New SEC Proposal on Oversigning and Roster Management

Details of the new SEC legislation proposed by Mike Slive are starting to come out.  The Athens Banner-Herald has obtained a copy of the new legislation aimed to curb some of the abuses that have been rampant in the SEC over the last several years.  Actually, these abuses have been taking place as far back as Bobby Dodd's time in the 1960's when GT was a member of the SEC before leaving the conference because the conference refused to address the roster management issues and oversigning.  Here is what has been made available to the public:

  1. Limiting the size of a football signing class in each academic year to 25, down from the current level of 28.  The 25 limit would cover those who sign from Dec. 1 to August 1.

  3. Making football signees who attend summer school on athletic aid before the fall semester count against a school's scholarship numbers for that next academic year.

  5. Giving the SEC office more oversight in medical scholarship exemptions to review and determine outcome for cases. A team doctor, trainer and athletic director would need to sign off on each case.

  7. Keeping early enrollees from signing an SEC financial aid agreement until they are enrolled and attend class at the school. Currently, recruits can begin to sign a financial aid agreement after their junior year of high school, which keeps other SEC schools from recruiting them.http://staugustine.com/sports/2011-05-24/oversigning-secs-football-priority

This is definitely a comprehensive  package covering more areas than just oversigning, but the proposed legislation that addresses oversigning is still lacking and does not address the root of the oversigning issue.  The current SEC rules allow for 28 recruits to be signed between February and May 31st; the new rule is 25 between December 1 and August 1.  Neither of them address the 85 limit, which is the core issue.

This is nothing more than more window dressing, unfortunately.  Slive and the SEC are still hung up on the annual signing numbers and the 25 limit for an incoming class.  The root of the oversigning problem is the 85 limit, not the 25 annual limit.  What good is a limit set at 25 when a school only has 16 scholarship spaces available???  It is worthless at stopping oversigning. 

The current Big 10 rules are based on the 85 scholarship limit first, then the 25 annual limit.  If a Big 10 school has 16 scholarships available, they can accept up to 19 signed letters of intent, but there's a catch.  The school has to petition the Big 10 office for permission to accept those 3 extra signed letters of intent and they have to explain why they are going over.  But there's more, before they petition to accept the oversigned letter of intent, they have to petition for permission to issue a written offer that is over the 85 limit.   That's right, the Big 10 office controls the number of offers the school can issue and just like the number of signed letters of intent a school can accept, Big 10 schools are only allowed to offer 3 more scholarships than they have room for under the 85 limit.   So despite the NCAA allowing a school to sign and bring in 25 new players each year, if a Big 10 school has room for 16 new recruits the most they will be allowed is 19 by the Big 10 office and the three extra have to be documents. 

If you think those rules are tough, prior to 2002 there was no waiver to go over the 85 limit.  That changed when in 2002, Gerry DiNardo, having spent time coaching at LSU and realizing the advantage of oversigning, was hired at Indiana where he inherited a repeated roster and started lobbying for the oversigning waiver.  DiNardo got his wish and the oversigning waiver was accepted into the Big 10 rules, but he was later fired from Indiana after a few years and never being able to turn the program around.

The net result of the Big 10 measures on oversigning is that there is very little oversigning in the Big 10.  Associate Commissioner, Chad Hawley, says that despite the option to oversign by 3 that very seldom do schools petition for the oversigning waiver.  In fact, according to Hawley, only 1 Big 10 school oversigned this year.

The bottom line is that this appears to be just more window dressing -- Slive is reducing the number from 28 to 25, but he is increasing the window from Dec 1. to August 1.  His legislation, at the end of the day, does not address the root of the problem, going over the 85 limit, and any legislation that does not address the potential for a coach to sign 8-10 guys over the 85 limit is severely lacking.  Scholarship and roster numbers fluctuate every year, some years a school will have room for 25 other years they will have room for 16, the rules on signing players need to work in accordance with that fluctuation.

We'll have more on the rest later.

Filed under: SEC Leave a comment
Comments (84) Trackbacks (1)
  1. I assume Slive has invited all the media (including yourself) to sit in on these meetings so that you can let them know which measures you find to be adequate and which ones you don’t?

  2. Associate Commissioner, Chad Hawley, says that despite the option to oversign by 3 that very seldom do schools petition for the oversigning waiver. In fact, according to Hawley, only 1 Big 10 school oversigned this year.

    According to your earlier blog entry back in March, he stated that he was only aware of one school that oversigned at that time, but the Big Ten would take an official inventory after the signing period ends. Have you followed up with the Big Ten, if so, what was their response? I’m quite curious since there are indications that as many as 8 schools from the conference oversigned this year.

    Whenever discussing the Big Ten’s incorporation of the +3 allowance, you never fail to mention Jerry DiNardo and LSU. While it’s true that he pushed for the change, it’s as if you are trying to transfer the responsibility for that decision to the SEC somehow. Is it not true that the rule change was approved by the 11 Big Ten presidents? Did Jerry DiNardo hold a gun to their heads? Could not the Big Ten presidents get together today and repeal the +3 oversigning rule if they wanted to?

    • Yes I have, they are telling me only 1 school went over. The period is not closed yet though, but to date just one per the B1G office.

      • Do you believe them?

        According to Hawley, the Big Ten relies on the member institutions to notify them of the number of scholarships that are available. The entire system relies on this number as a starting point. Do you think that some Big Ten schools might include scholarships that they expect to become available due to transfers and medicals announced sometime after NSD as opposed to limiting their accounting to the number of scholarships available on NSD?

        • That’s an excellant point. Vesper has revealed many B10 teams that have oversigned this year – providing evidence to this end. All we get from Hawley is that one (unnamed school) team has oversigned so far. What is this about the period not being closed? Are B10 teams not oversigned until later in the summer? That is not how you evaluate SEC teams, why the double standard? By this same definition, I imagine that many more SEC teams will not be oversigned by the end of the period. If B10 teams are depending on attrition to get under the 85 limit, that is worse than Bama having guys agreeing to grayshirt, then moving them to the current class when attrition occurs.

          • Simple, the signing period is still open, a school with 85 commitments (returning players + signed letters of intent to use rough terminology) could still sign a kid now and cut someone. That is why they wait until the end of the period. What they are tell me is that at to this point, only one school has oversigned. You’re grasping at straws here.

            • No, as you point out in your own cup standings:
              OSU is oversigned by 2,
              Penn St is +1
              Michigan St is +4
              and as Vesper has shown:
              Purdue is oversigned by 3
              Wisconson was at +1 until the recent transfer

              How am I grasping at straws to question the B10 when they say they only have one team? Where is their information, and why is it not being asked for?

