High School Coaches Speaking Out
Well there goes the argument that nothing nefarious is going on with oversigning because otherwise we would hear High School coaches speak out and call out the schools that are wronging their kids. Walter Banks apparently felt that South Carolina, in an effort to reduce the oversigning they were projected to have, screwed one of his kids, Jordan Montgomery, by pulling his scholarship offer at the last minute without warning.
Josh Kendall, who covers South Carolina football for The State newspaper in Columbia, S.C., reported in a story that was published on Wednesday that Montgomery’s coach at South Lake High, has declared that the Gamecocks’ coaches are “no longer welcome” at the school.
“I cannot look a kid and their parent in the face and say you can trust what a University of South Carolina coach says,” South Lake coach Walter Banks told Kendall.
I’d provide a link to the story but all of The State’s online content is behind a pay wall. But if you’d like to read more about it I certainly think it’s worth it. Just go to GoGamecocks.com.
South Carolina is no longer welcome at South Lake High School because Walter Banks doesn't feel that a kid or his parents can trust a coach from the University of South Carolina, and the entire reason for that mistrust is because South Carolina coaches were engaging in the practice of oversigning, and as is often the case kids are getting screwed because of it.
South Carolina is not the only University that has lost the trust of High School coaches. Although Purdue pulling its offer from AJ King had nothing to do with oversigning, it shows that there is an increasing lack of trust between high school coaches and college coaches.
“They flew A.J. up there to Purdue, everybody wowed him, told him they loved him and all that,” said King’s high school coach, Sean Callahan. “Then, after he came home, they pulled him, without ever talking to our doctors, without ever talking to our trainers.
“It’s completely unprofessional. In all my years as a coach, I’ve never, ever seen something done to a kid like this.”
And Callahan’s letting ‘em know it. He’s banned Purdue from recruiting his high school.
What Purdue did was horrible, but it is not germane to the oversigning issue which is the focus of this site, and therefore has not been covered in detail. Purdue was not in a numbers crunch and the reason for pulling the offer does not appear to have anything to do with being oversigned and having to make numbers work; Purdue simply decided they didn't want to honor their commitment to King based on his injury and the way that they handled it was completely unprofessional and we're glad to see King's high school coach blast them for it.
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
March 3rd, 2011 - 21:23
Purdue could have handled this very easily. Had they not wanted to use one of their 85 scholarship roster on a kid they had health concerns, they could off him a medical exemption. If the kid want to continue to pursue his college football opportunity, he would be free to do so and Purdue would be giving the kid an opportunity at a great education.
First they had to just be honest with the kid. Shame
March 3rd, 2011 - 21:30
I am appalled that the first comment is not from a Purdue fan trying to rationalize and defend their actions by bashing the kid or his high school coach or claim that I am a writer with a bias against Purdue, instead it is from what I believe is a Penn State fan who sees Purdue’s actions for what they were, a shame.
March 3rd, 2011 - 21:45
How was this a product of oversigning when the player was never even signed? This was NOT a result of oversigning. This was a result of a coach accepting more verbal commitments than he could sign.
March 3rd, 2011 - 21:55
You’re kidding me right? You’ve been on this site for months and you still don’t get it do you? South Carolina was engaging in the practice of oversigning, that is well documented, but in an effort to try and minimize the total amount they were going over they pulled 2 scholarship offers at the last minute. Had they not been engaged in oversigning there would have been no need to pull scholarship offers from anyone and they could have held firm on their commitments to the kids they were recruiting. The practice of oversigning directly affected these two kids and if you can’t see that then there is no hope in trying to reset your moral compass.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:05
Vesper’s arguments have been systematically undermined by the participants themselves over the past month (Nutt, Petrino, UF Machen, Jay Paterno, Walter Banks, and so on) to such a degree that he is left with these absurd word games. Joshua, I would not even bother to respond. There is no need. Every week new developments occur and are reported that increases the moment of those who wish to restrict oversigning. Again, congrats on the excellent reporting and the significant impact your site has had in framing the conversation. Again, ignore Vesper, other than his absurd word games, he or she no longer brings anything to the conversation.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:23
It’s not a word game, it’s a relevant distinction. Yes, USC oversigned but that wasn’t the issue here. Let’s just suppose that USC had 0 returning scholarship players. They still would have had to tell Mauldin and Montgomery that they couldn’t sign NLI’s because USC’s issue was with the 28 signee limit, not the 85 man roster limit. The same thing could theoretcially happen at a Big Ten school.
