting violations under Stallings. The trouble there was a player who had supposedly signed a contract with an agent on a napkin. The recruiting problems came out under the Dubose era.
February 22nd, 2011 - 07:02
As I recall, the NCAA wrote a 7 figure check to Alabama’s compliance officer in the wake of that Stallings-era ruling, to settle a defamation suit. The NCAA completely overhauled their COI due process procedures in the wake of that decision. It’s about as close as you’ll come to an NCAA admission that they blew it.
February 23rd, 2011 - 07:52
“Josh has won. You have lost. Enjoy.”
Now all we need is a “Nyahh nyahh”. What are you, a third grader?
February 21st, 2011 - 14:27
Texas Dawg I believe has lost on every point he has made. He fails to look at the big picture which only demonstrates is being on here is because his team UGA has continued to fall down the ranks in the SEC. See that kind of motivation on here brings no value, because he has no concern for the player in truth based on how he avoids deeper issues at schools.
If you have not noticed every time he calls someone out and is questioned about it to provide proof or explain why do you notice he fails to answer except with a greater personal attack back on that person.
He has called me a racist by making assumptions about me that I proved were completely false and all he could do was call me another name. He calls many on here unethical but when asked to explain he can not and resorts to behavior that of a preschooler who does not like to share their ball on the playground.
Several times I have asked him if he is concerned with the unethical treatment that UGA displays with their lack of concern by exploiting African American recruits for their athletic ability only. Not once has he addressed it. So that only provides me with the answer that TDawg condone that behavior by UGA because he hopes that exploiting them will one day bring UGA back to the top of the SEC. Atleast we know where he stands now, which also means he is a hypocritical when preaching concern about oversigning. So now we know his post have no real value on here.
Thank you TDawg because we now know the truth about you and where you stand.
February 20th, 2011 - 18:22
If you parse Osborne’s comments, he’s suggesting (A) that Nebraska does not condone oversigning, and (B) that the Big 10 Rule is too restrictive in some specific circumstances. So which list does your headline make him a part of? The “all of nothing” ban group? The “status quo” group? Or the “in the middle” group?
February 21st, 2011 - 14:00
you read it wrong. He said it is more strict than the Big 12 but it shouldnt have much of effect.
February 21st, 2011 - 20:35
He refers to all the issues as “minor” (including oversigning, for that matter). He also clearly states that Nebraska loses “4.4 players a year to baseball” and that under Big 10 rules, they will only be able to replace “a couple of them.” How is that fair to Nebraska, the other kids on the team, and the kids who otherwise would occupy those vacant GIA spots?
Before you spin out of control, I am NOT saying this justifies anything relative to oversigning. I am NOT saying it has to be all one way or the other. But I AM saying that Osborne’s pointing out legitimate situations that perhaps should be accounted for in any new regulations. So, no, I did not “read it wrong.” Perhaps there’s more context to the statement than the portions included here, but based on those, I’m comfortable with my reading of it.
February 25th, 2011 - 10:33
he is referring to not being able for athletes to give away game tickets like the Big 12
February 21st, 2011 - 08:33
so if/when some by-law gets passed that stops oversigning, when teams from the south continue to win, what will be the next complaint? Bama did pretty good under Stallings and won a title. Spurrier won a title before he signed as many players as he does at USCe. FSU, Miami, they won titles. What will be the next complaint or “issue” to try and level the playing field? That southern universities have to play in domes because their outside stadiums in good weather offer too much of an incentive? That all their coeds have to be covered up as soon as weather turns bad up north?
February 21st, 2011 - 09:12
No. I will be delighted if southern universities end their oversigning practices and stop using JUCO as a farm system. However, it would also be good if Alabama’s fans did not take the fact that Alabama has been on major NCAA probation for cheating for 19 of the past 20 years as a badge of honor. F$U and UM of the 1980s are your poster boys for how to run a college program? First, oversigning, then cheating — which apparently is more cultural — although I don’t understand why fans would be proud of “19 of 20 years” or the 7th Floor Crew. Baby steps — first oversigning then culture.