          • Am I afforded the same privilege of not believing SEC coaches that you freely take in not believing Hawley? Just curious if it cuts both ways or if you want your cake and eat it too.

            • Am I afforded the same privilege of not believing the Big Ten office that you freely take in not believing SEC coaches?

            • Actually, no.

              All I’m asking for is the same critical eye you use against those SEC coaches be used against the B10. I’m not saying they are lying – he probably isn’t – but you know darn well that this would be your front page article if it were Saban and he were refusing to give his detailed numbers…oh wait that was front page, more than once I believe.

              The fact of the matter is that your “cup standings” are based on a bunch of assumptions, and as Saban pointed out (again in a quote featured on your main page) you don’t know who is on scholarship and who isn’t. You portray your standings as relevant data, then psudo- and want-to-be-journalists pick it up and use it as fact and complete data. Then, when someone you support (Hawley) contradicts your data, no questions are asked – or at least no criticism is raised to the discrepency. If your numbers are wrong for half of the B10, where roster numbers are supposed to be free and easy for everyone to access, how do we begin to trust anything you have produced for SEC teams, where they shroud everything behind their evil, black veils?

        • No I don’t, I believe the conference office is lying to me because they are trying to cover up their oversigning. That was a serious question, right?

          • Do you not see how this makes you look? You’ve branded yourself as the champion for the anti-oversigning cause. You treat any attempt to explain or justify oversigning with extreme skepticism…as long as it’s coming from an SEC coach or supporter. Yet when your own Oversigning Cup standings indicate that multiple Big Ten schools oversigned, you totally discount them and default to whatever the Big Ten office tells you in secret correspondence. No follow up questions. No attempts to get to the bottom between the discrepencies between your own numbers and that of the Big Ten. Just blind faith in the Big Ten office. Your campaign isn’t against oversigning; it’s against the SEC.

          • Vesper, he plainly says here that he doesn’t believe them, so your criticism is a bit off the mark here. If you don’t believe them, where is your article calling them out? Why do you continue to reference the data they supplied when you question it? It seems to me that Hawley is giving you the projected numbers (with Ohio St being the oversigned team – they announced one grayshirt at or just after signing day) and allowing his teams to let the numbers work themselves out – or allowing the coaches to count guys that are going to transfer but haven’t announced yet. I don’t have a problem with that mind you, but that is not how you have defined the term, nor is it any different than the way the SEC operates.

            If you truly don’t believe them, call them out on it, and not just here in the comments. Write them, call them, and put it up on your front page. We all know you would do the same if a team like Alabama tried to hide its numbers…


        • Really? You’re counter proposal is that the big 10 schools lie to the big 10 conference, or that the big 10 conference is out there hiding oversigning?

          • Cause no Big Ten coach would lie to avoid getting in trouble. Nope. Oh wait…

            I’m not claiming anyone’s lying per se. I’m pointing out that none of us have actually read the Big Ten rule, none of us know the specifics of the reporting requirements, and none of us know what, if any, loopholes are in place that allow Big Ten schools to avoid being labeled as oversigners in the eyes of the Big Ten office even though they are oversigned by the criteria established by this website. Everyone thinks that Saban is hiding something by not releasing his scholarship numbers. Well, what is the Big Ten hiding by not making public its rules on oversigning?*

            *As far as I know they haven’t been made public. I’ve been unable to find them at any rate.

            • I can’t tell if you are serious or not. Didn’t you see the associate commissioner’s Q&A? Are you suggesting he is lying about the B1G rules?

              There are no loopholes in the B1G rule. Thats the point. Here is another link that simply reconfirms what Chad Hawley said. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

              Unless what you are saying is that all the members of the big 10 are involved in a conspiracy to hide their numbers from each other and the rest of the conferences….


              • What do you mean when you say there are no Big 10 loopholes? The SEC is being lambasted for oversigning, but the Big 10 is given a pass… because they technically haven’t oversigned yet… because the signing period isn’t over. So basically, it sounds like the Big 10 has until the end of the signing period to force attrition.

                • No. If you read chad hawley’s comments, the B1G school has to notify the office WHENEVER they offer a commitment. Thus you need to document who is on scholarship, and who is leaving. You can only over-offer by 3. This prevents a coach from trying to say, sign a new person and cut a student, because he would have to have documented proof of why said “cut” student was leaving.

                  • Sounds like a loophole. What’s your definition of a loophole? “Over-offer by 3″ allows Big 10 schools to oversign by 3. If the point of the rule is to prevent oversigning, then there is a huge, gaping, glaring LOOPHOLE.

                  • Also… they’re not technically oversigned YET because the reporting period is not over. They can encourage players to transfer before the reporting period and still not be oversigned. That sounds like another fantastic loophole. Sure they have to report that someone transferred… which is what they did with Longo, but that doesn’t prevent it from happening.

              • And I can’t tell if you’re being intentionally difficult or not.

                Yes, I’ve read Hawley’s Q&A, but there is no way whatsoever that you could determine from that interview that there are no loopholes in the Big Ten rule. The only way to determine that would be to read the actual rule.

                Since you seem so well versed on the rule, perhaps you can answer the following questions for me:

                1. Big Ten schools must report to the conference office the “number of scholarshps available”. What is the deadline for reporting this information (see #5c below)?

                2. Would any of the following be reported as an available scholarship:
                a. A player who makes it known before NSD that he is interested in or has decided to transfer after the spring semester
                b. A 5th year senior who makes it known that he is interested in or has decided to not return for his last year of eligibility but wants to continue to be a part of the team throughout the spring semester
                c. A player who has petitioned to the NCAA for a 6th year of eligibility due to injury
                d. A player whose career has ended due to inury but wants to continue to be a part of the team for the spring semester

                3. The Big Ten rule limits the number of written scholarship offers that a school can extend. However, Big Ten teams typically will extend more verbal offers than written offers.
                a. How is a Big Ten school able to offer a scholarship verbally that they are prohibited from offering in writing by their conference office?
                b. What if a players who has a verbal offer only commits?

                4. One of the Big Ten’s classifications for attrition is “Nonrenewal-graduate (SA’s who are not renewed because they graduated)”. If a player graduated but had year(s) of eligibility remaining and the school opted to not renew his scholarship, would that fall into this category and would it be acceptable in the view of the Big Ten office?

                5a. Josh stated above that “The period is not closed yet though, but to date just one [school has oversigned] per the B1G office.” What is the Big Ten’s period with respect to this issue?

                5b. Since the NCAA’s signing period ended a month ago, wouldn’t all the schools have already reported their signing information?