If you don’t see the distinction, it’s ok. It’s subtle but important. Hell, even Texas_Dawg could see the distinction. The following quote could represent the first time I’ve ever agreed with him:
“Eliminating oversigning would change nothing about Mauldin’s situation” – Texas_Dawg
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:37
I notice that comes with no link.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:44
You need a link to your own post? Really? It’s in the Nutt, Petrino, and Spurrier all Defend Oversigning comments; about 10 comments down.
March 3rd, 2011 - 23:00
Texas_Dawg
February 25, 2011 at 6:12 PM
“Most likely, South Carolina never would have offered Mauldin, knowing that he wouldn’t qualify. They would no longer have the ability to gamble with numbers and purge when needed.”
google — Get The Picture, “we’ll see how it plays out down the road”
this site, “Nutt, Petrino, and Spurrier”
Texas_Dawg
March 1st, 2011 – 12:37
“Eliminating oversigning would change nothing about Mauldin’s situation.”
March 1st, 2011 – 18:00
“Mauldin doesn’t have fewer options.”
Apparently he’s either conflicted on the subject or evolving in his views.
Thanks for the post and courier tip. I know so much more about you now.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:38
Agreed. The guy’s a clown just trolling around on the internets.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:47
Says the guy responsible for numerous baseless personal attacks. I’m still waiting on either your links to my “well documented lies” or an apology. I’m beginning to believe that you are unwilling to back up your claims. Kind of like a troll, and it’s not Vesper.
March 3rd, 2011 - 23:01
Just claim to be a southern sports reporter. He’s under strict instructions to play nice with them now.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:12
The issue was not that they were oversigned, the issue was that they were overcommited. Schools are allowed to sign a maximum of 28 per class by NCAA rules. USC wanted to sign 32 and back-count 4. With Mauldin and Montgomery, USC was looking at 34 commitments which would have put them 2 over the 28 signee limit. So, they had to tell two recruits that they couldn’t sign. This exact same scenario could take place at a Big Ten school. It has nothing to do with the 85 man roster limit and everything to do with 28 signee limit. I’m not condoning what Spurrier did, just pointing out that this was not a product of oversigning.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:51
Could and does are distinctly different thing. One is theoretical and one is real world. Care to join?
March 3rd, 2011 - 23:02
If you want to stop incidents like what happened to Mauldin and Montgomery, then somebody better start brain-storming because adopting the Big Ten rule will do absolutely nothing to stop incidents like that from occuring. That real world enough you?
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:53
Still no article on Ohio State’s having to cut a player off of their team because of this same scenario? They were oversigned and needed to make room, but instead of withdrawing offers they kicked a third string offensive lineman off the team. Didn’t even help him find a school to transfer to. At least SEC schools do that.
March 3rd, 2011 - 23:23
Catch 5 — Sorry, but December and January suspensions and transfers in the Big 10 have nothing to do with creating signing space. Totally unrelated. And workouts intense enough to put kids in the hospital with a strength coach running around screaming, “We’ll find out who wants to be here” in the weeks leading up to signing day? Also total coincidence.
Bringing these issues under the “running kids off umbrella” would actually gather more moral momentum to Joshua’s cause and eliminate the regional overtones he’s halfheartedly trying to defuse. But having defined “oversigning” to mean only schools that lose players to transfers and suspensions between Signing Day and September, he conveniently cannot “lose focus.”
