Paul Johnson with a Simple Solution

Paul Johnson pretty much calls BS on oversigning and the attrition that occurs after the fact. 

“We just don’t do it,” Johnson told the Journal-Constitution. “It makes it hard sometimes to hit your target number but it is what it is. I don’t see how you can do that to kids, weed out guys for whatever reasons. No matter what anybody says, if you’re oversigning, some of that has to happen on occasion.”

That last sentence is pretty damning coming from a coach.  When asked whether or not teams who practice oversigning gain a competitive advantage, Johnson replied:

"Sure they do,” he told the newspaper. “It’s just like you take 25 kids every year and then cut the ones you don’t want.

“You do the math. You have 85 scholarships. If you’re signing 28 every year for four years, instead of 85, you have 112. It doesn’t add up. So something is happening to those guys along the way. It just doesn’t add up. You’re losing them left or right academically or for whatever reasons.”

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-05-29/paul-johnson-georgia-tech-coach-says-oversigning-creates-advantages#ixzz1P7dnrfcO

Continue reading...

Johnson's solution is a simple one, and not too far off from what we proposed here.  It's based on the number 85.   

“Everybody has 85 scholarships; When you recruit a guy, and he says he’s coming, you give him a scholarship and he signs it,” Johnson told the Journal-Constitution. As soon as he signs it, he counts—he’s one of your 85. If you want to sign a kid who may or may not make it schoolwise, that’s on you. You will have to try to find someone else in August if he doesn’t make it.

“It would stop all this craziness, hat shows, verbal commitments, and all the foolishness that goes on with it. If the guy says they’re coming, put the papers in front of him and let him sign. When you’ve got 85, you’re through.”

Our proposal required that each coach declare his openings under the 85 cap on January 15th so that everyone knows exactly how many slots are available for each school, along with provisions and reform in the areas of non-renewals and transfer/sit out rules, but the principles are the same, which is to work within the bounds of 85 scholarships. 

The equation is simple: # of guys returning on January 15th + # of guys signed = 85 

Other coaches agree with Johnson that it is a competitive advantage.  On May 26th, Saban had this to say about the proposed oversigning legislation before it passed and whether or not oversigning affects the quality of SEC teams:

"In my opinion, it would really affect the quality in our league," Saban said. "You can't know the attrition from signing day until August, which guys who're going to be fifth-year seniors that decide they don't want to come back and play football. Well, you can't count those guys. You're going to have to tell those guys they're going to have to decide in January.


Then again, on June 10th, after the legislation passed despite a 12-0 vote by the coaches against the new legislation, Saban had this to say:

"I don't really feel that it's going to create any management issues that's going to affect the quality of play," Saban calmly said Thursday before his annual charity golf tournament that benefits his "Nick's Kids" program. "I think it's all good."


So which one is it?  Before the ruling Saban said it would affect the quality, after the ruling he said it wouldn't.  Sounds like someone is craw-fishing.

Many have argued that the coaches always know which guys are going to transfer and that is why they oversign ahead of time.  Saban's comments refute that by saying that you can't know the attrition from signing day until August.  If you can't know the attrition, why should you be allowed to sign more than you have room for?  And when you do and guys leave, how are we supposed to believe that they weren't encouraged to leave because there isn't enough room?  The bottom line has always been that when you oversign in February guys have to leave, period.  So if you are making the decision in February that guys have to leave, why don't we force coaches to identify those guys in January, give them due process through a clearinghouse, and sign what they have room for under the 85?

The reason coaches like Saban don't want this is because they want the extra evaluation period.  They want to bring in the new recruits in the spring and summer and evaluate them against guys they consider to be on the bubble.

Filed under: ACC, SEC Leave a comment
Comments (255) Trackbacks (0)
  1. Saban couldn’t win with you guys on this. Either he stands by his arguments and you guys crucify him for “crying about it”, or he sucks it up and tries to put a positive spin on it. His argument has been defeated, and he has the good sense to shut up and toe the company line.

  2. I’m not sure Saban cares about what an anonymous guy that writes a blog thinks about what he’s doing anyway.

    • Paul Johnson writes a blog?

      • Sorry, did Paul Johnson write this:

        Many have argued that the coaches always know which guys are going to transfer and that is why they oversign ahead of time. Saban’s comments refute that by saying that you can’t know the attrition from signing day until August. If you can’t know the attrition, why should you be allowed to sign more than you have room for? And when you do and guys leave, how are we supposed to believe that they weren’t encouraged to leave because there isn’t enough room? The bottom line has always been that when you oversign in February guys have to leave, period. So if you are making the decision in February that guys have to leave, why don’t we force coaches to identify those guys in January, give them due process through a clearinghouse, and sign what they have room for under the 85?

        The reason coaches like Saban don’t want this is because they want the extra evaluation period. They want to bring in the new recruits in the spring and summer and evaluate them against guys they consider to be on the bubble.

        No, I didn’t think he did.

        • Oh, and it would appear Josh deleted Cecil Hurt’s response to Josh’s questions about oversigning from HIS Twitter account, but couldn’t delete it from Cecil’s:

          CecilHurtCecil Hurt

          @TheMarchTo85 Not really, but I am through discussing it with anonymous questioners.

          So maybe we will start seeing a little more pushback on this anonymity business. Good for Cecil.

          • I haven’t deleted anything, my response to Cecil was asking him if he cared to speak to Marc Bailey about the topic, he never replied. Cecil is not going to push questions on Saban about oversigning, he’ll lose access to the program and he knows it. Another Bama beat writer has already said so.

            • Have you attempted to get any Ohio State reporters to ask Fickell about why Ohio State oversigned this year? They could also ask Tressell without any concern over being losing access to the program since he is no longer a part of the program. Just a thought.

              • You’re right, he should get right on that, even though he has publicly stated he is going to greyshirt to attend prep school.

                The difference is, this process is upfront and declared.
                And vesper, since you are all about fairness, i will assume you should demand the names of everyone who will greyshirt from teams like Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State, etc.

                After all, what is the problem with announcing it early? There is a difference in greyshirting between a player putting off college for a year up front before signing, and being asked to greyshirt later. Can’t you see the difference?


                • According to Josh’s numbers, Ohio State oversigned by 2 on NSD. One signee had agreed to grayshirt; where was the other spot going to come from?

                  • According to the B1G assoc commish, Chad Hawley, he was only aware of 1. I don’t believe the OSU item is up to date. Is that your only argument?

                    Though i see you left out the part demanding for any school in the SEC west to show their numbers

                    • The B10 doesn’t declare the school oversigned until after the signing period. Since OSU has already declared that they were grayshirting Jone, they had admitted to oversigning already. Everyone else has the summer to weed out their extra players, and if they have enough attrition, they don’t oversign – per the B10.

                      As for the SEC, I would like to see grayshirts be part of the LOI (if applicable) but it doesn’t (shouldn’t) be public who is and who isn’t unless the kids want it to be.

                    • According to the B1G assoc commish, Chad Hawley, he was only aware of 1

                      Yep, and he didn’t say which school is was and he didn’t say how many that school oversigned. Just because you are hoping that it’s not Ohio State does not mean that it is not Ohio State.

                      I don’t believe the OSU item is up to date

                      Not up to date how? What do you think is incorrect? SPES, departures, or LOIs? You do realize that departures after NSD like Terrelle Pryor don’t change the fact that Ohio State was 2 over on NSD, right?

                      Though i see you left out the part demanding for any school in the SEC west to show their numbers

                      If you haven’t realized it yet, I don’t really care whether or not Ohio State or any other school discloses its numbers to the public. I was prodding Josh because he actually does take that position but only with respect to a few select schools. My point is that if he truly believes that oversigning is unethical and that oversigning schools should be forced to explain to the public their plans to get to 85, then he should be tweeting the beat reporters at Ohio State (and dozens of other schools) in addition to Alabama.

                    • limits to reply’s stops my response. Your statement Catch about oversigning is just your speculation about how the B1G rule operates – not fact. Please don’t bandy it about as such.

                      vesper- osu and the B1G have a fairly transparent system. Hawley even sat down and talked about the B1G system. Hardly running away and hiding the issues. But you don’t seem to acknowledge that fact.

                    • Fair enough Luke, consider my last comment to include “the way I understand Hawley, …” you see, even though he sat down with Josh, he was not entirely clear (or forthcoming if you want to be critical) about the B10 rules, and despite requests (I assume, Josh said he would) we have not been given a link to them. The information in my last post is the only way everything makes sense. Otherwise either someone is lying or Josh’s counts are all way off (which would also somewhat dispel the openess of B10 rosters).

                    • Luke,

                      “fairly transparent” is very much a relative phrase. Personally, I fail to see how the Big Ten is any more transparent than the SEC. It amazes me that there are still a few people attempting to hold up Ohio State and the Big Ten as being morally superior. Some habits die hard.

                      Also, it’s interesting that you chastized Catch 5 for treating his interpretaion of the Big Ten rules as fact when you did the exact same thing a couple of weeks ago in response to my questions concerning details of the Big Ten rules. All any of us really know abou the Big Ten rule is the limited amount that Hawley provided in that interview. Perhaps that’s the way that Hawley and the Big Ten wants it.

                    • So vesper, your argument is that the B1G wants vagueness in general? Because of their own nefarious purposes?

                      Please. You and catch look at the B1G rule trying to find ways for it to fail, for any out. He wasn’t being misleading, but he wasn’t expecting someone to review his words word for word trying to find an “out” or other purpose. You came in pre-biased, against the B1G.

                      Even though multiple news places like ESPN and Sports Illustrated have all agreed and repeated that the B1G prevents oversigning, and has strict rules in place for the welfare of the student athlete. But ESPN and SI must be all part of the conspiracy, right?

                    • I wouldn’t disagree with that, but should he be treated any differently than Saban? Oh, is it because Saban hides his nuumbers? Well, where are the B10 numbers? If you look at Hawley’s interview the same way Josh looks at Saban et al, do you not see holes?

                    • So vesper, your argument is that the B1G wants vagueness in general? Because of their own nefarious purposes?

                      My arguement is that none of us know what the Big Ten rule actually entails because none of us have actually read it and that includes ESPN and SI as far as I know. The general guidelines of the rule provided by Hawley may be enough for you to declare it an effective rule, but I need to see the actual details especially considering there is evidence that multiple Big Ten schools oversigned this year when Hawley claims that only one did. You’re free to blindly support the Big Ten, but I choose to be more skeptical.

                    • Luke,
                      You’re one to always ask for facts… let’s see the rules.

                • Saban tells athletes before signing day they might grayshirt. Daryl Collins chose to sign with Kentucky this year instead of taking the grayshirt offer from Alabama. In 2010, Harrison Jones knew before signing day he might have to grayshirt but decided to sign with Alabama anyway.