                5c. Are they allowed to shed current players after NSD, then report their roster/signing numbers?

                I’ve also got a lot more questions about the peer reviews and “sunshine”, but this will do for now.

                • Almost all the items you have in here can be found in the Q&A.

                  1. Not sure the frequency of this. But it is clearly stated before signing day.
                  2. This is all in the Q&A.
                  3. This is often an informal offer, usually to non high school seniors. You can’t give written offers to anyone
                  4. That’s in the q&a. If they graduate early and decide not to play they aren’t counted against.
                  5. Sometimes walk ons get scholarships in the big 10. These are usually awarded after spring practice. They aren’t allowed to shed scholarship players.

                  • First of all, let me make sure we are talking about the same Q&A. I’m referring to this one: http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2011/03/11/chad-hawley-on-how-the-big-10-monitors-oversigning/

                    Is this the same one that you’re referring to? I ask because that Q&A doesn’t contain any of the details that you claim that is does. It looks to me like your answers are based on assumption rather than anything that Hawley said. If I’m wrong, feel free to quote applicable portions of the Q&A that answer the specific questions that I asked.

                    • Yes, that is the case.

                      1. In the first section

                      quote: I think I may have explained this previously, but in case I haven’t, our rule is triggered by the offer of aid, not the acceptance on the part of the prospect.

                      Reread the article. There is no deadline. The big 10 is required to submit the data whenever they extend an offer to a prospective student athlete… all of the answers to your questions are right there…

    • You need to ask that big ten commish why if oversigning is such a big problem, why are the APR ratings for the SEC and the MIGHTY SMART big ten almost the same…. You would think if they were just throwing away players in the SEC then their grades would mean little to the schools or coaches… As with everything with oversigning their are two sides two every story…..

  3. So now you’re against incremental, one-step at a time, manageable change?

    You’re right — this doesn’t really address the practice of coaches recruiting kids that they hope can replace other kids who don’t work as hard or pivot as cleanly as they had originally hoped. No policy does – or can.

    I just don’t get your fascination for the Big 10 rule. It doesn’t generate a higher conference APR. The Big 10′s average of 956 is one point higher than the SEC’s and one point lower than the ACC’s. It doesn’t prevent Iowa from losing 66 of the 157 (42%) kids they signed from 2002-2008 prior to what should have been their senior year. Iowa signed an average of 22.5 kids a year during that period that we know of (probably had a few more that did not make the Rivals/Scouts lists). How do they stay at 85? Lots and lots of redshirts, a few extra late signees that never make the news, and a couple of walk-ons.

    If the B1G rules do not create a higher APR (and they don’t), and if they don’t prevent coaches from running off players (and they don’t), then what’s the point of them?

    What I see proposed by the SEC accomplishes roughly the same thing as the B1G rules — providing the conference some PR insulation.

  4. I’m disappointed in the harsh reception these proposals have received here. I like them quite a lot. Do they absolutely eliminate oversigning? No. But you have to keep in mind: This is the SEC we’re talking about. As this site has dutifully noted, the SEC has been the wild west of oversigning for decades upon decades. I think it’s foolish to expect them to do anything other than take baby steps towards progress, which is what these proposals represent.

    You can’t turn a whore house into a convent over night. A lot of mattresses have to be burned and floors bleached in between. Provided these measures are approved, I commend them for getting started.

    But I guess I’m more of a glass half full kind of guy, at least compared to Josh. As much of a joke as the rule of 28 was, at least it’s very existence represented an acknowledgement on the SEC’s part that things had gotten out of hand. And out of that acknowledgment grew the impetus for these proposals we see today. Who’s to say where we’ll be 2 or 3 years from now? All I see is progress. Perhaps it’s not enough to satisfy hardliners, nor myself to a lesser extent, but the fact is that significant gains in the rights of student athletes will come of this.

    Thanks to these proposals, there will never be another Elliot Porter situation in the SEC. That seems like something worth celebrating to me.

  5. Although…I do think the medical hardship proposal is about as silly as the 28 rule was.

    On the surface, it sounds good: “Three professionals will have to sign off on it and the SEC must approve it.”

    But then you stop to think about it, and it adds up to nothing. The team physician, trainer, and athletic director at University Z are all going to be loyal to the coaching staff and are highly unlikely to overrule them. And once it moves on to the SEC office after being signed off on by everybody at University Z, there’s not a chance the conference does anything but rubber-stamp it because of liability issues. If the University says a kid can’t play anymore, but the SEC says, “No, he can still play, you have to keep him,” and then the kid ends up getting severely injured (or worse), guess who that’s coming back on…the SEC.

    So that’s a laugh. As are similar proposals I’ve seen here and elsewhere that there should be some sort of NCAA oversight committee for medical hardships. Too much liability for whoever is conducting the oversight.

    • Also, remember that the student-athlete also signs off on the medical hardshp. So the doctor states that in his opinion the player can no longer participate, the student agrees, then what? The commish disagrees and overturns it? No chance.

      • Jay’s statement that a doctor is going to “do what a coach says” is ludicrous, and hardly even worthy of response. If my boss tells me I have to break the law and put myself in jeopardy of going to jail unless I do so, then I will probably just leave this job. Doctors don’t falsify reports on an athlete’s health because a coach told them to. Get real.

        • It’s not just any doctor. It’s the team doctor. If you don’t think team physicians would put their ethics in check to appease the head coach, or whoever, I don’t know what to tell you. Happens all the time. Beyond the monetary gain they receive for working for the team on the side, most of them are grads and/or huge marks for the teams they work for and will go-along-to-get-along in order to keep that “prestigious” association.

          Not that this would even be “breaking the law” anyway, and certainly wouldn’t land you in jail.

          It’s also worth noting that I think fraudulent medical hardships are probably far more rare than this site would have you believe.

          • If you have any evidence of this “happening all the time”, I suggest you report it to the AMA, and that physician will have his license revoked. He may not go to jail, but his life will be ruined, and I too find it hard to believe that anyone would do it. Sure it’s possible, but if you can show it to be true, he deserves it.

          • No I do not think they would do that. One of Alabama’s team doctors happens to be James Andrews. I don’t know if Dr. Andrews has ever signed off on a medical release, but I would venture he has. But no matter. Whether it’s Andrews or some other doctor, it is not worth risking your whole career to falsify a medical release. It isn’t me who’s being naive here.

            • With all due respect, I think you guys either don’t understand how this process works or are not understanding me clearly.

              I am not suggesting that team physicians are giving these kids fake diagnoses or falsifying medical records to make injuries/illnesses seem worse than they are in order to get kids medically DQ’ed. It’s actually much simpler than that.