I’m still trying to decide whether that’s a genuine definitional blindness or something more calculated. TD’s crowd seems to be a group of genuine true believers, which explains how easily he slips into that mocking derisiveness even for people who acknowledge the problem but see other solutions as more advantageous to the Maulder’s of the world. It seems to be all black and white to him, both literally and figuratively. He’s the smartest, most ethical, and most enlightened guy in the room – just ask him.
March 4th, 2011 - 07:36
Catch 5, I agree with Tar Heel (congrats on your b-school rising to #8 in the BW Rankings). On a personal note, Wednesday my daughter told me that she became a business major at UNC and Thursday Kenan-Flagler jumps to 8th — good timing.
The issue is to address all processes, policies and behaviors by coaches and schools that treat the school’s flexibility as more important than the kids best interests. There is an umbrella concept of “oversigning” which will be practiced in different ways at different schools. Aggressively recruiting and influencing more players than you can sign and then fixing the problem by suspending players or “encouraging” players to transfer could be part of a strategy that is wrong for players, can be abused and should be condemned — just like medical hardships or grayshirting or parking the academically unfit at a JUCO. This is not a regional issue. PAC – 10 schools have complained about Oregon for years, Kansas State in the Big 12,
Cincinnati in the BE, Memphis in whatever conference it is in and so on. However, the Big Ten schools really do comparatively little –but they are fair game. I don’t see a plot, I believe that it just has evolved that the most ardent defenders of all practices in this area are fans of southern schools.
March 4th, 2011 - 11:18
Congratulations. My wife earned her masters in the accounting department, and we get invites to some of the alumni festivities at Kenan and the Friday Center. It’s something that your daughter can continue to be a part of the rest of her life.
When I get the fund-raising calls, I always make them listen to my “when I was an undergrad, we had to wait four days in the snow for tickets in the upper deck” geezer stories, just to be a friendly curmudgeon before writing a check. But then I heard they’re contracting that out now – the callers are no longer in-house undergraduates. Oh well.
As for ardent defenders being more Southern than most… I disagree. Joshua deliberately focuses on Nick Saban as the Face of Oversigning as He Defines It. I understand the persuasive strategy behind the move, but the net result becomes an “only in the SEC” focus that I think is WAY over the top – and I’m not an SEC fan. I completely understand why some of them get so uptight: “…certain areas because of a cultural mindset that believes it’s okay to treat student-athletes as pawns or pieces of meat….” ??? You gotta be kidding me. I’ve attended football and basketball games in the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big East, and Big 12 – fan behavior in some ACC, Big East, and Big 10 stadiums can be outright racist. Based on anecdotal personal experience, the in-stadium level of respect for the players as individual human beings tends to be strongest in SEC and Big 12 venues. It’s just more complicated than, “Well, those southern boys will tolerate anything so long as their team wins, but we Big 10 guys are better than that.” Um, no, they’re not. To use an analogy, it’s the same language everywhere, with regional dialects. I think people tend to assume that Harvey Updyke = average SEC fan. No, Tide for Toomers = average SEC fan. At least from my experience.
I’m a fan of a lot of different CFB blogs, which contain a surprisingly solid level of writing. Scipio Tex-Barking Carnival (Texas) penned an analysis the Texas running game three years ago that belongs in a Hall of Fame somewhere. At any rate, even on the SEC blogs – including Bama’s – most of the frequent contributors see a need. Rest assured, they think their guys are clean, but they easily the abuses at other programs. But they’ve tuned out this site simple because it cannot direct a disparaging word outside the SEC conference. Opportunity lost. I hope whatever was gained outweighs it.
March 5th, 2011 - 05:56
I received both my masters in Kenan-Flagler and this fall I return there to teach.
Also a good friend of mine has season tickets for the BBall games and gave us his tickets for the Duke game tonite. Will be heading out later for CH. GoHeels.