                  There is no problem declaring to the world who is a grayshirt possibility, but the athletes just might want to keep it quiet. Nobody who is wait-listed at a college before being admitted likes for that to come out. Why would athletes be any different?

                  • For the record, Jones ended up on scholarship. I just wanted to point out an example where it’s clear the athlete knew before signing day that a grayshirt was a possibility

                    • how did Jones end up on scholarship? Did he prove himself over the summer so Saban ran off a guy who wasnt progressing?

                    • No, the NCAA clearinghouse declared another signee (Alfy Hill) ineligible at the start of fall camp because they didn’t like one of the classes that he took as a sophomore. Don’t let the facts stop you from making baseless accusations in the form of a question though.

                    • It’s actually even worse for Hill. The NCAA cleared him and he spent the summer at Alabama taking classes. At the end of the summer, the NCAA changed it’s decision to count a class Hill took as a sophomore. This was the first year the NCAA decided not to count that class from Hill’s high school. Had they not cleared him first, he could have taken one summer school class to make up for the class he took as a sophomore.

                      Before you think that Saban might have talked to the NCAA to get rid of Hill, Hill has decided to transfer to Alabama from ECU where he went last year. He is projected to be a very good pass rusher and Alabama is lacking in that area. Saban wanted Hill on campus and would definitely use him now. Unfortunately, he won’t be eligible until 2012 because of the NCAA transfer rules.

                    • So I am a little off. Hill is at JC now at won’t be eligible until 2013. I thought he could count one year at ECU towards JC but apparently he can’t. He still says Alabama has the inside track for his signature then.

            • He never replied? Like heck! It’s right there on his twitter. I copy and pasted off of his account and he was responding directly to you and YOUR twitter, but the entry is not on your twitter. Seems odd that it would appear on his, but not on yours.

              The key thing is not that he is losing access to Saban. he isn’t. It’s that he won’t talk to some yahoo hiding behind an anonymous blog.

          • Wonder if Josh ever let Cecil know that he was incorrect about Ohio State releasing a full scholarship roster during spring

  3. Another blog entry about Saban. Shocking.

  4. Paul Johnson doesn’t have experience managing a roster at a typical FBS school. He has coached at Navy and Georgia Tech at that level. Navy gives full rides to all students so the limit is meaningless there. GT academic requirements mean there are no worries about a student qualifying. I’m not sure he is the best judge of what goes on at schools that oversign.

  5. Michael Ohr would not be a professional football player today if the proposed rules were put in place. College coaches would not risk giving up roster space to an unlikely qualifier like Ohr. These proposed rules take opportunity away.

    • As with the predatory lending that tool place in the housing boom, some people got a shot at owning a home that probably couldn’t have done so without the 100% financing and easy credit requirements. But look at the toll it took on the housing market and the economy. Sure, some people get help, but others got the shaft and the housing market as a whole took a beating.

      • Another reason Joshua And his sidekick are major tools. These guys have appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner over other peoples lives. Their reasoning doesn’t have to make sense or even be fair, just as long as The playing field has been leveled. This is about competitive advantages and discrimination not about fairness.

      • The problem in the houseing market was that those lenders took risky loans and then packaged them to sell them off without letting those that where “investing” in them know the risk…

        The making of a loan to a risky person is just fine… as long as the person lending the money and the person accepting the money understand the risk involved… kinda sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it?

        • Yea. A coach selling a recruit on “you may have to greyshirt, but the chance is small” because a coach would NEVER mislead a recruit, right? He would never play down the greyshirt possibility.

          • I’m all for making a seperate NLI for greyshirts so the kids KNOW exactly what they are signing. I’m not for any coach in any conference misleading a recruit.

    • Really? Is this statement true? Its exaggerations like this which i detest the most. The exaggerations what the defenders of oversigning would have us believe, but lets look at the facts.

      1. Mr Ohr would not have been prevented from going to college if he didn’t get in immediately. Are you saying there is no way he could have gone JUCO? Considering that there are a good amount of players who do this, how would this be different?

      2. Are you saying that no schools would take a risk on signing him? I doubt that. B1G schools have extended offers to kids who didn’t qualify. Usually if the kid doesn’t qualify, they give the scholarship to a walkon.

      So your “claim” that Mr Ohr could never have been a pro football player is just an exaggeration, with no basis in fact.

      • This entire site is virtually based on exaggeration, lies, misrepresentations of fact, with no basis in fact. No offense, Just saying…

      • Was my post sensational? Yes. Was my post as sensational as many of the anti-oversigning posts? No. I figured that I would start just making sensational claims since that’s what the other side of the argument does.

        But what bolsters my argument is that Josh kinda’ agreed with me. For what it’s worth, I agree with you; Michael Ohr might have gone to school. BUT we must face the truth that his chances would have been dramatically reduced under some of the proposed regulations. And Michael Ohr is but one face representing the many who will be affected; there are many others like him that will have dramatically smaller chances of making it to college because giving scholarships to walk-ons represents a huge loss in opportunity. That, my friend, is a FACT!

        • No, thats not a fact. You said chances of making the NFL were reduced, not college. Where is the data to support the fact that he can’t go to college? Thats still just BS.

          Though apparently all 4th year college football players should be greatful they are in college. They shouldn’t be awarded for all the hard work they put in. By your own logic, giving scholarships to JUCOs results in less opportunity (fewer years remaining!) so thats also a bad thing.

          So how is giving a scholarship to a 5 year senior walk on represent a HUGE loss of opportunity, but giving one to a JUCO is just peachy?

          • “Where is the data to support the fact that he can’t go to college?”

            Luke, that is ridiculous; I just stated “Ohr might have gone to school.” I stated that his chances are reduced. Even Josh agrees that there will be some casualties.

            Deductive reasoning, my friend, is our friend. Michael Ohr’s chances to make it into college would be SMALLER under proposed rules. This leads to a smaller chance of making it into the NFL. What percent of the NFL has attended at least some college? Compare that number with the percent of the general public. It seems obvious that there is correlation.

            What I stated is fact; I said that there are many high schools students who will have more limited opportunity to go to college.

            “So how is giving a scholarship to a 5 year senior walk on represent a HUGE loss of opportunity, but giving one to a JUCO is just peachy?”

            Again you miss the point… but I’ll address the question in two ways:

            1) Because at that point the coach’s decision is: “Which of my current walk-ons deserves a scholarship?” The coaches decision is limited to his current walk-ons as opposed to the body of high school seniors / JUCOS. The decision whether to give scholarships should not be based on educational opportunity” but whatever the coaches/school deems appropriate (i.e. football skills, team needs, etc.).

            2) I am not saying that the current rules are good because of educational opportunities; I am stating that there is a very real side-effect to proposed rules. This means that I am not necessarily in favor of (or opposed to) increasing or decreasing educational opportunities at the cost of any change in rules.

            We’re not just talking about Michael Ohr; we’re talking about many, many other kids that won’t have a chance to go to college. It is a real side-effect. The irony is that many of the kids we’re trying to protect aren’t going to have an opportunity to go to college under proposed rules.

            • What you stated is NOT FACT. How are high school students limited in their opportunity to go to college? Thats not a fact, it doesn’t even make sense.

              How are Mr Ohrs chances of making it to college be smaller under proposed rules? Please argue your point. Is he prevented from going to junior college? to prep?

              How does greyshirting hurt Mr Ohr?

              You can’t use the NFL percent as your excuse. What percentage of college football players make it to the NFL?

              Besides, coaches aren’t prevented from giving scholarships to kids who may eventually not qualify. Its just riskier for them. Big difference.

              • FACT: He was given a scholarship.
                FACT: His chances at gaining a scholarship would be smaller under proposed rules because it is riskier for coaches.

                Now here’s the leap of faith that I’m sure most people are able to make, but I’ll spell it out:
                People who are given scholarships are more likely to go to college than people who are not given scholarships.

                Is there anyone else out there other than Luke who is not getting this?

                • So he’s less likely to get a scholarship – his opportunity for going to college has not decreased.

                  FACT – OPPORTUNITY is different than ability/choice.
                  FACT – Because even if he doesn’t qualify one year, he can do JUCO / junior college and still get a scholarship in later years!

                  FACT – People who aren’t given scholarships STILL HAVE OTHER WAYS/OPPORTUNITIES to go to college. College loans/Pell Grants, etc, all exist.

                  But you must mean something different than opportunity. At risk students will have less chance of a scholarship for 1 year? That doesn’t have quite the sensational ring to it.

                  • Michael Oher is probably not the best example given his adoptive family’s financial means. With or without his athletic prowess he would have had the opportunity and means to go to college.

                    But what I think you are missing Luke is that all opportunities are not built equal. In the land of the free and home of the brave we all have opportunities, but the means (the money – which is what it appears to be the main focus of this argument) is not the only obstacle to opportunity.

                    The means to go to college is not as readily abundant as you make out. That is why full scholarships are so coveted. Besides that is the support system that athletic programs offer is often the difference between success and failure. The higher the risk the student is the more important those support systems are.

                    Repeatedly Josh has argued that transfer students are being treated unfairly because they are down grading their educational status (a theory which I do not necessarily think is a given). So for that reason alone, making the case that going to JUCO offers the same opportunity as a 4-5 years at a university does not fit with the FACTs that this site has laid out. So the opportunity is not the same on many levels.

                    • Gary,
                      You’re right. Michael Oher isn’t a great example. I used his name because it’s easily recognizable… puts a face on the issue. It was meant to be a ridiculously sensational post fashioned after so many on the other side of the argument. I’ve stated several times that the discussion is not really about Oher but countless others who won’t go to school without a scholarship. It seems to me as if Luke refuses to believe that these people exist… or else he’s arguing over the word “opportunity” just to save his argument.

                    • Now you are getting it – you said it yourself, we all have the opportunities, but our MEANS are not the same.

                      But athletic scholarships have are not means testing. They don’t give out athletic scholarships based off how much money a kids parents have.

                      The point of this site isnt’ arguing that the kids educational status is being downgraded. He’s never made that claim.

                      The student means to their end do get the shaft, if he’s cut from a scholarship. But none of the arguers for oversigning look at that point.

                    • Luke,
                      So you just wanted to argue about a word the whole time? Got it.

                  • Again, Luke. I think that you misunderstand. Opportunity is not binary. He may have had the same NUMBER of options, but one option is particular became much less favorable. Look up opportunity.

    • Someone needs to read the book and not just watch the movie. Everyone wanted Michael Oher but since he essentially didn’t goto class his freshman year they he struggled to get enough credits to graduate from high school and pass the NCAA clearinghouse. The Oher’s actually found a loophole in the NCAA system to get the credits necessary. Everyone had a scholarship waiting because everyone wanted him. There’s no way your statement “Ohr (sic) would not be a football player today if the proposed rules were put in place.” That’s possibly the stupidest statement I’ve seen on this site and I’ve seen both sides of the issue make some pretty silly statements.