              Once a kid has an injury/illness, all it really takes after you have the documentation is for the physician to sign off that in his medical opinion the player shouldn’t play anymore. I forget the actual terminology the NCAA requires, but it’s appropriately nebulous and relative, making it virtually impossible to prove malfeasance even if you wanted to.

              Like I said, I don’t think this is actually that prevalent at all, and admittedly of the 3 team representatives, the physician is the most likely of them to object to any funny business since his livelihood is least connected to on-field success, but it is easily done and fairly laughable as a check on medical hardship abuse to schools with a mind to do it.

          • Do you even have any idea who the team doctor is for Alabama? Do a google search on James R. Andrews, M.D. and then tell me he’s going to falsify a report…

            • Oh, dear. It appears I’m responsible for this topic’s mandatory Inconsequential Tangent Thread.

              Andrews isn’t Alabama’s team doctor, by the way. He’s actually more closely associated with Auburn than Bama. He or his associates do most all of Bama’s orthopedic stuff because…well, he does everybody’s orthopedic stuff.

              Anyway, I don’t know why some of you are trying to get all defensive about Alabama over this. Definitely was not the point. Reflex maybe?

              • No, the point is that to think the Doctor’s are in the coaches pockets and do what they tell them is just, well for lack of a better term… stupid. I was an athlete underscolarship at Alabama and I was an athleteic trainer at Auburn… I can say from my experience, the doctors are not doing this…

                Furthermore, even if they sign the medical (the players), they are only ending their playing career at that University… they are free to go out to any other school they can find that will clear them to play. The only thing the medical does is afford that player the use of scholarship to finish his education at that University. He’s/She’s fully allowed to leave and seek any other University that would be willing to clear them to play their sport. There is nothing EVIL about a medical, and personally… I’d tend to err on the side of caution and give out more of the medicals than are given out today.

                • This is why I don’t participate here much. I don’t even know what that last paragraph has to do with anything, at least not anything I’ve been talking about.

                  • Jay,

                    The last paragraph isn’t directed at your post. It’ directed at anyone reading it that may not understand what a medical hardship is. There are plenty that read this forum that still think medical hardship is a medical reshirt… It’s just there to make clear what we are talking about and what options the player has. It’s not an attack against you, at least that was not my intention.

              • Also, Dr. Lemak is Auburn’s team doctor… although they too use Andrews as a consultant.

                Alabama has a team of doctors they use. Dr. Jimmy Robinson, Dr. Craig Buettner, and Dr. Jeff Laubenthal are all day to day field docs… They also use Dr. Les Fowler as their main orthopedist (do a google on him too). Although, I would say a lot of the heavy lifting is done by Andrews. He is the Senior Consultant for for the Universty’s Athletic department and most, if not all medical hardships would go through him. Dr. Fowler is used on a day to day basis for immediate injury, but Andrews is used most major injuries and as follow up to any injuries Fowler may see on a day to day basis. Both Fowler and Andrews are well know in the medical field and I wouldn’t for one second thing either of them would risk their reputation on “pushing” a kid off the team via medical…. and believe me, they are not scared to stand up to Nick or any other staff member to voice their thoughts.

                • Oh, I also forgot Dr. Goodlett for Auburn… He would be considered the Field doctor they use… a good guy too!

                • I just don’t understand why you’ve switched over into DEFEND ALABAMA mode. I never said a thing about Alabama. If Bama has a team of ultra-scrupulous doctors who would never round a square edge, that’s excellent. I have no idea. But you better believe that’s not the case everywhere.

                  • I only use Alabama and Auburn as a example because I have personal experience with both teams and doctors. I think if you look around the SEC and most major college teams, you’ll find that the main doctor/s that would be looking at a medical are all well respected doctors that have much more at stake than being a university athletic doctor consultant… it may not be the case 100%, but in general I can’t see the doctors being the weak link in the chain.

                    The idea of the medical abuse rules is a hard one… the reason being, again in my mind, is that we should err on the side of the doctor. I really don’t have any issues with medicals being given out. I have yet to see one that I wouldn’t consider valid.

                    So when you say, It’s not just any doctor. It’s the team doctor. If you don’t think team physicians would put their ethics in check to appease the head coach, or whoever, I don’t know what to tell you. Happens all the time.Eventhough you say it’s more rare than this site would have you believe… I get a bit defensive, be that a good thing or not…

                    • Just to clarify on that last part: When I said “happens all the time,” I was referring to the more general practice of team physicians putting their ethics on hold to appease coaches, which encompasses numerous things both great and small, not specifically medical hardship abuse, which I do think is very rare. I can see how maybe that wasn’t worded clearly.

      • Vesper: I was focusing more on how farcical these “checks and balances” were, but, yes, you’re absolutely right. When you factor in that the athlete has to sign off on it, too, it gets even sillier.

        The only way this oversight would be meaningful is if the player has a right to appeal to the conference that he’s being forced out, but I don’t see that anywhere in the proposal. And even in that case, I’d imagine the conference would side with the team 99% of the time due to the liability issue.

        • Call it the Machen Clause. If the conference has signed off on it, then anyone official popping off about it can get fined a serious amount of money.

          The specter of conference review adds something to the process. Maybe not a lot, but something. If Saban’s doing what people accuse him of doing — bullying doctors and players into unsubstantiated medical declarations — then he at least has to know that some supporting documentation and evidence will be required and that outside parties will require professionals to go on record with their opinions. So it actually does, in my opinion, seriously blunt anyone intent on abusing this loophole and abusing it frequently. It also seriously hinders critics, which certainly must be the main purpose for it.

          As everyone has noted, you really can’t add much more without creating more headaches than you’re solving.

          • Or, you can limit them to one every year/every other year. Medical Greyshirts are supposed to be used for things like breaking a neck, cancer, etc. Not “quality of life” issues.

            • Are you for real, dude…. It is called medical red shirts… Greyshirts is a name for players on delay enrolment nothing more nothing less…. I guess you are against greyshirting, please let be…

            • Ahhh. Because chronic knee pain and degenerative back conditions are so predictable.

              I don’t know if you’re checking headlines recently, but the long-term health of the players has become a huge issue. The game literally takes decades off the life of NFL players, and the SEC games I watch don’t look much milder. Anyone stumping for a hard cap or a “wow, look at the limp on that guy” medical standard simply has no clue what a physical toll the game takes.

              And how would Iowa handle a situation like their rhabdo outbreak? That ended Lowe’s career at Iowa – they’re lucky they didn’t have to put more players on the shelf.