February 21st, 2011 - 10:28
If a bylaw is passed and the SEC continues to win like they do now (which they wont) then fine. Lets be honest, yes they have won the last whatever national titles but overall the SEC is not that dominate. Not near as dominant as the mighty ESPN portrays anyways. They are a great conference, dont get me wrong but they do not just waste every team they play. Auburn squeaked by Oregon in the National Title despite Oregon getting the shaft on a few calls. One particular interception by Oregon in the first have that was not called. It lead to an Auburn TD and the momentum. Stopping oversigning will actually even the playing field.
February 21st, 2011 - 12:32
JUCO as a farm system? How exactly is that? If you had said Hargrave or some of these other prep schools, i would agree with you, but JUCO? Any player from JUCO is free to go wherever they want, regardless of who they initially signed a LOI with. And i dont know of any Bama fans that take being on probation as a badge of honor. I do know plenty of “northerners” that automatically assume that since they are in or from the North, they are automatically smarter than people who attend southern universities. No fans are “proud” of their school cheating.
February 21st, 2011 - 13:56
JUCO players are free to do as they want but when they are placed by a particular University, they place them there for a reason. It is a 2 way agreement. Saban you get recruit stud A who didnt qualify to come play for me and I will send him back your way when he get through the JUCO route.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:14
What’s wrong with that? Is there some great advantage gained here? Do you not like the fact that the player is encouraged to better himself in JuCo? Would you rather he not receive an NLI in the first place and likely never go to college at all? If it is wrong, how would you fix it, and how would it be better then the current set up? If your only problem is that it gives some advantage to those who use it, I’m sorry, I won’t buy it – it isn’t against the rules (even for the B10) so it is available to everyone. The only reason to change this rule is if it is hurting the players in some way – and the way I see it now is a benefit to them.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:37
considering Nebraska signed 14 JUCO players from 2006-2010, Bama btw i believe had 6 during the same time period. If anyone has used JUCO’s as a farm system, it was the Big12.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:12
its the practice of sign and place that is in question! Im sure if you look back, Nebraska didnt sign one of those players and have him fail to qualify, then go after them in the JUCO ranks. What is your point here? It is a perfect acceptable practice so recruit JUCO players. This is just funny. Tre, Im glad you took the time to look that information up.
The problem with sign and place is this. You sign them, they dont qualify they get placed in a JUCO. SEC West is notorious for playing keep away with the sign and place practice. This way school A has the inside track to a recruit all while getting to evaluate him for 2 years to see if they even want to recruit him out of JUCO. Of the 14 JUCO players Nebraska had during that time period I can only remember 1 athlete who signed but failed to qualify and went to a JUCO and ended up coming back. If they were signed and didnt qualify they did not get placed by Nebraska. You guys are really cracking me up with these attempts to degrade the Nebraska football team to the Level of the SEC west.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:32
I’m not here to bash Nebraska, I don’t really follow them and couldn’t care less either way. My question to your comment is – what happened to them. If they didn’t qualify, did Nebraska just drop them? Did they just say, “tough luck, sorry. Hope you have a good life”? Would it not be better to help find them an avenue for an education? At that point, why not continue to evaluate them? Other schools will be doing it – it’s part of recruiting. If you helped the kid get into a school, of course they will be more likely to return to you, but that is their choice and anything that works in the kid’s favor is better is it not?
February 21st, 2011 - 17:43
Ok there have only been a small handful of players who didn’t qualify. The ones recently have been given an opportunity to qualify and if they don’t they go to JUCO. They do not get placed at a specific JUCO of Nebraskas choice and are free to pursue other avenues. The go the JUCO route and rarely if ever show up at neb. Pretty simple explanation. Nebraska has never really had many non qualifiers and that is fact.
February 22nd, 2011 - 09:01
To me that is irrelevant. Bama has had many not qualify over the years, but the last few under Saban has seen very few not qualify. Two years ago, everyone made it and last year I think there were two that didn’t (and Alfy Hill was screwed over by the NCAA – they cleared him then came back just before classes began and voided an on-line class he took years ago. He had great grades apart from that from what I understand).
My question is what is better for the kid? If you really care about him, and he doesn’t qualify, do you help him find an avenue to get his education once he may not be a benifit to you or not? The implication that it benifits the school via a farm system is not my concern here. It is the student, right? What is best for him? If the school gives him information on a JuCo that they have a relationship with, but will help him get qualified while maintaining his athletic abilities, is this not better for the kid? If you can show me where he is being wronged, I will re-consider my position, but until then, I have no problem with this system – even though Bama has not made use of it as of late.