  6. First of all, “Joshua” puts words in Johnson’s mouth that Johnson never spoke and from my reading, did not intend to be conveyed . Johnson’s comment that,

    “…if you’re oversigning, some of that has to happen on occasion,”

    is hardly, “…pretty damning…” as characterized by “Joshua.”

    I understand why “Joshua” has to resort to misleading hyperbole to make his case, because he doesn’t have one otherwise. He must build a straw man to slay. He’s “Senor Joshua Don Quixote,” bravely facing down the wind mill.

    Nobody disagrees that “it” happens on occasion with “on occasion” being the pertinent words, and last time I checked, most things that happen “on occasion” are hardly “pretty damning.”

    Second as already pointed out, it’s must be wonderful to live in an ivory tower where your solutions always work equally well for all affected because it only matters if they work in your imagination. Georgia Tech doesn’t recruit kids with marginal academics whereas most SEC schools do. What happens with Johnson’s approach when three or four of Chizik’s, Saban’s, Petrino’s, Dooley’s etc. recruits don’t qualify?

    Thirdly, the idea that coaches don’t have an idea who is going to, need medical scholarships, go to the NFL , want to play baseball, or just wants more PT, is ludicrous. Most coaches have a pretty good idea who they’ll lose over the off season, so they’re hardly taking a shot in the dark when they over sign relative to the 85 limit.

    So, I’ll ask the same question that “Joshua” ignored the last post. Maybe “Joshua Don Quixote” can get around to it this time before making another run at his wind mill. I would appreciate others chiming in as well. First, let’s put it in perspective.

    Let’s take “Joshua’s” worst case scenario. This scenario represents in “Joshua’s” mind, pure unadulterated evil. No medical scholarship. No transfer for PT. Just a kid getting cut because the coach want to make room on the roster for fresh blood.

    The kid has taken a scholarship and comes to a major program. He stays for a year or two but does not perform on the football field up to the expected standards. The coach signs a replacement and the kid is asked to leave. Again, this is pure evil according to “Joshua.” Never mind that happens so rarely as be a non-issue — even Paul Johnson admits it only happens “on occasion” — but let’s assume it happens with a dozen kids every year so as to make it as brutal as “Joshua” portrays it.

    What is the evil that the kid has endured? Did not the kid get one or two years of free college at a major program, and how is that a “damning” thing? How is that evil, and how is it different from what happens every day in the real world? Has no one ever gotten laid off? If the kid came from a poor socio-economic class, what does his year or two of free college mean a to him in the future, and here’s the $64,000 question that “Joshua,” continues to ignore .

    Do you even care if what you’re proposing will mean fewer kids from poor backgrounds get this opportunity? And how can limiting opportunities for poor kids on the front end be somehow better than giving them an opportunity in the first place? By limiting scholarships, you are denying them an opportunity in the first place to prevent a possibly injustice in the future. Does that bother you at all?

    • Further more, getting cut from the Football team doesn’t mean you’re kicked out of school… just that you have to pay your own way… actually, it doesn’t mean your off the team either…. you can still try to WalkOn…play on the scout team and try to get better and make it back on the team…

      They are one year scholarships for a reason…. Now, I’m all for making them 4 year scholarships if you want, but explain to me why they made them 1 year deals in the first place… I’ve never understood why if the intention is for a kid to have a 4 year deal.

    • Thats just ludicrous about kids from poor backgrounds getting an opportunity. Insulting to the tons of students who take loans just to go through school.

      Oversigning is not about limiting scholarships. It does not change the amount of scholarships out there. And it doesn’t prevent them from getting student loans, something that almost everyone who isn’t a student athlete does.

      Are you saying oversigning prevents poor students from going to college?

      • Excuse me? Have you not even read what has been proposed here? It is all about reducing scholarships. Did you not even read the article just posted? It does reduce the number scholarships available. If you can only offer up to the 85 limit — in February — it will reduce the number of scholarships offered and reduce opportunities for the predominately poor kids who take football scholarships in February — 7 months before the season starts and long before the roster is reduced by natural attrition. Here’s what Johnson said,

        “As soon as he signs it, he counts—he’s one of your 85.”

        So, again. The question for you and “Joshua” is, how do you justify reducing opportunities for poor kids on the front end in the name of protecting them on the back end, and to answer your question, reducing football scholarships will absolutely reduce the number of poor kids going to college. It’s a mathematical fact. Are you OK with that? Every action has a consequence — often the consequence is unintended and negative. That’s what’s is happening here. In his crusade to rid the world of the evil of oversigning, Joshua has ignored the fact that he will be directly responsible for limiting opportunities for those in our society who need them most. Apparently he doesn’t care. Do you?

      • Excuse me? Have you not even read what has been proposed here? It is all about reducing scholarships. Did you not even read the article just posted? It does reduce the number scholarships available. If you can only offer up to the 85 limit — in February — it will reduce the number of scholarships offered and reduce opportunities for the predominately poor kids who take football scholarships in February — 7 months before the season starts and long before the roster is reduced by natural attrition. Here’s what Johnson said,

        “As soon as he signs it, he counts—he’s one of your 85.”

        So, again. The question for you and “Joshua” is, how do you justify reducing opportunities for poor kids on the front end in the name of protecting them on the back end, and to answer your question, reducing football scholarships will absolutely reduce the number of poor kids going to college. It’s a mathematical fact. Are you OK with that? Every action has a consequence — often the consequence is unintended and negative. That’s what’s is happening here. In his crusade to rid the world of the evil of oversigning, Joshua has ignored the fact that he will be directly responsible for limiting opportunities for those in our society who need them most. Apparently he doesn’t care. Do you?

      • Luke,

        “Thats just ludicrous about kids from poor backgrounds getting an opportunity. Insulting to the tons of students who take loans just to go through school.”

        I took student loans for a graduate degree… I am not insulted.

  7. I thought of another fun side effect of some of the proposed rules. Coaches would now have stronger incentives to gain silent commitments and instruct the silents to give verbals or mislead other coaches/teams. There is some incentive to do it now, but you can see how “missing” on a couple of recruits is more detrimental under proposed rules.

    • I think the primary side effect is that some verbal commitments will be asked to not sign LOIs and instead are promised a scholarship at some later point. It’s called blueshiriting and Illinois did it this past year to get around the 28 signing limit. Somehow, I’m guessing that it would have been highlighted on this blog already if it had been an SEC school instead of a Big Ten school who utilized the practice. Those commits better hope that nothing happens to Zook because there is nothing in writing to protect them as far as I know.

      • Yeah… I see Blueshirting as a bigger problem than greyshirting… but if a recruit is willing to take the risk, more power to him/her… seems like a pretty big risk to me.

  8. Re: who gets hurt by the proposed rule changes

    A substantial change to the rules in order to alter the risk-reward ratio in recruiting — which Joshua et al explicitly advocate — fundamentally alters the pool of candidates for the 10,000 +/- D-1 scholarships awarded by the 120 D-1 programs. You can argue the how and who, but you cannot argue that the pool itself would remain unchanged in some way. Even J admits he wants to see less academically borderline kids offered scholarships. I think that’s more about college football players being college-ready students, which seems an entirely reasonable position, than racism. But yes, that position does open things up to social issues relative to achievement gaps and socio-economic disparities in the K-12 system, which in turn skew the pool of college-ready candidates.

    No one’s really figured those issues out yet. Conservatives like to point to family issues, and liberals like to point to cultural biases. There’s a lot of truth in both perspectives, but right now, we’re in a zero-sum political game where only view can be considered right at a time. Which gets us nowhere.

    • ITM,
      Well put! I’ve stayed away from the race argument for that reason. Liberals and the NAACP will probably have a problem with rules that seem to bias the current system away from minorities, but conservatives refuse to accept the position that bias is necessarily racist. Both sides are thoroughly entrenched.

      • Not in reply but in response to Richard’s first paragraph below…

        I want to make sure that my post directly above this one is taken as intended. I don’t believe that I’ve offended Richard, but his post prodded me to further elaborate. I was speaking in generalities and I would do better not to stereotype. What I meant, though, is that some people believe that any system/practice that biases selection toward (or away from) a particular race, gender, or etc. is discrimination. Some people believe that biases exist in nature and that some systems/practices should exhibit bias and that the bias is not discrimination.

        If anyone found my previous post offensive, I apologize.

    • wait what? It doesn’t fundamentally alter the pool. It means maybe a few more 5th level seniors will get a scholarship (and usually these are guys who won’t be going to the NFL, but who have worked hard to make something). Its insulting to them to say they are less deserving of a scholarship than a prospective student who may not even be able to get in to college.

      • As a former walk-on, no it is not insulting. While I, like most walk-ons, busted our hump to earn scholarship, we also realize that athletic scholarships are merit based. If we earn it great, but if someone else is has more to offer we are not insulted at all. In fact the opposite is true, EARNING a scholarship is something to take pride in, being given a scholarship because they can’t do anything else is great for my wallet, but not really something to take pride in.

        • Ummm, schools are allowed to “bank” scholarships. They don’t have to give them to walk ons. So if they don’t feel like spending, or if they did have 1-2 people not qualify, they can still bank the scholarships.

          • Banking implies that if they did not use it it would be available later. That is not the case. If I only use 23 scholarships I cannot use 27 the next year.

            A scholarship that is unused is a lost opportunity.

  9. I’m a staunch conservative and don’t want to see legitimate opportunities diminished for poor minorities who need them the most. I would think that no matter which side of the political aisle you come down on, you could agree that limiting opportunities for the disadvantaged is not helpful to the problems we face as a society.

    That’s why I believe “Joshua’s” crusade is ill conceived. He either hasn’t thought through the consequences of his “solution,” or he simple doesn’t care about the damage it will do. Either way it’s a bad idea. Why not, instead of limiting opportunities to prohibit oversigning, we increase the 85 limit to 100, then allow 25 each year on signing day and have a “supplemental draft” later in the year to deal with natural attrition? That would eliminate “Joshua’s” pet peeve while increasing opportunities for the poor.

    • He has never really entertained the notion of expanding the total cap.


      Because it wouldn’t achieve what it is he is trying to achieve here. Go back to the beginning of the blog and see if you can find even one instance where he was willing to discuss raising the limit. He’s not, because if that happened the SEC would not lose anything. This isn’t about “fixing the system”, and it’s a relief to me that most of you now acknowledge that. For all of his platitudes, it’s clear that Josh’s goal has nothing whatsoever to do with “kids”. He’s on a mission for his Ohio State buddies.