              I not only think a “quality of life” standard’s acceptable – I think it’s the more ethical standard. Football’s notorious for pressuring guys to play hurt and for players taking silly risks. We need to be moving in the other direction.

              • It would appear that the Vice President of Development and Communications at the United States Sports Academy agrees with you:

                All young football players think they can “play through the pain” and perform some heroic play which will seal their legends forever in the minds of the alums of dear old alma mater. Physicians will tell you that this kind of thinking only produces further injury, which leads to life-long discomfort or agony if not properly respected.

                This is the real purpose of the medical scholarships – to save young athletes from potentially crippling injuries while still guaranteeing that their educations will be paid for through a scholarship. The generosity is undeniable.


              • Yeah, I don’t know why quality of life wouldn’t be a concern. In fact, quality of life should be a chief concern for most of these kids who aren’t going to make the NFL and won’t have that big time money to pay for their medical bills if they end up with some sort of degenerative condition based on their college playing days.

                There are many times when it’s necessary for families and professionals to sit down with a player and say, hey, this isn’t worth it anymore.

                • Yes, I would 100% agree… my comment has always been that there should be more medicals given out than are now. I don’t think a kid should have to risk his future health to keep his scholarship, and frankly there are in my opinion a lot of players out there practicing and playing that shouldn’t be… not by devious thing the Doc’s are doing, but because these kids don’t tell the coaches or Doc’s what’s going on. They DON’T want to sit out and lose their possitions or chance at the NFL’s $$$$.

                  Part of me understands why they do it… but the long term cost and risk are so great it is a bit unnerving to watch what a lot of these kids put themselves through to play ball.

                  I don’t know that there is any way to really help out this problem… but I do know that making a stink on the use of medical hardships isn’t going to help it out. If anything, in my mind, it would make it worse…

  6. I have a question for the defenders of oversigning here: why would the SEC be trying to address these items if it wasn’t an issue? Why is it the SEC is limiting the amount of scholarships you can offer? Its better if the school puts the needs of the student before its own.

    • Well, us defenders of the evil oversigning of players, really don’t see oversigning as a problem and if is the SEC is not the only conf. oversigning by along shot, brother… I think even the self righteous big ten oversigned this year and I bet Michigan oversigns next year, they will have too…… I think you guys found a couple of victims, maybe… I know one victim from bama, he has a damn degree from bama…. I don’t think you guys have another victim from another school….. You if their were more than 10 victims their maybe a problem but I would say more players are helped from oversigning then are hurt…. I think Slive is playing a PR game, just like with the 28 rule, I doubt these rules will do much either…. You guys want the sec to adopt the big ten that will not happen.. JMO

    • Well, you’ve got the president of the largest and arguably most powerful SEC school writing a letter to Sports Illustrated calling grayshirting morally reprehensible – a view that I think most would agree is extreme. He has a lot of pull and I’m guessing that he’s been the one stumping for some changes along with Greg McGarity (who worked under Machen for the last 6 years).

      Machen apparently doesn’t think too much about Michigan and Ohio State when it comes to their priorities with respect to athletics and education either:

      SPLN: That raises another question. What did you think of Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany’s open letter comparing the Big Ten to the SEC?

      Dr. M: It’s ridiculous. What a homer. I was at Michigan (as provost and dean of the school of dentistry). I know how they get in at Michigan. Don’t talk to me about the Nobel laureates at Michigan

      Just look at Greg Oden’s class schedule this semester. The Big Ten has fought the conference playoff, then they (complain) because Ohio State doesn’t have a game in 48 days. (Actually 51 between the last game of the season and the BCS title game. The Big Ten traditionally ends its regular-season football schedule before Thanksgiving).

      Whose fault is that? What’s happened is the world has moved, the Big Ten is no longer calling the shots.


      The man is certainly…outspoken.

    • Luke,
      You are arguing that Slive and the SEC are making a genuine attempt to curb oversigning. Many on this forum have said, and will continue to say, that Slive’s rules are “farcical” (to quote Jay) and are meant only to address oversigning sentiments–window dressing.

      I really appreciate that you are not toeing the party line. Your candid comments regarding stipends are another example of a division within the anti-oversigning crowd.

      • Just the one rule strikes me as “farcical,” for the record.

        • Jay,
          Sorry… I just wanted to point to one example, and your comment was pretty fresh. I was trying to argue that Luke’s (and your) stance is not typical of the SEC-bashers. Many of the anti-oversigning crowd have attacked these rules as being non-genuine… not addressing the issue.

  7. I don’t think you are giving the SEC enough credit here. Two points:

    1) Early signees will most likely decrease because the rule moves the beginning date covered from February to December. This will decrease the motivation for schools to push for early enrollment due to get additional recruits in a class. I like early enrollment as a fan (Love ya Braxton!) but am uncomfortable with the practice. This is a good change and one all conferences should consider. Unless I’m reading this wrong you have to give the SEC props for leading the charge here.

    2) The change from 28 to 25 and extending the signing period is bigger than you think. If you assume a school takes 28 in every class and redshirts half their students, you can have an attrition rate of 33% and still remain at 85 players (1 – (85 / 4×28+50%x28). The move to 25 changes this to almost 25% (1 – (85 / 4×25+50%x25). That’s a huge change as all teams lose players to injury/pro’s/transfer’s. As an example here’s last years attrition numbers for some teams in the Big Ten looking at each class (I didn’t complete every year in the SEC or I’d include them):

    12% Ohio State
    14% Penn State
    30% Wisconsin
    27% Iowa
    23% Michigan

    Those results are under the current rules in the B1G. If I had to guess I’d say that most SEC schools are in the 25-35% range and they are going to have to adjust. Mississippi is really in trouble since they have trouble getting a full roster under the existing rule.

    I’m not saying that the SEC proposal will fix oversigning but there’s no doubt in my mind that it will be a lot harder to do under this system. Keep in mind that Slive has the unenviable task to create something that he think will pass not necessarily the best legislation. Like someone else said above I see this as a great first step. If this passes it should be interesting to see what the NCAA does once their two bellwether conferences have more stringent standards than everyone else.

    • I don’t understand the desire to get rid of the early enrollees. I haven’t seen anyone come out against it, and I really don’t see how it is detrimental to the students. That said, I don’t know that this rule will eliminate the early enrollees as getting them in for spring practice gives them a huge boost toward that first year, the school just won’t be able to back-count them. If it discourages the kids from enrolling early, then I am adamantly against it – as that is a very positive thing for the kids that do it.