February 22nd, 2011 - 11:54
I think that is where people continue to muddy the waters. First the arguement is made that sign and place is wrong because the schools do it so they can not go to another school, but many of the Big 10 supporters have come out and basically they would not qualify for admissions at their school, so if these kids are so high risk how are they being kept from another school and creating a disadvantage for schools like the Big 10.
As stated in here Nebraska has never really had any non-qualifiers which would indicate they do not recruit high risk students that might not qualify. So how does that create a competative advantage because these players apparantly are not being recruited by teams other than the SEC teams?
So players that are not being recruited by schools in the Big 10 or elsewhere are now being kept from them even though they never wanted them. Next the SEC takes the time to help place these players, something many schools feel they are above to do. Than once these players successfully complete their requirments at JUCO it is now unfair because the schools who never recruited them or wanted them in the first now hope to obtain their services because they could help their program but because SEC schools helped get these players into a JUCO and told them if you qualify we will take you back and so their motivation is based on their loyality to go that SEC school it is unfair.
You will not recruit them, you will not even guide them in a direction that might lead to their success, but you do want them if they pan out. Something just does not sound right there and yet the SEC schools are there every step of the way and yet are being called out for their roel in the process.
February 23rd, 2011 - 17:54
You guys will twist anything I say no matter what anyways so it is pretty much a waste of time. You are going to defend oversigning until it becomes against the rules, then you will be pissed because it was taken away. Soon it will be gone and you wont have any persons words to twist.
March 1st, 2011 - 13:59
So, do you agree with Saban that it’s a waste of time to explain his recruiting tactics with the media? Same reason.
February 22nd, 2011 - 08:23
Yet, Bama didnt originally sign Cody, or Williams, or Carpenter, or Menzie or Douglass. About the only i know they did originally sign is Dial, he didnt qualify worked his butt off and made it to Bama.
February 22nd, 2011 - 11:56
B Lewis and K Murphy are 2 others I can name off the top of my head. D Belue along with A Hill look to be a part of the 2012 class coming back from JUCO and S Brown will either be a part of the 2012 or 2013 class.
February 22nd, 2011 - 14:45
K Murphy didnt go to a JUCO, he went to a prep school.
February 21st, 2011 - 18:58
This is a perfect example of the one-sided assumptions people make in a lot of these circumstances. “Sign and place” sounds ominous, but it simply means that kids who don’t qualify for a BCS conference-level school can go to a junior college, with complete freedom to transfer anywhere they choose when they are done. Yes, it CAN be abused (Hello, Houston) – but that’s not the same thing as saying the practice is inherently abusive. It works for a lot of kids who otherwise might drop through the cracks.
A lot of kids go juco academically before transferring to a larger state system campus, for a lot of different reasons. It’s not a loophole. It’s where almost 70% of kids who go to school after high school start their college careers. Why should football be any different?
February 21st, 2011 - 21:04
That might be true in the south or Big 12 country that attendance at a JUCO then leads to placement at the flag-ship state university for the student body at large — it is not true in the north or northeast or pacific coast. It is not true that enrolling in a JUCO is the path to Michigan or Purdue or UCLA or Berkeley or UNC. Nor is it the path to top private schools. It is not true. It might be typical for Alabama or Mississippi or FSU, I will investigate more if there are still doubters (e.g., “deniers”).
I googled and found this information in two minutes. I can find more if you want more data. http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/srp.php?clq={%22ugprfile2005_ids%22%3A%2212%22}&limit=50,50&orderby=sortname&start_page=index.php.
This contains the list of selective institutions that have less than 20% of their undergraduates who transfer into the university. If you notice the majority of the Big Ten are on the list. Florida and Vanderbilt are the two from the SEC on the list.
February 21st, 2011 - 21:37
That link took me to a list that had every SEC team on it. Maybe there is a different link or something on that site you were referencing.
February 21st, 2011 - 21:39
Not saying that list does not exist but was wanting to read the site.
February 24th, 2011 - 12:45
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/srp.php?clq={%22ugprfile2005_ids%22%3A%2212%22}&start_page=standard.php&backurl=standard.php&limit=0,50
There are only 271 schools on the list. Florida and Vandy only, most of the Big Ten. The different attitude towards JUCOs makes a difference.