      Most of you choose not to take my points seriously because you don’t feel I am engaging Josh on the issues. The reason I won’t do that is not because I am incapable, it’s that it is a pointeless endeavor. All of you regulars have done a Herculean job of pointing out all of the weaknesses and fallacies in Josh’s arguments and he hasn’t budged an inch. Therefore I choose not to waste my keystrokes doing the same thing. Rather I continually point out the clear goals this guy has so that you can see him for what he really is. A grandstander with a silly agenda.

    • Wait, how is now signing about increasing opportunities for the poor? Thats a total disconnect from the purpose of an athletic scholarship. Its not about how much you/your family makes, its about your athletic talent.

      So why are you arguing about opportunities for the poor?

      • First off, it is not a total disconnect. The Western Conference (Big Ten), and other conferences of that era, applied a needs test for scholarships to athletes.

        Second, at risk students may well be able to get Pell Grants and Stafford loans, but very unlikely any type of scholastic grants. The percentage of at risk students is much higher from lower socio-economic communities, as is health and other issues. Unless those student are willing to down grade their education opportunity (as Josh often uses as an argument about what happens transfer students) then Pell/Stafford is not likely to cover the cost, even then it will require additional income. For at risk students a support structure, similar to what college athletics provide, is critical to their success.

        Third, these at risk students will be the ones left out of the equation when few LOI are allowed each year. Coaches just cannot afford to take the chance and keep their jobs.

        There is ample data to suggest that the economically disadvantaged will take the blunt of the blow from reduced scholarship opportunities. Certainly more evidence than most arguments made by the creator is this site.

        • 1. Haven’t seen anything of the sort. Care to supply the data/facts the back it up?

          2. At risk students have a hard time getting grants. This is regardless of whether he is an athlete or not. They run the same risks as the normal college population. They have the same opportunities and the same challenges as the other college students.

          3. Colleges also offer TONS of assistance towards athletes. They have mentors, study guides, etc. They won’t be left out.

          Though if a student can’t get into college, how can you expect him to stay in college, and get a degree? Its not like college gets easier later on. College’s do have requirements as well as the NCAA mandated requirement. They wouldn’t get in, scholarship or not. (most colleges also lower their requirements standards for student athletes)

          So how can the system screw out a kid if he can’t get into a college in the first place?

      • Use the force, Luke! The force between your ears. See if you can understand these simple concepts. First, the purported rationale for this site is that kids are being dealt an injustice because they may be cut a few years down the road to make room for new blood? Agree so far? The whole idea here is that an evil is being perpetrated on youth by this evil process, so it must be eliminated to protect these young people from being taken advantage of. So, the solution being pushed is to limit the number of kids being signed on signing day in February (the front end) regardless of how many the program may lose to natural attrition before the season starts 7 months down the road. Still with me?

        So, here’s the question. Would not decreasing scholarships on the front end to protect kids on the back end reduce opportunities for the same kids you are seeking to protect and are not those kids disproportionately minorities and poor and many academically marginal ie they won’t be receiving academic scholarships? When you reduce the number of scholarships, you reduce the number going to minorities and the poor by defalut. Personally, I don’t see how eliminating the alleged injustice of oversigning is somehow worth reducing opportunities to poor minorities, do you? If you’re still having trouble, let me know.

        • Richard,

          If you can show how the poor absolutely CANNOT get in to college, how they are prevented from taking things like student loans, etc, to get in to college, then I will concede. But if the athlete wasn’t willing to put money to get in to college, to spend the time for his grades, etc, isn’t he just using the college for a shot at the NFL? Nevermind the benefits that come with a college degree.

          But then you must be for means testing then, right? Should Duron Carter be prevented from getting a scholarship because his dad is rich? Why not just offer football scholarships only to poor people?

          So Richard, take a deep breath, and reread your posts. You aren’t reducing their opportunity for college. They still have the same opportunity to go to college.

          You simply stated that some at risk students athletes who may not graduate might have to take a year off for JUCO/prep before applying again.

          But keep on going with a condescending attitude. Just proving my point…

          • Luke,
            I don’t think many people are following you into your point.

          • Luke,
            I think that this might clear up some of the problems we’re having…

            Two NBA basketball players are given the opportunity to win money by making a basket.

            Player 1 has to hit a basket from the balcony across court to win $100.
            Player 2 has to hit a basket from anywhere he wants to win $100.

            Does either player have “more opportunity”? Or do they have the “same opportunity”?

            • The have the same opportunity – to win 100$. One player just has a harder challenge.

              • What is player 2 get to shoot twice? Does he have 2 opportunities? Or does he have 1?

                • Free throws are called opportunities. They are each worth 1 point. We say a player has a 3 point play, or a 2 point opportunity. We may say, he shoots 50%, his chance is 70%. However, the point potential is still the same. In here, the goal is graduating from college. Some students have better chances than others. That doesn’t mean both can’t get that degree.

                  • “That doesn’t mean both can’t get that degree.”

                    No one has ever argued that point…

                    • Yes, but if our “points” are graduating from college, then how can they lose an opportunity to graduate? I’m just spelling out a difference between opportunity (which is important) and the hardship.

                      So basically, you are agreeing that oversigning does not PREVENT kids from graduating from college. Correct? I should hope not, because that would mean no-one could ever graduate from a B1G school!

                  • Excellent analogy.

                    I cannot just walk up to the line and shoot a free through. No matter what I do, that opportunity is dependent on other people. A large part of that opportunity is out of my control. The only thing I can control completely is what I do with the opportunity.

                    • Right! the things they can control. Students can control their grades, right? (you know what i mean) They can choose to stay in college if they have a scholarship or not. Some may have better chances, but yes, i agree that the only thing you can control is how you deal with adversity, to do with your opportunity: to graduate.

          • Luke,

            so your point is that poor, minority kids will be affected by “Joshua’s” proposal, but who cares because they can get into college some other way?

            • My argument is that football scholarships aren’t targeted to the poor, or minorities. They’re targeted towards football players, regardless of socio-economic or racial status. You’re making a very common logical mistake here.

              • Hockey scholarships are not targeted at white kids from the north. Basketball scholarships are not targeted at black kids from urban areas. Gold scholarships are not targeted at wealthy white kids either. But that is who gets them.

                Your mistake in logic is failing to account for who makes up the subset of people that that fall with in the target group. A portion of players that receive football scholarships are economically disadvantaged. A disproportionate percentage of those will be considered at risk. Those are the ones most likely be left out in this equation.

      • Because it’s a fact that most D1 athletes (football) come from lower socio-ecomic backgrounds and are minorities, and these people will be affected the most. Joshua doesn’t care, this is his way of leveling the playing field, which makes it racist.

        • This is perhaps the most common logical misconception/mistake most people make. Or correlation implying causation. Both are pretty common.

  10. Luke –

    First – yes Josh has stated times that students transferring colleges is down grading his education quality. I have argued against that point being unilateral as he states it. Sometimes yes he is, but often he is not downgrading. But Josh has most certainly argued that point MANY times. So if transferring from D1 to D1 or even D1 to D2 or D3 is downgrading their education, then it is ABSOLUTELY true that Juco or CC is a down grade. Since you are arguing the at risk student can go Juco or CC then you are arguing for a down grade as Josh defines it.

    You also say that at risk student run the same risk as the general student body when it comes to grants and that they have the same opportunities and challenges as other students. That runs counter popular thinking among academics. First, grants and even loans (if they can be procured) usually do not cover the total cost of an education and additional income is usually required. That income comes from part time jobs or student employment. Now you have an at risk student as an athlete he has the benefit of his entire educational cost being paid (minus incidentals which is another debate). In addition, as you correctly point out, the SA has additional benefits and resources to help ensure he succeeds, such as tutors and additional study labs.

    Now take the at risk student (non-athlete) if he is able to secure grants and loans he is still going to need to work, probably far more than the allotted time the NCAA allows to spent on athletics. In addition he does not have the benefits of being provided tutors and labs.

    There is a clear difference in the probability of success in these cases. As I said all opportunities are not created equal. You can argue all you want that no one will loose an opportunity but it just does not hold water.

    In fact, I would I wish I could find a study on the differential on at risk student attending college as a SA versus non SA. I am willing to bet there is a differential and that it is significant.

    What is amazing to me is that for the longest Josh and his supporters have argued that their efforts are about not exploiting SA’s and making sure they were not harmed. Now the debate has shifted and the student par of SA seems to be of almost no concern. I think this goes to show that 1) this sites intentions are not as pure as it pretends and 2) the arguments supplied by this site are so weak as to be abandoned.

    If you can really say that no opportunities for at risk SA’s will be lost then you are living in a fantasy world.

    • No, you’re just making a common logical mistake.

      Do you agree that this is the statement you are making?

      A majority of at risk students are poor. Greyshirting helps out at risk students ( i would debate this point, but for argument i’ll let it slide for now).

      Thus by eliminating greyshirting you are hurting the poor.

      Is that a fair summary of your argument?

      As for then opportunity thing, the probability of success does not equal opportunity. We saw a free throw shooter shoots 70%, he may have a 70% success ratio. But he still has the opportunity to make one (or two) free throws.

      • Luke, do you refute that the proposed rules will result in fewer high-risk students going to college and fewer high-risk students graduating?

        • Yes. Lets see, here are the facts:

          In either case, oversigning, or not oversigning, the student athletes who cannot make it to college don’t get there. Remember, just because a kid signs doesn’t mean his grades are good enough to get in to college.

          The ones who don’t get in go to prep. Should be no difference between oversigning allowed, and oversigning not allowed.

          In one case, 3 kids who were oversigned never made it to college. On the other case, 3 kids were not signed, and never made it to college. Same scenario there.

          Both cases, both kids go to JUCO. 2 increase their grades enough to go to college, 1 doesn’t. In either case, its a pretty equal/even scenario.

          How can you count high risk students as going to college if “at risk” means they won’t get in?

          • Luke,
            Again your argument hangs on a misrepresentation of words:
            “How can you count high risk students as going to college if “at risk” means they won’t get in?”

            It sounds to me as if you are trying to equate “high risk” with “at risk.” “High-risk student” is the term that I used to refer to academically borderline (with respect to college admission) high school student athletes. I disagree with your definition of “at risk” anyway, and I’m not the only one:

            You never accounted for the case where an academically borderline student athlete who otherwise would not have attended college was signed under the present rules; through great effort he qualifies and goes to college. Under proposed rules, this student athlete does not go to college because the coach refuses to use a scarce scholarship on a student who is less likely to qualify.

            Also, you preface your post with the promise of facts, but I see none.

            • Charlie,
              That was a typo. Instead of at-risk, i meant high risk. I think it was pretty obvious what i was saying, when i said “how can you count high risk students as going to college if “(should have been hi risk)” means they won’t get in?