      I agree with your take on the result of the 28-25 rule as well. As for your attrition numbers, how did you come up with those results? You may not have seen it, but I did a comparison of the 2008 signing classes for B10 and SEC schools and posted it here: http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2011/05/03/bruce-feldman-talks-oversigning/#comment-9216
      I did the 2008 class because they would be seniors now, and not likely to transfer beyond this point. The percentages between the SEC and B10 were undistinguisable. Same thing with oversigning schools and non-oversigning schools.

      I really don’t see where this proposal will do anything to protect the real problem with oversigning: not informing the recruits that they may need to grayshirt until late in the summer and supposedly forcing kids off the team to make room for new guys. This appears to me to be trying to appease the media and others who just want to end oversigning (this won’t appease them either), not produce an atmosphere where the kids are better served.

      • I’m not against the practice but lately schools are pushing kids to do it to stay under the 25 cap. I have no issues if the kid decides to do it on his own to get a competitive advantage. A good example is what happened at USC last year. Do you think the 6-7 players would have enrolled early if Kiffin didn’t need it for the numbers game? I seriously doubt it. The legislation puts the decision totally on the athlete as there’s less advantage for the school.

        • Yes, I think kids will enroll early on their own. It is ba great advantage to them to get that extra time in. They will be way ahead of the rest of their class and the best will seriously compete for playing time that first year. When you are talking about 4 and 5 star guys, that means a lot.

    • Problem is that it doesn’t address the roots of the problem… which is mis-informing recruits of what offer they have. The issue I have with “oversigning” isn’t the “numbers”… it’s the Hidden Greyshirt… Non-binding verbals… lies to recruits…. This is where the problem is, not in the numbers. The numbers won’t/don’t matter if you fix the lies and misleading information in recruiting… and to that, this rule does nothing.

      • No doubt you are right that it doesn’t fix oversigning. It’s will have an impact if for no other reason that school will only be able to sign 25 in a year as opposed to 28 plus early signees and late juco’s. That has allowed schools to sign 30+ players which means 5 more players leaving a program every year. To say that is nothing isn’t true.

        • Except that noone has been able to locate those five players that leave the program. I tried to find them with my attrition study, but it didn’t show up there. If you know how to locate them, let me know.

  8. Agreed, Buckskin. I wanted to think about this a couple of days, but I see a lot of merit in the proposals. If I’m reading this correctly, and if these have been reported accurately…

    I think the most legitimate problem relative to oversigning has been the spring/summer period with no scholarship caps, which made it in essence an unregulated roster period. Nutt definitely used that period to conduct what can only be considered try-outs, and some other SEC West schools arguably did the same thing. Taken as a whole, the regs essentially remove that option by expanding the signing window, hard-capping the number signed, and counting anyone on scholarship during the summer as one of the 85. In a lot of ways, I like it better than the B1G rules, not that I ever thought much of the B1G’s approach to this in the first place. For example, the B1G’s still shaking out their rosters, if I read some of the earlier posts correctly, which means some kids are still in limbo. As I read the regs above, that would not be the case in the SEC. Anyone on campus with financial aid as of today would count against the 85, whether you cut them or not.

    I don’t think they are targeting early enrollments as a bad thing per se, simply eliminating the opportunity for it to be used as a loophole to bring 5 or 6 extra guys into the program every January and see who shakes out.

    Hard to tell with such limited excerpts, but I think these proposals accomplish a lot of good and have a real chance of being approved.

    • Reading your post makes me feel better about this proposal. If I get this right (and anyone correct me if I’m wrong anywhere), the current rule allow the following:
      The previous year, a coach signs 20 players.
      His team has 85 scholarship players through season.
      20 players are seniors who have played their last season, but are on scholarship through the end of the year.
      The coach signs 25 guys in the new class, and 5 of them enroll early (counting against the previous class that was only 20 guys)
      For spring, there were 90 players on scholarship, though 20 of them are no longer participating.

      The new rules proposed by Slive would not allow this, as the 85 limit would be held essentially all year. Is this right? If so, I don’t think I have a problem with it – though I really don’t see a problem with the previous one either. If more than 85 players are somehow participating with the team, I do think that should be fixed. Consequently, if a team only had 80 players on scholarship through the season, then they could still have 5 enroll early – right?

      If this is correct, what about players whose scholarships run out in the spring? ie, the guys who enrolled early under the old system. Or what about players leaving for the draft? These players vacate a scholarship before NSD, can that open spot be used immediately by an early enrollee? I feel that it should.

      Sorry if I’m way off on this or if it makes no sense. I’m trying to get a better understanding of it.

    • What? The B1G doesn’t need any of this. You don’t seem to like the B1G rule simply because it comes from the B1G.

      The B1G is not “shaking out their rosters”. I don’t know where you could get that data from. Why would a coach need to “cut” a student in June? There is no reason to ever do that because they don’t oversign. Lets look at the 4 issues at compare them with the B1G:

      1. No need for this one in the B1G. Due to oversigning limits, you could sign 28 slots if you had 28 open slots. This has never happened though, to my knowledge. And no students are ever left out.

      2. Not needed for same reasons as above.

      3. I actually like this. I don’t think there is quite the abuse of medical schollies in the B1G, but i think more conference oversight is a good thing. Wouldn’t mind it if the B1G adopted this rule.

      4. Don’t know about this one. Haven’t done enough research, so i don’t feel strongly one way or the other. I thought you had to be a senior to accept a written offer, but i may be mistaken.

      • I guess you’re right. Since Ferentz never oversigns, he’s never cut a player to make room for someone else. Ever. I just guess 40% of this signed players 2002-2008 couldn’t stand either him or Iowa City (must be him, because Iowa City certainly seemed nice enough to me) and left all on their own. I guess his strength coach running around, screaming “We’ll find out who wants to be here,” during work-outs which put 11 players in the hospital and ended the career of at least one, the month prior to Signing Day, was just an unfortunate combination of accidents.

        If that happened in Tuscaloosa, the B1G crowd would be calling for criminal charges. But in the B1G, in a program with a horrendous attrition rate? “Oh, never mind. Nothing to see here. We don’t oversign, so it doesn’t count.”

        In some ways, it’s laughable. But for the most part, it’s just sad.

        I addressed my distaste for the B1G rule and my reasons for it in an earlier post on this thread. Feel free to read it. I have no issues with the B1G per se. I take issue with people misrepresenting aspects of the B1G, whether intentionally or not. It’s no holier than the SEC or ACC, no matter how badly you want to believe it.