March 5th, 2011 - 10:46
Now that’s a FRIEND
March 4th, 2011 - 07:59
You bring up some really good points. One thing I would look at, however, is that the Big 10 has the lowest number of players signed of all BCS conferences, so if there was forced attrition taking place in gross numbers in December and January I think we would see that they would have a higher number of players signed over a period of time because regardless if you free up the spots in Dec/Jan or Feb/Mar you are still taking more than you should over a 4 year period because of the attrition. I am not saying that the possibility of it happening doesn’t exist or that if it does happens we should ignore it. All of that said, you bring up some very good points and I can assure that as new rules pass to try and curb oversigning, we will watching for changes in roster management. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, I always enjoy reading your posts.
March 4th, 2011 - 08:58
Point taken. No doubt that there are less “cuts” in the B10 than elsewhere. Are you saying that it’s ok as long as you are doing it less than other conferences? You know that if Alabama had done this (or when a player transfers over the summer) you would have lead your site with a dedicated post the next day. If you are against cutting kids from a team to make room for new recruits, then it shouldn’t matter if it was one or six. Wrong is wrong and you need to point it out everywhere – even on your own team.
This is a prime example of what myself, Bathel, Vesper and others have been saying about the B10 rule. It doesn’t solve the problem. It pushes it earlier in the year. The problem is that the students don’t have enough power in the process. Now, I’m not for shifting the balance of power as much as some – these are still kids and they need something that can be leveraged to help keep them in line, ie the scholarship, but more knowledge, more flexibility if they have been “cut” would be better than what we have now. Not sure how to get to that good balance, but grayshirt reform like what I have proposed (seperate offer that can be upgraded to current class – but not the other way), and possibly the 4-year scholarship would be a good start. The B10 rules don’t do it.
March 4th, 2011 - 09:55
You say the Big 10 rules don’t solve the problem, but I think the general consensus is that it does. In fact, I have it on pretty good authority that Georgia’s AD will be pushing hard for the SEC to adopt the Big 10 rules at the conference meetings. How do we know it solves the problem? In my opinion because we are not hearing stories from players and parents saying that they felt their kid was cut because of oversigning and because of the high retention rate of players in the B1G. Is the B1G perfect, absolutely not, but the SEC is so far in the other direction and there is so much abuse going on that you have to start somewhere and move the needle in the other direction. Here’s my position: let’s get this oversigning loophole closed and if we continue to see roster management abuse take place outside of the realm of oversigning then let’s address that next. You will never combat all of the abuses at one time or with one site; it has to be systematic.
March 4th, 2011 - 10:15
I hope GA’s AD has garnered support. I’m not saying he would be wrong in his position, but no one is going to like the “new” guy coming in and dictating to everyone else what they should and shouldnt be doing.
March 5th, 2011 - 02:19
McGariry came from Florida, I think. He’s got a new title, but I think he’s a familiar face. Popular? That’s a different question (I’m sure he is. Machen, though, might get some dirty looks).
March 5th, 2011 - 02:17
Serious question, since you’re the expert — What is a high rate of retention in the B1G, as you seem to reference it? Are the B1G’s getting 9 out of 10 signees to a degree? 8 out of 10? How does that compare to (pick your favorite target) Saban?
And thank you for reading. I know you’re busy.
March 4th, 2011 - 08:28
Link it, so I can become better informed.
March 4th, 2011 - 08:47
This is cut and paste from the last forum, so if some of the wording is a little off, that’s why…
March 4th, 2011 - 10:02
When Longo announced he was going to transfer my first thought was .. “Is he doing this because he’s frustrated about playing time or was he encouraged to transfer?” I do know that after every season the coaching staff sits down with every player and gives them an evaluation along with what they need to do to get better and how the coaching staff sees them fitting in the future. My guess with Longo is the conversation was something to the effect that, “Here’s what you need to do but we don’t think you will ever be a starter.”