              But fine, i submit that i made a typo. Please address that situation. Yes, i made a typo, yes i am human. I am not equating high risk with at risk. Never meant to.

              As for your claim that oversigning helps students, i would disagree. If a coach is borderline about giving a kid a scholarship, do you think the kid is going to work harder to get his grades up? Or is he going to relax? I would say the kid will try harder to prove he can get in, get his grades up to get a scholarship. You can’t account for one side of the case, and not the other. How is my scenario less likely than yours?

              You are also assuming that if oversigning is allowed, coaches won’t offer scholarships to high-risk students. You imply that those students are barred forever from getting a scholarship. Can he not also go to prep-school/juco to get his grades up?

              So yes, i still disagree that your assumption that fewer high risk students will go to college is a foregone conclusion.

              Charlie, how can “high risk” students be prevented from going to college, if they can’t get in in the first place?

              • You are doing it again… you are misrepresenting my position. Straw man much? To use your words, “You’re making a very common logical mistake here.”

                “You are also assuming that if oversigning is allowed, coaches won’t offer scholarships to high-risk students.”
                NO! I am assuming that coaches won’t offer AS MANY scholarships to high-risk students.

                “You imply that those students are barred forever from getting a scholarship. Can he not also go to prep-school/juco to get his grades up?”
                I don’t imply this. I gave a hypothetical to address your hypothetical cases. I am implying that SOME athletes would not have gone to college if they had not been given athletic scholarships.

                “Charlie, how can “high risk” students be prevented from going to college, if they can’t get in in the first place?”
                They can get in… see the scenario in my previous post. And they are not being “prevented” from going to college. No one here has made that claim.

                • No, you did not say that some athletes would not go to college if they don’t get an athletic scholarship.

                  Here is your quote:
                  “Luke, do you refute that the proposed rules will result in fewer high-risk students going to college and fewer high-risk students graduating?”

                  Thats not a straw man. You are saying that if oversigning is eliminated, fewer high risk students will go to college and/or graduate. And i’m disputing that fact.

                  OFFERING a scholarship, and GOING to college are two seperate events. Thats where you are getting hung up. Just because you are OFFERED a scholarship, that doesn’t mean you are GOING to college.

                  See the difference? Those are your words. I’m not arguing that coaches won’t offer as many scholarships to high risk students. What i am arguing is that it won’t effect the amount high risk students who actually go to college.

                  But i’m drawing a clear line between being offered a scholarship, and going to college.

                  So here’s your whole argument:
                  “You never accounted for the case where an academically borderline student athlete who otherwise would not have attended college was signed under the present rules; through great effort he qualifies and goes to college. Under proposed rules, this student athlete does not go to college because the coach refuses to use a scarce scholarship on a student who is less likely to qualify.”

                  That pretty much sums up the only way oversigning can be beneficial: IF getting a scholarship all of a sudden makes the student try 10X harder to get in, while IF a coach tells a student he won’t offer him a scholarship, the student just gives up and says he won’t even try anymore.

                  • “I’m not arguing that coaches won’t offer as many scholarships to high risk students.”
                    So do you admit that coaches won’t offer as many scholarships to high risk students?

                    One more scenario:

                    A student athlete under current rules gets a scholarship offer; he qualifies, goes to college and graduates.

                    The same student athlete under proposed rules does not get a scholarship offer; he achieves qualifying scores and goes to work in a paper mill.

                    See… this student athlete benefited while meeting neither of your conditions:
                    1) “IF getting a scholarship all of a sudden makes the student try 10X harder to get in…”
                    2) “IF a coach tells a student he won’t offer him a scholarship, the student just gives up and says he won’t even try anymore.”

                    • Here’s another scenario:

                      A student gets a scholarship offer, achieves his grades. He then reapplies the next year, and goes to college.

                    • I’m not saying that doesn’t happen.

                    • Right! so you’ve just stated there is no benefit of oversigning. I think thats a reasonable position

                    • You are turning into a troll. Do you really believe that I just stated that there is no benefit to oversigning? I’ll let you live in delusion. Have you noticed that you are completely alone on this argument?

      • No, what I am saying is that by eliminating grayshirting, you reduce the opportunity for coaches to effectively manage their rosters, which reduces the number of risk the coaches can take. As a result the coaches are not going to make as many offers to at risk SA’s.

        Lower socio-economic status does decrease the chances of success in education. It alos decrease the opportunity. Low socio-economic status even reduces the opportunity for high achieving students http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20051012/ .

        As I have stated before all opportunities are not built equal. When the deck is stacked against through no fault of your own, you still have the opportunity, but the opportunity becomes increasingly small.

        • No. The number of scholarships out there remains the same – 85 per team. Allowing oversigning does nothing to increase the number of scholarships out there. We can agree on that.

          So it doesn’t increase or decrease the amount of scholarships out there. It just readjusts them, correct?

          Now, you may argue with the readjustment.

          Who gets readjusted out? Students who wouldn’t receive a scholarship in the first place. Whose grades are too low to even get in to college, scholarship or not. So how is anyone hurt if the people not getting scholarships offered are the kids who won’t even be able to use said scholarships? Who can’t even get to the university in the first place?

          You could argue that kids on the boundary may get hurt. But If we look at the B1G, and see that they still offer to some kids on the boundary, then thats a moot point.

          • Scenario A: A school signs 28 kids to LOI but it only has room for 18 as of NSD. Three do not qualify and have to go Juco leaving 25. After NSD 5 current SA’s leave the program for various reasons (2 Medical, 2 transfer, 1 grades). The 2 on medical still have a scholarship and support system. The 2 that transfer are placed on scholarship at another university, the one lost to grades is out of the equation. Now there is room for 23 and you have 2 more LOI than slots. Those 2 grayshirt and are counted forward to the next year. 25 Kids have a scholarship and the opportunity and means to an education at a 4 year institution.

            Scenario B: A school signs 21 kids to LOI because it only has room for 18 plus 3 oversigned. After NSD 5 current SA’s leave the program for various reasons (2 Medical, 2 transfer, 1 grades). The 2 on medical still have a scholarship and support system. The 2 that transfer are placed on scholarship at another university, the one lost to grades is out of the equation. Now there is room for 23 but you have 2 more slots than LOI. Those 2 scholarships go to 2 5th year walk-ons. The walk-ons certainly deserve recognition for their services, but clearly already have the means to be in college.

            In scenario B two SA’s are left to go to a lower division or Juco route. If that happens at all 120 FBS schools at the average of 2 per year, then 240 (conservative estimate) potential SA’s are left to move down to FCS (63 scholarships), Div II (32), or Juco(85). So there is a finite number of scholarships for football. IF 240 FBS scholarships are not awarded to incoming SA’s and they move down, then each level must move that many more down, plus whatever short fall they have based on their rules.

            In the end that is 240 plus SA’s per year that did not receive a scholarship to for athletics. Ironically, the ones left out are going to be those that are least likely to even have professional football aspirations.

            Now some of them will find other means, but some will not. Regardless, they no longer have the opportunity to pay for college by playing football. An opportunity lost, thus fewer opportunities.

            And in the end it is all for nothing because as I have argued from the beginning anti-oversigning rules do almost NOTHING in terms of reducing the so called “abuses” of college coaches. Coaches can still choose not to renew a scholarship for no reason what so ever, they can still gray shirt, they can still medical, all of which is legal by NCAA rules. And I might add, with some additional controls in place, is useful and important.

            So oversigning is a red herring and it’s real purpose is to attempt to bring more parity to FBS football, not provide any protection to SA’s.

            • Wait a minute, what? In scenario B all 5th year seniors currently have the means to go to college? Im glad all 5th year seniors can rest easy knowing that they apparently do not have to worry about money at all. Clearly a scholarship does not help them at all, because they are already at college. Nevermind if they’re put in a ton of work to be deserving of a scholarship.

              Lets take scenario A. How come the people who transfer out to other colleges don’t bring down each level? Whats the difference between the two transferring, and two not getting in? In either cases, whether they transfer or simply don’t have the grades, they are still taking 2 more spots.

              Assuming your numbers are correct, there are 85*120, 63(FCS), 32 for DIV2, or 85 for JUCO. It doesn’t matter if the reason they go to another is due to grades, to transferring, not getting in.

              You forgot to count your transfers in the scenario A.

              There’s is no logical way for oversigning to suddenly put more kids on scholarship. All it does is rearrange who gets scholarships.

              But apparently, the pro-oversigning crowd thinks all 5th year seniors are super rich, and don’t need scholarships. (ironically, these students are probably the least likely to go to the NFL)

              Though thats assuming all walk-ons are 5th year seniors. Which is also not the case. But one argument at a time.

              • You are correct, I screwed up the numbers on the transfers, but the point is the same. Net attrition loss below the 85 cap means scholarship go unused or are given to walk-ons. I am all for walk-ons getting scholarships, I have said it before, but that should be because a coach decided he has earned it, not because a coach cannot utilize the scholarship any other way.

                And yes, if a 5th year walk-on has made it through 4 years paying his way and shows up for a 5th season, it HIGHLY likely he has the means to pay for college, or he would not have shown up for the 5th season. Does that mean he has more student loan debt, possibly. But he has the means.

                Everyone seems to forget/ignore that these are merit scholarships. The NCAA has publicly verified that fact. And like any merit scholarship, it requires not ONLY academic performance, but performance of the merited talent.

                Performance and talent two very different things. I knew players that were every bit as talented as advertised when they showed up, but for various reasons did not perform up to their talent. No one misjudged their talent. But when push came to shove, those athletes did not perform. Some because they couldn’t cope with being #4,54 or 6 on the depth chart when they had always been the star. Others became disenchanted after several injuries and eased up on their rehab. Others did not like their position coach. Regardless, they eased up and did not continue to perform.

                Let’s take it out of the athletics arena . I have known two dancers that lost scholarships, one due to knee injury he had in an activity unrelated to dancing. Another because she just got complacent and did not continue to work as hard to keep up. Should they have maintained those scholarships?

                Should a grad student who earns a scholarship based on the promise of doing research maintain his scholarship if his research is sub par even if he has a 4.0 in class and is trying hard? Do you get to keep your music scholarship if you are unable to learn the music for the performances?

                Or are we now looking at scholarships from the position, once you signed the dotted line, it does not matter as long as you try hard?

                • This is assuming that 1) all people who get scholarships are walk on seniors. Not always the case. Sometimes walk on sophomores, walk on juniors get scholarships.

                  Also – coaches are not forced to give scholarships to walk ons. They are forced to stop giving out scholarships like candy, and to specifically target student athletes who have a chance to graduate at their institution.