        • That you, for your post man, I agree…. It seems we have some high minded head counters who don’t approve of oversigning players… Now, from reading this they want to do away with greyshirts, which has been around for years and all programs do… Attrtion happens at all programs and players get at every program people need to get out of their dream worlds… Yes, even terrible players leave Big ten schools because they know they can not compete, with the younger player who just signed…. Long live oversigning and long live the SEC…

        • I notice you never addressed any facts in the post. You just said “if Alabama did this, the B1G should be screaming” Without any evidence. Even when all the facts clearly show that the B1G CLEARLY helps out all their student athletes, and is more beneficial for the students, you have yet to try to bring a counterpoint on how it harms the student.

          You addressed your mistaste simply because you have mistaste for the B1G. Thats the only reason you dislike their rules, not out of any fallacy reason other than your own personal bias against the B1G because you think we have a holier than thou attitude.

          Thats the real reason you claim to support oversigning – you’re distaste for the B1G. Not out of any logical reason or construct.

          • You sure do love phrases like “no one ever” and “all the facts clearly show….” B…s….. If you want to turn everything into a black and white absolute, more power to you, but don’t pretend it’s an exercise in logic. It’s an exercise in wish-fulfillment.

            For example, I notice that you do not consider any of the Iowa DATA I presented to be facts. You just home in on one opinion among those FACTS and suggest that no facts exist. Nicely circular.

            As for my opinion that you dislike, you tell me Luke — if Alabama’s strength coach put 11 players in the hospital, and one of them ended up taking a medical, would you be cool with that? Honestly? If a 7 year roster eval for Saban indicated that about 40% of the players he signs disappear prior to a 4th year of eligibility, would you be cool with that?

            Because it’s happening at Iowa. Period. But it’s Big 10, so you’re cool with it.

            I don’t hate the Big 10 any more than I hate the ACC, which is to say not at all. I’m a college sports junkie, and I think the athletes in all conferences deserve much better. I don’t think the B1G rule offers the level of protection that people here claim, and I did the research to back up that opinion. Others have as well. If you care to read any of that work with an open mind, it’s all right here on this site. That’s up to you.

            • Please point out your post to the data that shows 40% of all players disappear prior to a 4th year. I’d like to cross reference/recheck it myself. A quick look at the statsheet from ESPN does seem to hold up the fact, nor does a visit to the Black Heart Gold Pants. See the link below for a nice rebuttal of your 40% stat. I’m not sure if you have another post out there or not, but he does seem to address your comment.


              As far as putting 11 players in the hospital, that sucks. Do i think thats indicative that all B1G schools are sleazebags? No. No one is arguing that it was a bad thing for them. But once again, how does that pertain to oversigning/preventing the Elliot porter situation?

              Ironically, you claim that i have no open mind, when you have repeatedly said you think the B1G rule as ill thought out and poor. Regardless of when it is shown that it actually helps out student athletes, and reduces the need/incentive to cut players after signing period/spring evals, or push for students to transfer. You can’t claim to have an open mind and then bash the B1G left and right. As for the research/data, see the black heart gold pants post above. And for fun, i’ll compare that with bama, or auburn. We’ll see what there rate is.

              • That’s no rebuttal. He’s explaining how they stay at 85 scholarships in spite of the attrition. Honestly, Luke, you seem squeeze everything you read into a set of preconceptions that makes you difficult to argue with. If you can’t see the elephant in the room because you refuse to see it, I can’t help you.

                As for the BGHP analysis, you have laugh at the core of it:

                “It’s not so much that Iowa loses less than 9 per class as much as the timing of that attrition. For instance, the 2006-2008 classes have lost 26 players, an average just below 9 per class. The youngest two classes, on the other hand, have lost a total of 8 players, or 4 per class. It’s not to say that they won’t eventually lose 9, but that they don’t lose 9 players as soon as they hit campus as freshmen. The rate appears to be a loss of 2-3 players per class for their first three years on campus, at which point those who have survived generally stay until graduation (or leave early for the NFL).”

                Summarized — “Yes, the first two classes lost 9 per. But the 2 which have only been on campus 2 years haven’s lost 9 per. So, we don’t lose them in the first two years, and if we don’t lose them in the first two years, then they survive 4 years.” That, friend, is the ultimate in circular logic in utter defiance of a stipulated fact – that the first two classes DID lose 9 per, and the stipulated fact that those classes lost those kids in their last two years of eligibility. The first sentence ADMITS the attrition. The last sentence basically says, “This can’t be happening. It’s Iowa.” Hysterical.

                But the author’s an Iowa fan, so you believe him without even catching that obvious an error.

                My original poss appear on March 6 or thereabouts on this site. Feel free to find it, if you care about this as much as you claim.

                cott Burch
                Nathan Chandler
                Chris Felder
                Justice Hairston
                Warren McDuffie
                Cy Phillips
                Chris Thomas
                Larry Thomas
                Dave Vickers
                Richie Williams
                Eric Zilisch
                Chris Brevi
                George Eshareturi
                Tyler Fanucchi
                AJ Johnson
                Richard Kittrell
                Eric McCollum
                Khaliq Price
                James Townsend
                Alex Willcox
                Jonathan Zanders
                Wallner Belleus
                Ted Bentler
                Andy Brodell
                Lucas Cox
                Ettore Ewen
                Kyle Williams
                Kalvin Bailey
                Ryan Bain
                Dana Brown
                Justin Collins
                Justin Edwards
                Vernon Jackson
                Alex Kanellis
                Corey Robertson
                BJ Travers
                Marcus Wilson
                Brian Bulaga*
                Cedric Everson
                Jacody Coleman
                Cody Hundertmark
                Jevon Pugh
                John Weinke
                David Cato
                Demarco Paine
                Jeff Brinson
                David Blackwell
                Khalif Staten
                Jewel Hampton
                Shonn Greene*
                JD Griggs
                Jason Semmes
                Nathan Guillory
                Amari Spievey
                Abe Satterfield
                Diaunte Morrow
                Dezman Moses
                Marshal Yanda
                Anthony Bowman
                James Cleveland
                Dominique Douglas
                Arvell Nelson
                Julian Smith
                Lance Tillison
                Bryon Gattas
                Brandon Wegher
                Anthony Schiavone
                Tyler Harrell
                Josh Brown
                Matt Murphy
                Stephane Mgoumou
                Don Shumpert
                Austin Gray
                Anthony Ferguson

              • Post above posted before I could finish it — filled a buffer, I suspect. Spievey went early, as did Green and Bulaga. The list ain’t perfect, but it’s better than 95% in the ballpark, having run my methodology past a number of people who know more about this than me.