One thing to consider is the Buckeyes only have 11 offensive linemen on scholarship and 1 is missing the first 5 games. Considering that they brought in 4 linemen in the 2011 class (most/all of whom will redshirt) they will only have 6 returning offensive linemen in the opening game. Given all that I really doubt the coaching staff pushed him off the team but it was his choice but I don’t really know.
I do think that this site is a bit jaded when it comes to Alabama transfers and doesn’t give Saban the same benefit of the doubt that it gives to Tressel. In fact ‘m sure that players are encouraged to transfer all the time in the Big Ten. Encouraging players to transfer isn’t against the rules and sometimes a change of scenery is beneficial to both parties. The key is open communication from the coaches to the players. My personal opinion is Saban is probably as open as Tressel in this regard which is why I have a bigger issue with coaches like Miles and Nutt.
March 4th, 2011 - 10:58
Big difference between being told you wont be a starter and you wont have a spot and need to transfer.
March 4th, 2011 - 11:03
Agreed. The problem you have is that no player has been told that they won’t have a spot and they need to transfer (at least from your favorite target, Alabama). This doesn’t stop you from assuming that they have, however and writing your opinions as if it were fact. This is the point I am trying to make with the OSU scenario. I don’t think anything wrong has occurred here, but if you looked at it honestly the same way you view Alabama, you can come to no different conclusion than Mr. Longo was cut.
March 4th, 2011 - 10:59
Exactly. That is the best, most honest post I have seen from a B10 fan. What you have posted here is exactly the point I have been trying to get across to others in your fanbase.
If, as you say and I totally agree, Saban operates much the same as Tressel in counseling his players on transfers and the such (nothing evil going on), then it comes down to the isolated instances like the Miles fiasco last year – I again agree with you there. Grayshirts are not evil. They are not immoral. They can be quite benefitual to both the student and the school (I’ve been over that in depth before so for brevity here, I’ll skip over it). The issue is how and when you inform the kid that he will/may need to delay enrollment. My proposal is to make the grayshirt a seperate LOI that can upgrade to a standard LOI but not the other way around. That way, a kid who signs in Feb knows exactly where he stands – noone will get told to move out of his dorm two weeks before football starts.
Again, the B10 rule does not fix the problem as OSU has just shown (I do agree with you, there is no reason to believe that the kid didn’t want to transfer – just like Bama transfers. This line is for discussion) as it doesn’t bar the school from cutting players or from oversigning. If the SEC adopted these rules, do you not think that Saban would still be oversigning the max allowed every year? The players that transfer from Bama over the summer will likely move to early spring instead. I would rather see something that helps the problem, not just rearranging the chairs. Of course the obvious should be stated that my perception of “the problem” is drastically different from Josh’s.
March 3rd, 2011 - 22:30
Typical of Spurrier, he can’t simply admit what he did was wrong, but he has to take a shot at one of the people he lied to, Walter Banks.
March 3rd, 2011 - 23:05
King’s scholarship offer was removed to make room for someone else they thought would be a better prospect. Proving this sort of thing can and will happen even with the Big 10 Rule in place. Seems germane to me.
March 4th, 2011 - 10:01
Yeah… considering verbals are non binding on both sides… I’m not sure where you can make any type of rule to stop this. However, I think it’s good for the media to blast them and get it out there so SC takes a black eye on it to help them make a better decision in the future… I just don’t know how could have prevented this…
March 4th, 2011 - 10:03
To add… I’d love to see the media get away from “verbals” I think this has hurt recruiting having rankings and media events to announce a verbal. If you want to allow it, give them an early signing period and make it binding… verbals, to me, seem to be nothing but trouble for both schools and kids.
March 4th, 2011 - 09:58
I’m not defending anything here… I do have a question…
Is accepting more verbals than you have room considered “oversigning” by this board or is it the acceptance of more NLIs than you have room the definition?