February 24th, 2011 - 12:52
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/srp.php?clq={%22ugprfile2005_ids%22%3A%2212%22}&start_page=standard.php&backurl=standard.php&limit=0,50. Look under the undergraduate profile.
There are only 271 schools on the list. Florida and Vandy only, most of the Big Ten. The different attitude towards JUCOs makes a difference.
February 21st, 2011 - 21:49
“Less than 20%” is a range of 1 in 5 to 1 in 10. That would be 8 to 16 players on a CFB roster if we extend that ratio to the 85 GIAs. For a university the size and distinction of OSU, 10% of the enrollment would be almost 5,000 kids.
Most kids do start their college careers in juco, and most of those don’t even finish the associates degree, much less move on a 4 year degree. Perhaps the 70% number is confusing without that context. So, no, I am not saying that 70% of the kids at any State U start in juco.
February 22nd, 2011 - 10:27
A better state would be how many HighSchool graduates in a state go to JUCO over a 4 year institution?
Here in GA I am sure it is high as the HOPE scholarship has kept many instate kids at UGA, GAState, GT… the JUCO admissions (my guess) are off the chart here.
February 24th, 2011 - 12:53
“Most kids do start their college careers in juco, and most of those don’t even finish the associates degree, much less move on a 4 year degree. Perhaps the 70% number is confusing without that context. So, no, I am not saying that 70% of the kids at any State U start in juco.”
Correct, which is why the majority of the Big Ten and other nothern schools do not warm to the idea that JUCOs are an indicator of academic quality.
February 26th, 2011 - 21:07
And who ever has? Once again, you seem to be arguing with yourself.
February 21st, 2011 - 20:31
Really, no fans are proud of cheating — what concerted pressure has been put to bear on Alabama over the past twenty years to stop cheating (e.g., violating NCAA rules to an extent that yields major NCAA probation for generating significant benefits for the program and its players)? If the state legislature, university president, and alums have put pressure on the football program then they have been spectacularly ineffective — 19 out of 20. Of course, “badge of honor” is “poetic license” — it is not that the fandom is proud of its program’s lawlessness — it simply is irrelevant compared to the primary goal of winning.
I don’t even want to discuss this anymore it is not germane to oversigning. Still if you want to tell me that the majority of Alabama fans wanted to give back their BCS trophy and have the accomplishment stricken from the record book in protest of two decades of lawlessness — I will admit I am wrong — any thing less (“We are not happy with probation — but it does not effect our play on the field — so the two are not connected”) is just chatter.
February 21st, 2011 - 22:07
I have never heard a UA fan say that they are glad the program was ever on probation. Hence why so many were happy with the hire of Saban. The only probation the team currently is on if for the textbook issue and that started in 2005 2 years before Saban arrived. Again Saban has cleaned up the program and probably has had the least amount of off the field issues of most of the SEC schools since arriving at UA.
So why would any UA fan want to give back a BCS trophy for a program that has been clean during that time. Again who cares what happened in the past. It is something UA fans had to deal with and are glad for the current hire.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:50
Now when you compare numbers regarding JUCO you might want to look at the Big 12 first before the SEC. I think the Kansas schools use and sign more JUCO players than any school in the SEC maybe even combined. Kansas and Kansas State have combined to sign atleast 60 JUCO players since Saban has been at UA. Kansas state is responisible for 49 alone of that 60. That is 2 full classes out of JUCO alone. Big 12 seems to benefit more from the JUCO ranks than the SEC. By the way unless something has changed Kansas is not considered part of the south.
February 21st, 2011 - 17:45
You got to be kidding me. Recruiting kids out of JUCU is perfectly fine. It’s creating the for placement in juco is wrong
February 21st, 2011 - 19:16
How is it wrong? I am not being belligerent. Why can’t a coach that a kid trusts recommend a junior college? There are HUNDREDS of them. What’s wrong with a little counseling? “Hey kid, JCCCC’s done a good job getting other players ready for the academics here, and they run our defense. If you want to come back here in two years, it would be a good place to go.”
Am I missing something? What’s wrong with that?
February 21st, 2011 - 20:36
If no one else will answer, then I will. There is nothing wrong with that.