                  I agree that performance are talent are two different things. For the knee, there are medical schollies. Same thing in football. You can’t play (knee breaks and can’t play anymore) you still get to keep your schollie. You don’t show up to practice, you don’t give any effort, thats also cause for dismissal (same in football). I’m not arguing that people who don’t contribute should keep a scholarship.

                  The other side is this: If another dancer came in who was really talented, is it fair to pull one dancers scholarship and give it to the new dancer?

                  If a student is contractually obligated to do research for the university, but doesn’t do it, he has failed to live up to the contract. Show me where in the football scholarship contract it says they have to be the best person (or 3rd best, 4th, etc) in their position.

                  • Having been there done that, most walk-on scholarships go to SA’s in the last year of their eligibility. If it goes to an underclassman then it is because the underclassman is contributing to more than the scout team, i.e. he is seeing playing time AND he likely has a demonstrated need and that need cannot be met elsewhere.

                    The dancer I refereed to did not retain his scholarship. He could not perform so he was done. One of the plus sides of football, probably because injuries are so common.

                    I did not say the researcher did not do the research, I said it was sub par. His academic adviser told him he was not getting it done fast enough and with too many errors. So he was busting his ass but failing to live up to a standard. He was pissed because there was no written standard or even a deadline, but he could not keep pace with the other researchers so he was gone. The point is that it happens in circles outside of athletics, that is life, and it isn’t always fair.

                    But at least you are admitting that there are legitimate reasons that SA’s scholarships are removed. Which has been my complaint with this site and the oversigning debate from the beginning. People assume that coaches/teams/conferences they do not like are cheating/being unethical at every turn. And rather than propose solutions that actually would protect SA’s they push oversigning rules that don’t do a darn thing to protect SA’s.

            • Wrong, it is not a red herring; Georgia Tech would not have left the SEC in 1964 over a red herring, the B1G would not have put rules in place to prohibit a red herring at the cost of putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

              There are plenty of schools around the country that don’t oversign, maximize their scholarship opportunities, and still remain highly competitive. You left out the scholarships that are given to deserving walk-ons to help them in their last year so they can graduate with a little less debt. Those kids are getting a lot more out of the opportunity than someone who is just in college for the ball and a shot at the NFL. I think you drastically underestimate the number of kids that don’t give two rips about getting an education and are only in the game for a shot at the NFL millions.

              • If you can’t tell, Josh has been deeply affected by the recent Ohio State revelations. Ever since the SI article came out, he’s been on this kids-don’t-care-about-their-education-and-only-care-about-the-NFL tear. What does it have to do with oversigning? Nothing really, but he’s made a weak attempt to connect it to oversigning by claiming that the kids who would potentially be denied scholarships by stricter signing limits don’t really care about their education anyway. Of course, I could spin it the other way and state that any kids that Josh claims are “cut” due to oversigning didn’t care about their education; they were just there for the ball and a shot at the NFL.

              • So you are saying had the SEC lifted the cap on total scholarships then GA Tech would have stayed in the SEC?

                And as for the B1G, what were they capping? They did not give athletic scholarships in 1956?

              • I lost internet in a storm last night, so I had to finish this today.

                Yes it is a red herring. At least for what this site claims it is concerned about, which is the welfare of the SA.

                Oversigning caps do not stop any of the so called abuses.
                Can a coach still cut/not renew a player? Yes
                Can a coach still put kids on medical exemptions? Yes
                Can a coach still grayshirt? yes
                Can a coach still “run off” SA’s? I guess, since that is a vague description, I suppose they can.

                So how has oversigning limits improved anything in a meaningful way? They have not.

                And as far as “plenty” of schools don’t oversign. There are only 6 schools that have not exceed 25 scholarships at least once from 2002-2010 based on the numbers YOU put up on this site. .

                In fact, 8 of 11 B1G schools have exceed 25 and 2 of them exceeded 28, which I did not think was possible by B1G rules, the toughest in the country.

                Joshua, do you have a copy of those rules I sure would love to read them, but the B1G does not publish them as far as I can tell. I would also love some more information on the rule change in 1956 that eliminated oversigning. As best as I can tell the rules passed during that time period had more to do with balancing the league out between the haves and have not to prevent any further scandals from occurring by dis-incentivizing the poor teams from cheating to keep up with the rich ones. Not really seeing whole lot about protecting athletes. In fact I am seeing a lot of denials that the B1G was even giving athletic scholarships. It appear they were giving scholarships to people who played sports based no need and academics, not based on athletics at all.

                So help a fella out and point me towards those rules and how they came into effect.

                I am all for balancing protecting the SA and giving the coaches the tools to do their jobs. What I am against is rules that do not do that, and claims that oversigning rules prevents these “abuses,” particularly when it is clear the rules are more about competitive balance than anything else.

                • I would like to see the rules also. You definately cannot sign more than 28 people under B1G rules.

                  • Again, you are seeing my complaint with this site. We are told how great the rules the Big Ten has, but I have looked and can’t find them. I have emailed the Big Ten and gotten no response.

                    I have researched the topic and it does not make sense. In 1956 the concerns were about scandals, cheating and NOT having full scholarships for players. The Western Conference (as the Big Ten was known back then) was adamant that it did not give athletic scholarships, only need based aid to academically deserving kids who also played football. So what exactly would they have been capping? All in all it just does not make sense. No one can or wants to explain it, yet we hear people say all the time “as we all know the Big Ten passed rules against oversigning in 1956.” Maybe I have some Missourian in me somewhere, cause I am a “show me” kind of guy.

                    And when you start researching GT leaving the SEC you start to find some interesting tid bits Josh has left out to make his story better.

                    Then he replies to me that it is not a red herring because they did it, that is a circular argument. But at least it is a reply, it was his first to me that I am aware of, I was beginning to feel left out. :)

                    I have no problem debating many of these issues, in fact I think we should be discussing how we can help SA’s. But I am sick and tired of seeing the case be made with character assassination, misrepresentations, half truths and at times out right lies by some that want to do away with oversigning in the name of the SA, when in reality I think it has little or nothing to do with protecting the athlete.

                    I find it difficult to believe than very many of them have the SA’s best interest at heart for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that oversigning would not exist if there was no scholarship limit, that was created for the universities benefit (and there are legitimate reasons for it).

                    And that capping oversigning addresses almost nothing in terms of protecting the SA, it simply adds to parity, which is one of the pillars of scholarship limits to begin with.

                    I think Joshua’s shift in attitude supports my point. Before the SEC rule change, he was all about protecting the athlete. Now he says giving scholarships out to players that “only” want to play in the NFL is a waste, as if he knows what is in their minds. That does not sound like the position of an advocate of the SA to me, sounds more like the profs I had in college that wanted to do away with scholarships and athletes all together.

  11. The great thing about this site is that it has made a living trying to make two basic points.
    1.) 25 scholly/year cap
    2.) 85 total scholly cap

    I don’t really know how you guys have been so successful repackaging the same arguments for as long as you have. I guess if you scream the same message long enough, someone will hear it. The fact that I am on here is proof of that.

    I am twice a ‘Bama grad. Let me get that out of the way. My stance is that if a team is not breaking NCAA rules, which Saban and Co. are NOT, then they are playing WITHIN the rules BETTER than other teams. You can argue whether it is “right” or not. To me, this is not a moral issue. It is about being within the rules. Rules are not opinions, they are law. So unless the NCAA or the SEC changes their rules to your liking, you guys are just going to have the remain bitter.

    Your arguments are like the following:

    Three guys having different stances on relationships. One guy sleeps with a new girl every week. The second only sleeps with a girl when they are “dating”. The third wants to wait til marriage. These are self-imposed rules. The law has no guidelines, but these guys are determining what is right. Now every time the last two see the first guy, they are filled with jealousy and cry, “That’s not fair”. But guess what? It is fair. Personal decisions were made. Until recently, the SEC was guy number 1. I guess now they are guy number 2 with a loose definition on what constitutes a relationship. Regardless, guy number 3 did it to himself, and all he can do it try to make pre-marital coitus illegal.

    My point is, my wife and I dated 6 years through college (before the jokes come, remember I earned an undergraduate and a Masters) and we waited. That makes me guy number 3. But for you 1s and 2s out there, what if I tried to push my beliefs on you. You don’t feel like you are doing anything wrong, right? It’s not against the law. So unless the law changes, I guess I have no argument. If I wanted to do anything about it, I should probably talk to law makers rather than crying foul in your direction.

    You guys need to get over what Saban and Co. are doing and focus on the NCAA. Saban is going to (I hope) operate within the rules. If you get mad at him, you’re no better than a pissed off virgin.


  12. I wonder how GT being in the deep south can recruit without oversigning. There are always arguments about kids who will fail to qualify but GT seems to do alright with their athletes recruiting a higher educated kid. I bet it is hard for you guys to swallow when a coach calls out the scum coaches of the SEC, heck even coaches in the SEC call out the scum. ESPN calls out the scum! Many writers have called out the scum! Seems like oversigning.com is onto something.

    • So what is your defintion of scum. Someone that you feel is doing something wrong or someone that not only got caught doing something but got caught not telling the truth when asked also. Sorry but I see Tressel alot worse than any coach in the SEC right now. Talk about competative advantage, you don’t think recruits dont know that if they go to OSU they will get free gifts like cars. Lets not be naive hear when calling the kettle black. It is not like Nebraska has been clean since they started playing football.

      Again I will take my education that I received in the south that allowed me to succeed in college over any schools in the Big 10.

      BTW is hard for you or other B10 fans to be the poster child conference of what not to do in college football. ESPN and SI can stop talking about it. Everyday something new. Seems like they and the NCAA are on to something. The difference what OSU did was illegal, oversigning is not.

    • Fox Sports calls out scum too. Lying to a US service member in public to make yourself look good is lower than scum in my opinion.


      • I would agree, but what does that have to do with this debate?

        • 1. BetterRED (a Nebraska fan) has and will argue that the Fox Sports reporter is wrong; Pelini is just misunderstood and being misrepresented by the media. I could make the same arguement with respect to the way that certain SEC coaches have been portrayed by the media.

          2. Be careful about calling other coaches scum when your coach is possibly the biggest scum in the world.

          • Bo and Nebraska are beyond reproach. They must be because the paragon of all that is good in the world, the Big Ten, allow them to enter their league.

            For the confused, that was sarcasm.

            I see your point vesper. Name calling is the last refuge of the lost in the world of debate.

            Unfortunately, if people make the same claims often enough and loud enough, then others start to believe them, regardless of the lack of facts.

            • Instead of debating the facts of oversigning as wrong you redirect to something totally unrelated, Vesper. Once again, you manage to bring up a totally none related issue that happened to be a complete misunderstanding. Good one again for taking away from the subject at hand.