I know it’s a bit of splitting hairs… but don’t all school recruit more kids than they have room for, because they will not have 100% rate on NSD? I’m not sure what happened in this case, but is it fair to tell a kid he’s an “alternate” incase someone else changes their verbal or if he cannot get his grades/ACT/SAT score up before NSD? Honest questions here, not trying to stir it up…
Again, I’m not sure I know what happend here… AND I don’t agree with yanking a day before signing day… I just don’t know how you stop anything like this from happening. Verbals are non binding on both sides and things change on NSD on both sides….
I think it’s good the coach bans SC from recruiting at their HS now… but not sure that benifits or helps current juniors and seniors who may want to attend SC… Not sure what is good or bad in this case…. Give me your views.
March 4th, 2011 - 11:07
Take it a step further and look at the number of offers issued to players — I think you will find that oversigning schools offer way more than they have room from…for obvious reasons…but some schools go crazy with the offers, other schools play it close to the vest and only offer a few more. Perhaps that part of the recruiting process needs more reform.
March 6th, 2011 - 11:14
South Carolina last year offered something like 194 kids…. just sayin
March 4th, 2011 - 11:44
Be careful. I made a similar point at the top of the page and was basically told to stop being such an idiot. Funny, Josh accused me of “not getting it” because I said that this wasn’t a product of oversigning. Well, let’s look at how Josh defines oversiging on his “Definitions” page:
As I’ve pointed out, Mauldin and Montgomery weren’t allowed to sign NLIs because of the 28 signee limit not because USC was concerned about how far over the 85 limit it would put them. Even if USC had room on their 85 man roster for a signing class of 50 players, Mauldin and Montgomery would still not have been allowed to sign NLIs. The other contributing factor, as you pointed out, is the non-binding nature of verbal commitments. If a coach wants to accept 60 verbal commitments, then only send out 25 NLIs on NSD, then no rules prohibiting oversiging are going to stop him from doing that.
Josh has stated that he doesn’t like talking about other issues on this site because he wants to maintain a narrow focus on oversigning. That fine, but he shouldn’t feature a story about a coach’s inability to manage his verbal commitment numbers and try to sell it as a story about oversigning.
March 5th, 2011 - 09:26
the problem with these chronic oversigning schools is this, they are reckless in how many offers they put out there. Of course, every school offers more than they have room for because they are not going to have 100% success with each offer but are not as reckless as some of these oversigning schools are.
March 5th, 2011 - 09:57
That’s a broad accusation. What do you base it on?
I would agree that USC (1 school) was irresponsible in the number of verbal commitments that it accepted – not necessarily in the number of offers it made. But even if we agree that USC was irresponsible, how does this incident involving one school prove that all schools who oversign are wreckless with their offers? I don’t see verbal commitments of Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, etc… being told on NSD that they can’t sign.
March 5th, 2011 - 10:49
Didn’t SC have a huge “budget” to start with, relative to the definitions here?
I’m not quite sure how that works, and it certainly doesn’t justify leaving a kid at the alter, so to speak, if that’s what happened (I tend to believe the high school coaches, but I know enough of them to give SC’s version at least a touch of credence).
March 5th, 2011 - 16:35
USC and Arkansas are two off the top of my head. Petrino said he offers and tries to take 3-4 kids who he knows will not qualify so they feel a commitment to Ark. even after they are placed in JUCO. Thats reckless!
March 4th, 2011 - 17:22
I guess oversigning and the process of oversigning seems to be a problem to a competitive HS coach…..Add another one who is on board…..
March 5th, 2011 - 09:59
here is an article of a guy in Ann Arbor MI defending Spurrier….
http://www.mlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/03/steve_spurrier_right_to_critic.html
Also,
the writer on Husker Locker is also against oversigning so chaulk another one up.
http://www.huskerlocker.com/blogs/official/husker-heartbeat-34-oversigning-greed-vs-integrity-4456
March 5th, 2011 - 11:04
Lets not forget that “these kids” are not entirely innocent.