February 22nd, 2011 - 16:54
Because he signs them, sends them to a JUCO of his choice which in turn gives that particular coach free rights to the kid. The coach gets 2 more years of his “JUCO Coach buddy” to development the athlete and in turn this coach will keep sending kids to the JUCO coaches way to help him win games. If the kid after 2 years is not up to par/where the coach wants him to be, then he just wont offer him a scholarship. Yep, really ethical.
February 23rd, 2011 - 08:18
Oh. I was not aware that the kids were forced to go to a specific school, and that after going to that specific school they were then forced to return to the original college of interest….
Wait a minute. They’re not forced? They use their football talents to get a free ride for 2 years at a juco OF THEIR CHOICE and then return to D-1 essentially as a free agent, able to attend any college in the country that will have them?
See, Red, this is the sort of hyperbole which I find laughable. You’re projecting restrictions which do not exist. You’re trying to solve a problem which does not exist. You are calling people names for doing something unethical when your basic facts don’t line up to reality. THAT’s unethical, and it’s the sort of “Internet lynch mob” mentality I’ve discussed elsewhere that’s entirely missing the point here.
More player rights fixes this problem once and for all. Yet another by-law won’t. You’re whining about one of the few things the NCAA gets right — giving partial and non-qualifiers MORE freedom, more options, and more choices. Limiting jucos in any way simply takes away some of those choices. That’s ethical to you?
February 23rd, 2011 - 18:00
I am glad you took what I said and used “forced” over and over even though I never used ‘forced”. Your credibility just went out the window there. Dude you are dead wrong. Sign and place is limiting JUCOs. What I said before happens and you know it. The coach has the inside track to the kid and gets 2 more years to observe and critique. If the players doesnt develop to the way Saban wants….he is scraped on the recruiting board. Your views are seriously flawed.
February 23rd, 2011 - 20:41
I used “forced” because in the absence of that conditional, the ethical debate over “sign and place” loses all steam.
You seem to jump around as it suits your whim. He “sends kids to a juco of his choice” (not the kids) has a pretty specific meaning. The receiving coach gets “free rights to the kid.” If you mention the kid’s role in that decision-making process – anywhere, ever – I’ve missed it. But then you complain that’s not your meaning. Well then – what is your meaning?
I will repeat the question – HOW is it unethical for a coach to tell a kid that he will increase his chances of being offered a position on that roster down the road if he goes to X college, develops his game, and makes his grades? He’s not guaranteeing anything. The kid can go to any college he wishes who will accept him. He can go work at McDonalds if he wants. He can go to that juco and try to make the most of it.
You are ASSUMING that guarantees are being offered or that something is being misrepresented — and making that assumption in the absence of any kid ever stepping forward and saying he was so mislead.
And that’s unethical. You’re misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to further your cause – the exact same thing you accuse these coaches of doing.
I respect your conviction. I just think you apply one standard to your own arguments and a completely different (and much more rigorous) standard to others. That’s human nature, but I can still point it out.
February 24th, 2011 - 07:37
“What I said before happens and you know it.”
Kinda like when you said Alabama had “team doctors” that sign players’ medical schollies b/c they are pressured to do so? Kinda like that?
February 24th, 2011 - 13:35
The kids have been offered from Alabama and could not qualify, they get placed in a JUCO to finish a 2 year degree while the coaches pass on an assumption he will have a scholarship when he is done in two years. If he does not develop the way Saban expects, he now longer will have an offer even though he was offered out of highschool, placed in a JUCO by Alabama. I guess I dont see anything wrong with that. You are friggin crazy.
No he is not guaranteed anything! This is exactly my point. He had an offer in the beginning, why not now? Because Saban had 2 more years to evaluate him and decide he is not good enough when Saban should have done his homework in the first place.
Headscratcher,
Yes, just like that. Alabama has 3 team doctors who are fans of the success of the program. I believe all 3 were graduates of the University in fact. You are blind if you dont think they are not persuaded to make this decision. How else do you explain 12 medical hardships in 4 years? Is it because Saban runs a tight program and practices his team harder? I forgot everything is better in Alabama. 12 hardships? An average of 3 per year? The numbers are a FACT! You cannot deny them, and none of you can even attempt to explain them. There are so many FACTS against oversigning, you just have yet to realize them.