                As for the hospitalizations, I don’t think it’s a coincidence when a team that under-performs one season ends up in the gym a month before Signing Day with a strength coach screaming, “We’ll find out who wants to be here,” and the players saying they have never, ever had such intense workouts in their life before. The intent was not to harm. It was to weed. And if you want to believe otherwise, or that such things do not happen in the B1G, or ACC, or SEC, or Big 12, or Pac 10, then I can’t have a discussion with you.

                • Thats not an elephant in the room, asking you to explain your numbers and the basis behind them is not asking a lot. And by the way, if you hold Alabama to the same standard (which also means counting players not qualifying and players leaving early as “attrition”), then you get over 50% OVER 4 years. I notice how you did not include any other school in that data, and held them to the same standard as you did Iowa. Interesting, HMM?

                  So your statement of 40% of attrition rate that you claim to be “so terrible” is in actuality over 4 years. And it also includes people leaving early, and people not qualifying. And most of those leaving come from the 2006 and 2007 classes

                  I notice you also did not take the 9 year average as was stated in the website. 24 players (assuming 5 year average) 120 scholarships, with 38 attrition. That is a little less than 33%. But hey, when you redshirt a lot, one or two people lost means an extra 4.5% loss. You chose to go with the shorter period, instead of the 9 year period.

                  Football players work hard for their scholarships. At Iowa, a coached pushed them too hard. How is the situation at Iowa a systemic problem? The truth is, that it is not. Yes, football players are put through grueling workouts. Yes, you have to be willing to be a part of the team and push yourself. That is different than cutting a kid because a better player comes around.

                  The basic concept you’re not grasping here is this:
                  There is a difference between cutting a kid because a better player is coming along, and having athletes do grueling workouts to make sure they are committed to playing football.
                  You seem to equate the former with the latter.

                  And use your same statistics on Alabama’s Roster. Do you think the numbers will be higher or lower? (I have already done this, but thats a post for another day) Go ahead. Remember to include Early departures and players who did not qualify.

                  • Dad-gummit, Luke, I posted my data for 2002 through 2010. That’s 9 years. If you can’t be bothered to read the data you’re commenting on, then it’s simple — don’t even try.

                    Alabama’s attrition rate doesn’t hit 50% EVEN IF YOU COUNT THE NON-QUALIFIERS. A Buckeye posted that data a week or two ago. Once again — you’re making up facts as you go along to fit your idea of “what must be” rather than adjusting your opinion to “what is.”

                    I’m done with you. I tried. Not to change your opinion, but to simply have a conversation. You’re hopeless.

                    • Right. Get mad at someone who asks you to back up your opinions with facts. Who questions your methodology of selection. As for Alabama’s 50% rate? Lets find out:

                      2006 Signees (Rolltide):
                      Andre Smith*, Justin Woodall, Mike McCoy,
                      Greg McElroy, Charlie Higgenbotham*, Javier Arenas, Terry Grant, Marquis Johnson, David Ross, Labronski Hutching*, Jake Jones*, Marcus Udell*, Alex Stadler*, Treymayne Coger*, Charlie Kirschman*, Andy Davis*, Earl Alexander, Brian Motely, Preston Dial, Sam Burnthall*, Mike Ford*, Cole Harvey*, Travis Sikes, Milton Talbert, Taylor Pharr, Nikita Stover*

                      *Not on Alabama’s 2009 Roster (scout.com)

                      Both recruits and roster were double checked w/ rolltide.com

                      13/26 Missing. Hmm. Well, how can we massage these numbers to make them nicer?
                      Well, lets take out Nikita Stover because he was a Juco transfer.
                      So that leaves… 12/25. 48%. But i see you covered your butt by saying “A buckeye posted it”

                      So who is making up facts to go along to fit his opinion?

                    • See, Luke? You take one year and compare it to a 9 year study. I post the actual names of the kids, plus reference you to the original post with the longitudinal numbers, and instead you choose to infer the original data from a BGHP post which doesn’t even directly address the original question.

                      I’ve posted the facts. You refuse to acknowledge them, but that doesn’t mean they’re not facts. I was flatly told that Iowa’s attrition numbers were impossible because they don’t oversign. I don’t give a CRAP about Alabama’s numbers, because I agree that the SEC has a problem. But if Iowa can average 40% over 7 years, then the B1G has a serious problem, too.

                      What part of that do you not get?

                    • That’s an interesting class to evaluate, Luke. You realize that is one of Shula’s last classes right? Just asking because it seems to matter when someone is looking at a B10 team.

                      Your quote from an earlier forum:

                      As for illinois, are you aware they’ve gone through multiple position coaching changes, and Ron Zook is on the hot seat? You’re bound to see more players leaving/tranferring during transitions. So yes, I doubt the B1G rule doesn’t have loopholes. Still have seen any evidence to the contrary.

                      That said, you also included Andre Smith, who left early for the NFL, surely you shouldn’t count him? That brings you down to about 42% – or maybe Saban cut one of the best run-blocking tackles Bama has ever had? Of course, as I’ve argued, this really doesn’t show anything – what are you pointing out by including non-qualifiers and such?

                • As to your “hysterical” comment, let me explain this concept:

                  Attrition rates over the last 5 years will skew the results more towards the attrition of classes in the 2006, 2007, and 2008 timeframe. Thats not laughable, thats a fact. The statement is in general, 2-3 students leave per class for the first 3 years, then after that they generally stay with the program to completion.

                  So if a lot of other stuff happened in the 2006-2008 classes (and iowa did seem to have problems with off the field issues), then the math will yield a higher percentage.

                  Thats not circular logic – which i can also explain to you if you need a definition. His point is this:
                  The 2006-2008 classes may have had 40% attrition over 4 years. That does NOT mean the 2009 and 2010 classes have 40% attrition. See the difference?

                  • Again — hysterical. Total logical contortions.

                    So let’s see where this stands…
                    The classes which have had 3 or 4 years in the cycle DO have 40% attrition, but the classes which only have 1 or 2 years in the system DON’T. Well, DUH. The data shows that 5 previous classes to complete a 4 year eligibility cycle had 40% attrition, The data shows that the two on campus with 3 or 4 years in the system ALSO have 40% attrition. The only 2 that DON’T are the two which have only been on campus two years. And somehow, this “proves” the BHGP and you that the classes only lose 2 to 3 players over the first two years, after which they lose hardly any at all.

                    You can’t have it both ways. The classes lost an average of 9 per. BGHP admits as much. I really don’t care when they walked out the door.

                    Again, Luke, you want to believe some things so badly, you just can’t see the anomalies.

                    I see real problems in both conferences. Fixing the problems in the SEC with B1G solutions doesn’t fix the problems in the B1G, does it? And if you want to pretend that those problems do not exist in the B1G, well then, we agree to disagree.

Leave a comment