Many – if not most – of these kids know the recruiting game and play it to the max.
They verbally commit to one team. Then, they change their minds and commit to another school.
Nothing – repeat nothing – counts until a kid signs his name to a NLI – and then is admitted and enrolled as a student.
Any other way to look at this is puerile.
March 5th, 2011 - 18:38
no they are not! They have every right to choose where they want to go to school and if they want to change their mind I have no problem with it. The factor that separates the two is, 1. the athlete has the ability the school needs to make a ton of money for the university, if the athlete changes his mind, 2.the university will go on without them with very little recourse, 3. The athlete is a human being and the University is NOT! Its very simple. Protect one human being or protect the man? Gee I wonder.
March 5th, 2011 - 19:07
BetterRed: and your pont is?
The NCAA has established a book full of regulations to protect recruits.
Some of those who post here want universities to go beyond, to exceed, the regulations established by the NCAA.
And some of those who post here want universities to exceed the established rules because a few universites decided they wanted to impose additional rules on themselves.
Of course, no one forced these universities to chose this path; they did it because they wanted to.
Now, they want everyone to play by these self-imposed rules.
In another words: these few universities have decided that they have the right to make rules for everyone else, that their way is they”right” way.
This, BetterRed, is arrogance.
March 6th, 2011 - 02:29
“The NCAA has established a book full of regulations to protect recruits.
Some of those who post here want universities to go beyond, to exceed, the regulations established by the NCAA. And some of those who post here want universities to exceed the established rules because a few universites decided they wanted to impose additional rules on themselves.”
Can we end this nonsense please? I’d say even the most die hard opponents of oversigning aren’t saying that anyone is breaking the rules. They’re not even saying that teams should go beyond or exceed existing regulations.
They are arguing that current regulations are insufficient and need to be changed.
Now some, like Josh, point to individual coaches and examples of behavior to support this theory, but no one is saying that what Saban or Miles or anyone else is doing is against the rules, nor are they saying that they should go above and beyond the rules.
So can we move past this point in the debate? To even bring up the fact that they aren’t breaking rules or to state that a team shouldn’t have to exceed the established rules is to miss the point completely.
No team in the SEC or any other conference is breaking the rules.
Every team has every right to take advantage of existing rules to gain the highest advantage.
I agree with this. And I’d say most reasonable people also agree with this.
Where I believe we differ is this: I believe that a team can be within the existing rules and make decisions where an obvious conflict of interest exists with an individual player. I also believe that the balance of power between the team and the player is tilted heavily in favor of the team.
Because of this power imbalance which I allege, I purport that the rules should be altered accordingly.
You may disagree with me. In fact, I’m assuming you do. But let’s finally put to rest that anyone is being accused of breaking rules, or that teams should be expected to go above and beyond the requirements of the existing rules. I’m not saying that, and I’d assume that even the owner of this website isn’t saying that.
What I’m saying is that the balance of power between university and player is heavily tilted in favor of the university. This wouldn’t matter if the principal purpose of a university was to win football games, but it isn’t. Specific purpose may vary from institution to institution, but it’s fair to say that most universities have research, teach, and academic pursuits as its highest value.
Consequently, I believe that it’s only fair that a more equitable balance between university and the individual player exist.
And I can hold that opinion while also defending Saban and Nutt from any accusation that what they are doing is against the rules.
March 6th, 2011 - 02:46
and you feel that…. but I dont. They are CURRENTLY not breaking any rules because there is what is called a LOOPHOLE! The loophole has been stated many times on this site and there is no need to go into any further detail on the matter. It is unethical and it is taking advantage of the recruit the recruits parents ignorance. It will be against the rules soon enough.
Auburn seems to think paying a recruits father a sum of money to get his son to play for the university is not ‘against the rules’ but it is. Reggie Bush didnt think so either.