February 24th, 2011 - 14:06
BRed,
Just who are you talking about? Surely if it is such a big problem there is a long list of players who have qualified through JuCo and not received a scholarship after being placed there out of high school. You speak like it is a common occurance at Alabama. If this is so, please provide some names, and sources where they were not told they would not be offered back at Bama.
There is more to it than just that anyway. If a WR were recruited in one year because there was a need at that position. Let’s say little Jimmy accepts a scholly to play WR, but doesn’t qualify and elects to go to JuCo in an attempt to make it back. Over the next two years, Bama still has a need at WR, so they recruit several at that position to fill that spot and when Jimmy graduates and qualifies, there is not the same environment at the school. The opportunity for playing time is not the same, and his competition has a year or two on him in the system, even if he has developed well. Should Bama be forced to offer him a scholarship again? Should they have held one open for him without the assurance that he would qualify? These are good questions and reasonable people could come up with solutions better than I, but I can see reasonable arguments for either way. If I were the recruit in this scenario, I think I would pursue a different school where my services were in greater need, much like many of the transfers that get heavy scrutiny around here.
Then your solution is simple, take this evidence that is so obvious and show it to the medical boards. These three doctors will easily have their liscences revoked and will no longer be able to sign off on these fake injuries.
February 24th, 2011 - 14:56
“they get placed in a JUCO to finish a 2 year degree while the coaches pass on an assumption he will have a scholarship when he is done in two year”
No one gets “placed.” No one gets “sent.” This isn’t the military. A kid has to enroll. He has to be accepted. He chooses. Chooses. Chooses. Chooses. Get it?
“the coaches pass on an assumption he will have a scholarship when he is done in two years”
No! These are the kids who can’t qualify. Where do they go to school, Red? A junior college is their only choice — just as it is the only choice academically for many NON-athletes. They’ve already missed their first chance. They fully understand they can miss their second both for academic and athletic reasons. So – now that they have to CHOOSE a juco – which one? Maybe the NCAA should pass a rule saying coaches can no longer make recommendations. Would that make you happy?
“He had an offer in the beginning, why not now?”
Because he failed to qualify the first time, and in the interim… (A) he prefers drinking beer to working out, (B) he just doesn’t like the grind of college football that much, (C) he’s just not as good a player as people thought he might be, (D) his grades are poor….
Again – he’s making choices. Somehow, you continue to miss that point on multiple levels. He’s not being forced or duped into anything. And his choices have consequences, just as his original choices in high school left him a partial or non-qualifier.
Once again, you’re confusing your assumptions for something more tangible than an unsubstantiated opinion.
February 24th, 2011 - 15:27
Red,
The problem with your assumption regarding how CNS uses JUCO would be an issue if that was the case. But you could not be any farther off than you are on it. Every player to this date that CNS has signed to a NLI that went to JUCO has had their original offer available when they graduate from JUCO. The only exception was one player who failed to qualify to com eback becuase of his grades at JUCO. Most though thought he would make it back but still could not qualify in JUCO.
Do I have an issue with coaches that send players to JUCO, wait to see if they develop and then may or may not reoffer. Yes I do, but Saban does not go that route. If Saban signs a player who has to go to JUCO that player will have an offer waiting when they qualify.
D Belue and A Hill are in JUCO now and both will be a part of the 2012 UA class if they qualify and it is believed since S Brown a 2011 recruit started JUCO this spring and did not sign a NLI will be a part of the 2012 class as well.
You love to assume every malicious act out there Saban does or that everything he does do is malicious.
February 24th, 2011 - 15:33
Yeah when you make these wild allegations your credibility really goes out the window. Please list any player while Saban has been a t UA that signed and went to JUCO that later qualified that Saban did not bring back.
Again I agre with you about the malicious issues that do take place regarding JUCO players, but you are only showing your hatred and biased on all topics here when you say that Saban does this because he has not. So your views here are very flawed.
February 24th, 2011 - 18:36
Chase Harper: JUCO player signed by Nebraska in 2010. When he failed to graduate JUCO in 2010, Nebraska dropped him like he was contagious.
One year later, Harper is all like, “I’m good to go this year Nebraska. You saved a spot for me, right?”. Nebraska was all, “Chase Harper? We don’t know any Chase Harper”
He had an offer a year earlier, why not now? Because Pellini had 1 more year to evaluate him and decide he is not good enough when Pellini should have done his homework in the first place.