              I was not bashing in any way the education provided by schools in the south, I was simply bringing up the point many pro oversigners have brought up on this site. Pro oversigners on this site always defend oversigning by SEC teams because of the lack of education in the south. I hope you get my point because I was not in anyway knocking any south school for education.

              • and Vesper, I am a former service member and veteran serving 9 years in the Army and 15 months deployed to Iraq in 2003-04. If a college football coach told me I could call a play I for sure wouldnt take him seriously but I guess I dont fall for all the BS people say.

                • “Once again, you manage to bring up a totally none related issue…”

                • Charlie Weiss kept his promise to a kid a few years ago about calling a play. What Bo Pelini did was shameful and all Nebraska fans should be ashamed.

                  • and he is not Charlie Weis. If you watch the press conference you can clearly tell he is just joking when he says it. I watched the press conference and there wasnt one second where I actually thought he was going to allow some service member from Nebraska a chance to call a play. That is just redic.

              • I’d be happy to debate the facts of oversigning with you, but that was never your intention. You were much more interested in calling SEC coaches scum which you then supported by stating that the media has also called SEC coaches scum. I simply pointed out that the media has also called Bo Pelini scum. If you produce facts, then I will too. If you resort to name-calling, so will I.

                I also served 9 years in the military, and I certainly don’t fall for all the BS that people say. But if a college football coach told me in a room full of my fellow service members that I could call a play – immediately after announcing that I would be on the sideline for the game – I would believe him. I guess ET3 Ryan and I are both just fools that way.

                • Lets keep restating the fact that have been stated so many times on this site. Every coach in the SEC oversigns except Florida, Georgia, and Vandy. Blah blah blah. You know exactly what I was referring to when I said these scum coaches. You know the fact, I know the facst so why rehash the same stuff over and over. Come August there will be tons more information to “hash” not “rehash.” The question is how many is Saban, Miles, Nutt, Petrino, etc going to have in their “normal” attrition? Or roster management if you prefer?

  13. First of all arguing with Luke is pointless. He makes a statement that he detest the most when people on here exaggarate but yet he supports everything that Joshua’s writes. If he really feels that way I guess he has not read everything that is written on this site. Sorry Luke but the majority of blog entries on this site are exaggerations with no facts whatsoever except Joshua’s opinion. You also state you want facts but yet posters since this site was created have asked for facts from Joshua and have not got them.

    Remember he created this site because he does not like Saban. Joshua’s words and I posted them in another entry and they were his exact quote on an OSU site he frequents. So lets not claim this site was created to be concerned about the wellbeing of the student athlete or had no bias whatsoever. If you can not admit his bias you are no different.

    Now in regards to grayshirting I have no issue with it and grayshirting has nothing to do with preventing minorities from getting a scholarship or if it was stopped would it affect it. Grayshirting is a competative advantage for a school with a player that needs more development. It allows the coach the opportunity to give the player essentially one more year to develop in college without affecting their eligibility. Also as others have pointed out players at UA are told upfront that they will or may grayshirt. Like someone pointed out Collins signed with UK and also X Ward was told he would grayshirt at UA if he signed but signed with UGA instead. So me where one player at UA was forced to grayshirt but did not expect it.

    You want facts but yet you seem to make assumptions because the info is not being provided by UA so now your assumptions you want to pass on as facts. Alot like Joshua on here.

    Regarding Ohr I doubt in my opinion the family would have tried so hard to get him into college if he did not play football. Sure they would have helped him succeed, but I doubt the effort he got because he played football would have been given if he did not. The movie if most people are going off of does not tell everything.

    Also lets not be naive to think that all these recruited players deserve to be in college, even in the Big10. Yes alot do come from low-socio-economic backgrounds, but my concern lies more with all the students that get scholarships who are destined to fail from the start in the classroom. Yes I know the SEC gets pointed to because of sign and place but the problem is every program in the country including schools like OSU take students that are high risk. If I had my way no athlete would be admitted unless they could meet the same standard that every non student-athlete has to meet to get in. The real tragedy is all the non student athletes who do not get in but yet have higher qualifications or the ones that have to take loans out and be in debt the rest of their lives, but yet the so-called student-athlete barely has to qualify and gets a free education because they can play football. See you seem to overlook that issue like many others do.

    See to many people get on here a preach from the pulpit that these poor student-athletes are getting taking advantage of and being robbed on their education. Then they want the NCAA to step in and stop it. The same organization that allows these same athletes to also be students who yet are actually a minority when it comes to being an actual qualified student.

    Lets see the numbers for every BCS school that has football players that were below average in qualifying vs the non student-athlete at that school, or would not have qualified if they did not play football. Next lets take a look at every non student-athlete that did not get into the a school but yet easily qualified vs the athlete that would not have except they play football. My guess is that well over 60% maybe higher would never get into those colleges if was not for their athletic ability and that more non student-athletes that qualified were turned down then these below average student athletes in the classroom.

    See my point is to people like Luke who want to defend these athletes, because in the end the majority of the ones we are talking about should have never been there in the first place. That goes for every BCS conference.

    • So you’re mad because i’m pointing out your assumptions/exaggerations? I’m saying, here are your assumptions, and how they aren’t likely, or don’t follow logically.

      I’m also not arguing that football players have better grades/records than the normal student athletes. Never have. So you’re saying i shouldn’t be defending football players, because most of them shouldn’t be there?

      I’m not saying this site doesn’t have an anti saban bias. I would agree to that. But i do think oversigning is wrong. Feel free to point out any oversigning exaggerations i have made. But feel free to correct them.

      • When restating the opposing argument, you tend to misrepresent it. For instance, I made a post about “high-risk students.” You magically made up a new definition of “high risk.”

        No one is mad because you’re some kind of logical genius… quite the opposite. Everyone is frustrated because trying to pursue logical discourse with you is impossible.

        • I didn’t make up a new definition of high risk… simply had a typo.

          Discourse is always hard when you have to defend your position. I’m forcing you to stop making general exaggerations, like, “michael ohr wouldn’t play college football if oversigning was disallowed” and the like. If you stop making exaggerations, you’ll find an easier time to argue.

          • Typo? No chance–”at” is nowhere near “high” on my keyboard. An oversight? Maybe. But either way, you defined it to your liking. I’ll quote you:

            “How can you count high risk students as going to college if “at risk” means they won’t get in?”

            So there was your “typo” and your redefinition. Nobody defined “high risk” to mean “they won’t get in.”

  14. Also lets clarify something since this site only will post items that support his agenda. GT did leave the SEC and in part due to number of scholarships other schools would get since they werelimited in the amount of scholarships they could offer. But what Joshua fails to present is that Dodd and Curry both at GT regreted the decision and tried to join the SEC again in 1975 with the help of Bear Bryant and it was blocked by the MS schools. Again Joshua will not link that article because it goes against everything he states about GT leaving and wanting nothing to do with the SEC again.

    Curry said Bryant agreed in 1975 to resume his friendship with Dodd and sought to personally sponsor Tech’s re-entry to the SEC. But Dodd knew some other SEC schools wouldn’t let Tech back in, according to Curry.

    All these years later, Curry regrets Georgia Tech left the SEC and says Dodd did, too.


    Again assumotions because you want to believe they are true have no value when the facts are presented.

  15. Also, Josh won’t be getting any sort of assistance or help from Cecil Hurt. Cecil knows he’s not worth the time or effort. When I emailed Cecil to ask him about this website, this was the response I got:

    There are apparently two guys, one more hostile than the other, on the internet. I have never spoken directly to either.

    I do not understand the need for anonymity, and it does raise questions.


    I should add that Finebaum is also unlikely to do anything whatsoever to “work with” Josh on any level, so long as he insists on remaining anonymous.

    So good luck with that.

    • Finebaum is a homer for everything Alabama football. He is a homer for Auburn and Alabama equally. He puts those two schools at the top but he is an arrogant SEC homer and the show is terrible because listening to it is like watching a dog chase his tale in circles.

      • Finebaum is no more a “homer” than any sports radio guy who works a market. Do you think the guys who work in sports radio in Columbus are somehow more objective? Get serious. Finebaum has some syndication, but the vast preponderance of his listeners are in Alabama. So of COURSE he focuses on those programs. Why in the hell would you think he should do otherwise?

        • I understand he has to cater towards a market but he is on XM radio/college sports which is worldwide so maybe he should change it up and talk about other teams than Auburn, Alabama or Tennessee. He does make some good points, but its the same thing over and over with a few SEC teams. Boring.

    • When you have kirk herbstreit leaving columbus because of the hyper fans, and the poisoning of the Oaks at Toom’s Corner (sp?), i can’t blame people from being anonymous. There are too many wackos out there. That isn’t just an SEC thing, its a college football thing.

    • Cecil and/or Finebaum are welcome to deal with Marc Bailey. He can be reached at marc@oversigning.com

      Cecil doesn’t need to deal with us to do his job by the way, he has a responsibility to ask questions about Saban’s recruiting practices and his numbers, he refuses to because he knows it will ruin his relationship with Saban and limit his access to the program. No big deal really, just funny that Hurt won’t stand up to Saban and ask tough questions.

      • Your Oversigning Cup standings show 7 non-SEC schools that oversigned this past year. In addition to those 7, I’ve given you links that indicate at least 16 other non-SEC schools oversigned. Have you contacted the beat reporters for any of these 23 non-SEC schools in an attempt to get them to question the respective coaches about their numbers?

        If you have not, why would an Alabama reporter feel obligated to do your bidding? It’s one thing if the beat reporter views you as someone out to make improvements for student-athletes across the NCAA, but you come across as someone who is motivated by a bias against one conference and one school in particular.

        It also appears that you are paying for the decision to allow TD to use @oversigning as his handle while pestering journalists and making absurd rants on Twitter. When Cecil stated that one is more hostile than the other, I assume he is referring to TD. Associate with a lunatic and you tend to lose credibility.

      • So why don’t you stand up to Saban and ask those questions?

        You want to criticize Hurt, et al, for not have the guts to do what you want them to do, yet you hide behind the anonymity of the web. At least Hurt puts his name and reputation on the line, you put a few buck to register a domain and host a site, all in all, you have no room to criticize anyone for what they are willing to ask.

        • Damn right. Josh has no business trying to make this about Cecil. Cecil owes no obligation to him. Yes, Saban is a difficult guy re the press. Cecil writes for the Tuscaloosa News. Why would he commit career hari kiri and alienate the #1 figure in athletics on his beat? Because some anonymous jerk wants him to?