March 6th, 2011 - 02:55
BR…not sure if you caught it from my post. I’m steadfastly against the practice of oversigning.
March 5th, 2011 - 19:22
I guess, according to you I didnt have one. My point is to protect the individual because alot of Universities will do whatever it takes to win. A coach makes millions of dollars and a student gets and education not worth NEAR a million.
March 5th, 2011 - 19:44
BetterRed: As I wrote, protecting student athletes is the responsibility of the NCAA, not the Big Ten.
I don’t know the value you place on your college education, but I wouldn’t trade mine for a million bucks.
March 6th, 2011 - 02:15
i wouldnt trade mine….but its not worth the money these athletes make for their universities with the risk they take!
March 6th, 2011 - 08:10
“protecting student athletes is the responsibility of the NCAA, not the Big Ten.” Wrong, dead wrong — utterly and completely fails to understand the relationship of member institutions and the NCAA. The NCAA is nothing more than a group of universities. One part of the body strongly believes that another part is abusing a set of policies and violating the spirit of the policies which were implemented by the agreement of both parts. Self- regulation is a key component of the NCAA and is mentioned throughout its bylaws. Of course member institutions should point out specific abuses by other members. In fact, they have a moral obligation to do so. If there is a disagreement over how rules are enacted, after the issue is brought to the attention of the wider NCAA community, member institutions have two avenues: moral suasion to change minds and legislation to change the rules to specifically address the problem. I believe that schools that are anti-oversigners are following both avenues — for which I cheer them on.
March 6th, 2011 - 16:07
I got a name for you. His name is Chris Bonds. The kid had a season ending knee injury his senior year in high school before he signed his NLI. Guess what happened to him? He is a current football player for Nick Saban at the University of Alabama. Nick Saban honored his scholarship offer, despite his knee injury, and Bonds accepted it. And guess what? He’s still on the team! Let’s not mention this because it goes against what this site claims Nick Saban to be. Do the google search for yourself on Chris Bonds. See for yourself.
March 6th, 2011 - 18:14
this is common practice with many of the coaches across the country so there is nothing out of the ordinary here.
March 6th, 2011 - 18:12
BetterRed: I agree; your education probably isn’t worth the money that athletes make for the university they attend.
Rich: I agree that self-regulation is the most important part of the regulating of recruiting, but the NCAA establishes the rules and punishes violations. If the members of the NCAA decide that rules need to be changed, fine. If member institutions believe another school is violating the rules, report the violation to the NCAA. But if I haven’t read one word here that contends that the universities who “oversign” are violating NCAA rules. The complaint seems to be that some schools do not like the practices – completely within the rules – of other schools. And those schools who are unhappy want everyone to abide by an arbitrary set of sanctions (completely outside the rules) that they have devised.
In other words, the unhappy are saying: what you’re doing may be legal, but we don’t like it and insist that you play by our rules.
March 7th, 2011 - 00:12
“In other words, the unhappy are saying: what you’re doing may be legal, but we don’t like it and insist that you play by our rules.”
You’re close.
I’m saying that what you’re doing may be legal, but I don’t like it and insist that the AUTHORITIES change and enforce a new set of rules.
The audience for this website isn’t to Spurrier, Miles, Saban, Nutt. It’s not to SEC fans, despite the fact that it evokes a likely reaction from them. No one here is saying “We expect you, the coaches at Auburn, to behave differently because we demand it.”
The advocacy here is aimed at the university presidents, SEC executives, and the NCAA, attempting to demonstrate that the current rules and current practices inherently put the coaches and universities in a position which practically invites unfair treatment to recruits and players.
You may agree. You may disagree. But I’m not demanding that Spurrier change his ways just because *I* or anyone else says so. I’m demanding that the president of USC, the SEC leaders, and the NCAA, really ask themselves if this is the way they want their universities to be operating.