February 24th, 2011 - 18:44
the recruit is not forced into anything but persuaded by the Alabama coaching staff under the assumption he will have a scholarship when he graduates JUCO= placed!
Chase Harper was not placed by any Nebraska coach. He NEVER signed out of HS with Nebraska. He was already at a JUCO before Nebraska even offered and he was not able to graduate. When he couldn’t qualify the first time, it took another year of edibility so Nebraska chose not to take a JUCO, THEY DID NOT PLACE BUT FOUND HIM IN JUCO.
February 24th, 2011 - 19:11
While Harper’s situation is not identical to the hypothetical case that you condemned, it is the same in principle. Why does it matter that he didn’t sign with Nebraska out of high school or that Nebraska didn’t refer him to a specific Juco? Are those really the factors that you have a problem with or is it the fact that the player isn’t offered a scholarship the second time around?
Take a few seconds to read how you phrased it: “When he couldn’t qualify the first time, it took another year of edibility so Nebraska chose not to take a JUCO”. How is that any better than what you are accusing other schools of doing? Because Nebraska didn’t recommend a Juco to him?
February 25th, 2011 - 01:17
because it is not the same principal at all. There is no “sign and place” involved….period!
February 24th, 2011 - 19:15
“under the assumption he will have a scholarship when he graduates JUCO= placed!”
You have no evidence of this. None. You’re the one assuming – not the kid.
Once again, your response to “no evidence” will be “but everyone knows that’s what happening….”
What would you prefer? A signed statement from a kid saying, “I understand that there are no guarantees”? In the absence of that, are you going to insist on believing that most kids in the system are being manipulated by evil adults? Adults who only exist in the SEC West?
I mean, you could be talking about John Blake. Here’s a guy with hard evidence that he tried to take advantage of his access to these kids. But he spent a couple of years at Nebraska, too, so perhaps he’s off limits.
February 25th, 2011 - 01:19
you can speak of John Blake all you want. NCAA investigated Nebraska because of that careless A hole but found nothing wrong. Im sorry he started an unethical practice when he went to go to UNC. Nothing Nebraska can do now.
February 26th, 2011 - 21:09
He started with Barry Switzer at Oklahoma, and he’s been at it every since. I was furious when they hired him, but I hoped he had turned a new leaf. I was wrong. As are you if you think he went all choir-boy in between burying Oklahoma and UNC in the NCAAA dog-house.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:02
Spurrier won 1 while at Florida and now he cant even win a west title at South Carolina while oversigning. He go his azz handed to him by Uconn 2 years ago in a bowl game. Funny stuff
February 21st, 2011 - 14:15
He just won the West this year.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:13
yes I know this. How long of oversigning did it take him to win the west? Exactly!
February 21st, 2011 - 15:21
Just a slight correction here USC won the SEC East title, they do not compete in the SEC West.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:44
Thanks, I missed that.
February 21st, 2011 - 08:44
I think you can safely add Pat Fitzgerald and Northwestern to the list — the man came out publicly and said he signed his limit, and that’s all he would sign….ditto all of the Big Ten, frankly.
February 21st, 2011 - 09:39
A little bit of clarification here: Osborne and Nebraska are 100% about what is best for Osborne and Nebraska, and could care less about anybody else. Ask any Big 12 or former Big 8 fan about the truthfulness about that.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:09
and ask the rest of the Big 12 who voted for the Big 12 title game being in Texas year after year who voted 11-1 against Nebraska. The Big 8 offices used to be in KC and the Big 12 title game used to rotate one year in KC and one in Tex but Neb lost that vote. Ask the rest of the Big 12 who voted against Nebraska 11-1 to create a Big 12 television network before the Big 10 or SEC ever even had it on their radar. Now look! The Texas 10 has the longhorn network to televise ALL Texas games. Its on record… Nebraska asked the Big 12 to commit to a Big 12 network and stop Texas from starting their own network and the would NOT do it. They only time there was any ground gained on this was when there were talks about Nebraska leaving. The Big 12 said we want a commitment from you Nebraska right now! Nebraska said we want a commitment from you to stop the longhorn network and make a Big 12 network and they wouldnt do it. Texas was shopping themselves out to the Pac-10 and SEC long before Nebraska and Mizz even got in the conversation. Texas was looking for a better deal while shopping their longhorn network out. SEE you later Big 12 that will implode in a couple years. Gerald before you spout out maybe you should have some claims to base it off of. You know nothing.
February 21st, 2011 - 13:23
Fact: The NCAA does not recognize the term “gray shirt” and cautions student athletes from accepting them:
http://www.dawgsports.com/2008/1/15/155239/437
February 21st, 2011 - 13:40
Good point, and one of the changes to the current rules that I think would benefit the kids greatly would be make the NLI bindind for that class only. Then create a seperate grayshirt NLI that explicitly states what it is and that the player is delaying his enrollment until the following year. The NCAA would then be recognizing the grayshirt – but the kids would better know what they are getting, which is a good thing to me.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:11
That is a great idea Catch 5. At least by then the kids would know what a grayshirt is about.
February 21st, 2011 - 14:57
Again the new rule nullifies the NLI if the school forces the player to grayshirt. I like that because it allows the player if anything malicious took place after they signed and then were told they would grayshirt they are no longer bound to that school. Otherwise the NLI starts the next January if the recruit delays their enrollment themselves and the school is still required to provide one year of aid as the rule stands now.
Actually if you want to stop schools from signing players to a NLI and then get force to grayshirt do not nullify it, make the school count that player for the incoming fall whether the player enrolls in August or January. The school would be than forced to not oversign a player because the option of grayshirting would no longer be available.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:17
It is fine and dandy that it nullifies it but it may be a little too late. By the time this happens the recruit really has already lost all their other options. I am not disagreeing with you though.
I think this is the first thing we have ever agreed on. Second paragraph. But the only problem here is proving what they were offered in the first place.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:30
I think to curve the practice of oversigning you attack it at is core. Eliminate sign and place by either not allowing a player to sign unless they qualify. Which I fail to understand why they can, but it would stop the placement by coaches into certian JUCOs or prep schools to create a farm system.
But if the current rule remains and they signed them, force the school to count them while at JUCO or prep school. Make the school be held accountable for recruiting and signing players that can not qualify. How many schools do you think would stop recruiting players who were high risk to not qualify.
Also I have seen many times players get placed into JUCO or prep and not make it back to the school that helped to pace them because they did not develop like the original school was hoping for and founf a better player to bring in. So if a player signs a NLI and then is placed at JUCO or Prep, not only does the school have count them because they failed to evaluate their classroom performance but are obligated to bring the player back for atleast one year as long as they meet the requirments to qualify.
It may be harsh but changing rules are one thing but holding schools accountable in a way that will force them to stop is what is needed to address some of the concerns on this site.
February 21st, 2011 - 15:43
Mike, this is one of the areas I don’t agree with you. Do you see this as a good thing? I think sometimes a kid needs some encouragement to raise his level. Knowing that a major school has interest in him could be the thing that makes him do what it takes to make something better of himself, and that is something that should never be discouraged. I don’t like the idea of making a school count players placed in JuCo against their current scholarships, but I do like the idea of making them take them when they do qualify for at least one year. That would only encourage the kid more.
February 21st, 2011 - 16:05
I guess I would like to see some data on the numbers of students who barely qualify and still garduate and the number that get signed and placed to see if and when they return how well they do towards getting a degree. If the data supprts they improve their academic success than maybe it is being a little to harsh.
I just see to many athletes at the HS level and college level getting a free ride becuase of their athletic ability. I am not trying to discourage any improvement but the if the motivation is only in relation to their athletic ability I do not see them becoming anymore successful in college. They may improve well enough to get qualified but I do not a long term effect here. Again my opinion only.
regarding the counting I think staff when evaluating should also look at their classroom ability. This gets way overlooked and many students fail to graduate because they were walked through the classes, took incompletes, or whatever until their eligibility was used up.
February 21st, 2011 - 17:53
Mike,
I do like your ideas here. As you stated there would need to be more research to determine if it’s feasible first.
February 21st, 2011 - 18:45
I would go one step further in that scenario – make the university in question that forces the grayshirt pay for the kid’s scholarship at his new school as long as he’s there. That adds up fast.
February 21st, 2011 - 19:13
I should have added that, because I completely agree with that. Not only are they held accountable for not evaluating their academic ability but held financially accountable.