  16. ———————————————
    QUOTE: Luke
    June 16th, 2011 – 17:46
    “Right! the things they can control. Students can control their grades, right? (you know what i mean) They can choose to stay in college if they have a scholarship or not. Some may have better chances, but yes, i agree that the only thing you can control is how you deal with adversity, to do with your opportunity: to graduate.”
    If that is true then why are you the least bit worried about a SA getting cut, put on medical, transferring or any of the other evils attributed to oversigning? They can choose to stay in college if they have a scholarship or not, sure some may have better chances, but the only thing you can control is how you deal with adversity, to do with your opportunity: to graduate, right?

    Are you listening to yourself? Or are you so wrapped up in your own arguement you can’t see the truth? Or is this whole thing been about nothing more than wanting to put a dominant conference in its place at the expense of SA’s?

    Luke, you have been pounding on everyone else’s logic, but you can’t cry foul on oversigning for hurting SA’s when you use that type of argument. That logic is not flawed, it is nonexistant.

    • Gary,
      Glad you asked. I’m pointing out the difference between opportunities and how much help to give students. You’re not taking away their opportunity, but you are making it harder for them to reach that goal. Big difference.

      Here is the core of the argument:

      You shouldn’t take away help from a kid if he’s grades are good and he’s tried to the best of his ability. Yes, a kid still needs to show up to practices, go to workouts, etc. But its not his fault if a coach misread his athletic ability.

      Compare that with oversigning: Who loses out here? Who really loses a scholarship? It can’t be a kid who can’t get in to college: how does him not getting a scholarship matter if he’s not getting into the school in the first place?

      So yes, I’m arguing about opportunity to disagree with some of the exaggerated claims here, that students are being prevented somehow from graduating without oversigning. A students grades/academic demeanor SHOULD BE #1 in importance. Do you disagree with this?

      • It depends. Did the student get an athletic scholarship or an academic scholarship? Oh, an athletic one?!!

        During my time at ‘Bama, for my academic scholarships, I had to maintain a 3.5 or I would lose them?

        Is it wrong to expect similar results, athletically, from students on athletic scholarships, or should I be the only one held to a scholarship standard? I think if you are there athletically, your first duty is meet those standards on the field as well as any minimum standard required by the university to stay in school (In this case, a 2.0 GPA).

        Your argument, when taken to the extreme would say that once given a football scholarship, a player can do the minimum (no drugs, no jail, no fighting, no on-field performance). You are saying this person because of the accomplishments made in high school deserves a four year guarantee as long as they keep a 2.0. You’re saying that what they do on the field doesn’t matter, even though the scholarship was based on “on-field performance”. It seems that I would then deserve the same treatment for academic scholarships (a 2.0 should work).

        Question: Why was I held to a higher standard?

        Answer: Because these guys are expected to perform on the field. If they don’t, they get cut. Love it, or hate it. It’s the way it should be.

      • The problem I have with your argument and this sites argument is it is absolutism. While I am more than willing to admit that there are certainly situations where abuses occur, but the arguments here seem absolute with no exceptions.

        The failure of the athlete is not always because a coach misreads his ability.
        We are not arguing that a kids that can’t get into college is who is loosing a scholarship. But you seem unwilling to concede that some opportunities for SA’s to attend college will occur.

        SA’s education should be the #1 concern, but it cannot be the only concern. Just like a dancer, musician, artist, researcher or kids working 2 jobs to pay for school cannot only be concerned about academics and not the activity that provides the means to that education.

        All medical scholarships are not nefarious back doors to cutting athletes. All transfers are not caused by coaches forcing SA’s out.

        Absolutism is a fast way to polarize any debate, this site serves as evidence of that fact.

  17. Food for thought. I’m paraphrasing this from something I read. Not sure if I agree or not, but it makes some sense. Seems to be a fault line in the arguments in this thread.

    If a kid shows up for all of his classes, hits the library, and even makes it to his professor’s office hours every week, does he get to keep his scholarship no matter what?

    No. C’s won’t keep him on scholarship, no matter how much effort he exerts.

    What if the kid goes to MIT, where C’s come a little easier and A’s are a much tougher mountain to climb? He knows he’s entering a brutally competitive academic environment he’s entering. Does MIT mislead every kid who flunks out? Do we assume every kid who flunks out just doesn’t care? Or do some kids try – and fail?

    We call it the “student-athletes” for a reason. The GIA has two performance components. We’re willing to forgive a student for lacking the necessary athletic skill to compete at a certain level, but we’re more than willing to dismiss an athlete for lacking the necessary academic prowess. Seems a little one-sided, when you think about it.

    • Here are the academic rules: If you don’t keep up your grades, you will fail out/lose your scholarship. But your challenges are clearly defined, as well as your goals: you must maintain a 3.2, etc, average to continue on scholarship.

      The athletic part also has goals: participating in workouts, team meetings, etc. Its not a requirement that you be better than all the other student athletes. Thats a big difference.

      And it doesn’t really mesh well. How would this look academically? Saying, hey, i know your grades were good enough, but theres this really smart kid coming in that we want to give a scholarship to. So we’re taking your scholarship and giving it to him. How is that fair?

      • That’s the interesting part for me. In your scenario, the student goals are clearly performance based, while the athletic goals are simply participation based. We’re comfortable allowing a professor to assess achievement. We’re not comfortable allowing a coach to assess achievement.

        There’s not necessarily a requirement that a football player be better than everyone else on the team. For example, a coach might require a linebacker to be able to turn and cover a tight end. If someone simply cannot do that effectively enough to play in an SEC or Big 12 game, no matter how much time he spends in the weight room or practice field, does he get his “3.2″ just because he’s trying really hard?

        Again, your definition of “good enough” seems simply to be, “puts forth demonstrable and therefore acceptable effort.” We don’t apply that standard for engineers at MIT, especially the ones on scholarship. We do want to apply that standard to football programs which, for all intents and purposes, represent the MITs of football.

        The relevant questions to me seem to be, “Do we even allow a performance metric for renewal of athletic aid? If we do, where do we draw the line?”

        For whatever reasons, people against oversigning seem to fall into the “no metric” or “just try” metric camp, while those who defend the coaches in question seem to fall into the “you must perform” metric camp.

        I honestly see merit and problems in both equations, and I don’t really have a firm opinion on that one yet.

        • The difference between an MIT academic scholarship is that he has to get a certain GPA, which is a measureable, quantifiable output.

          There is no such quantifiable output in football. Thats not something they sign, how much they can bench, or what their 40 time is. I agree that it is a bit nebulous. One the one hand, you can’t make it to lax. Things like meetings, class workouts, and effort are all required. On the other hand, what quantifiable benchmark can you have for a football player?

          With a performance metric, you have goals (tests) which are compared to how you do against the results. Thats not a clear requirement in football. I agree there isn’t a fine “line in the sand” type deal.

          • You don’t think that anyone has ever lost their scholarship due to Bell Curve grading??? It happens all the time, and it affects those at a comparative disadvantage!!

            • Really? I know in some places, there is bell curve grading, but in all the courses i took, most of the professors hated that. The students hated it too. I didn’t see any in my college. I can’t speak for all the other colleges, but its a pretty dumb rule. You should be taught against a standard, not how intelligent your neighbor is.

              • You should be taught against a standard, not how intelligent your neighbor is.

                I’m not saying it is the correct way to teach, but a lot of top Medical, Law and Engineering schools would disagree with your statement…

          • Luke, I’ve stayed away from this conversation mostly because enough people are already engaged and I don’t want to pile on, but I have one question for you. In your engineering coursework, were you ever given a grade based on the professor’s opinion of how well you grasped the subject matter? I know I was. No other class was this more apparent than my senior design project. We had to design a raised parking deck connected to the side of an existing building – everything from laying out parking spaces, how it connected to adjacent streets and buildings, the structural design and even had to make sure there was sufficient air flow to get rid of the exhaust. While the analysis of the structure and academic portions of the design were easy enough to verify, our professors also graded us on subjective things as well. How did we work with others (it was a team or 4 or 5)? Was the design reasonable, or did we propose things that wouldn’t work in the real world? Were any assumptions we made reasonable or consistent with what we should expect? Did we grasp the subject matter and were we able to convey that to others? These were all portions of my final grade that was left up to the opinion of the professors.

            Asked a different way, how about we just ask position coaches to give each player a grade at the end of each week, and if he is below a C-average at the end of the year, then he loses his scholarship? Would that be better?

            • If that evaluation happens before signing period, that is fine. Otherwise, coaches have an incentive to cut players. I have no problem with a student deferring scholarship (greyshirting) by a quarter, AS LONG as it is verbal, and up front (i’d prefer a written item).

              Thats my problem with the system right now, is that coaches have an actual incentive to sign as many people as possible, and then cut the ones that don’t perform.

              I’m fine with standards for football players, as long as it can be documented beforehand, and is not a reaction to signing a new player.

              • So you believe coaches cut performing players for the potential of a new recruit? Not likely, in fact pretty stupid if you want to win.

                And you are okay with setting a standard of performance to cut players by? Then why not lobby for those rules changes rather than a change that means almost nothing?

                • Gary, you made my point.

                  I don’t believe coaches cut performing players for the potential of a new recruit. That is pretty stupid, as you said. Thats what the naysayers against oversigning are saying, it would just move up the window.

                  Look, you’re never going to be able to fully police/keep players from getting unjustly run off by their coaches. But what you can do is enact rules to make it much tougher to prevent a coach from screwing over a player. Thats waht i’m advocating

                  • So the anti-oversigning crowd think coaches are stupid and are not interested in keeping their jobs? But they are smart enough to come up with so many nefarious schemes to get rid of those same players?

                    I most certainly did not make your point. A coach will not cut a player that is performing for a new unproven recruit which he will not see until the fall. In fact I don’t see evidence that players are being cut at all, just accusations every time a player leaves a program. If a coach has oversigned he can still grayshirt a number of kids.

                    Don’t hand the same tired line about using spring as evaluation, only a handful of players enroll early and the 20 or so hours of practice they are allowed is hardly enough get a full evaluation. That argument is just hyperbole.

                    He does however know which players have not performed from previous classes. He has a good idea of who is looking to transfer and who might be a medical.

                    So far we have seen ONE kids that complained that he was treated unfairly in terms of no longer being on the Saban’s team and that was a medical. If Saban was outright cutting kids because they did not perform wouldn’t we be hearing about it? After all they would have no reason to be loyal to Saban or Alabama if they were cut. We have not seen any from Alabama complain about grayshriting. Some reporter somewhere would be all over the story if any of them did. So how is it that Saban manages to keep everyone so quiet? There are too many reporters that are not on the Alabama beat and don’t like Saban to think he can keep them all quiet about it.

                    • We have more than one. And this isn’t just a Saban thing. Eilliot Porter from LSU? Personally, i think Les Miles was pretty sleazy for how he treated him. Most kids aren’t going to complain about greyshirting, considering they are getting a full ride.

        • I am not sure which side you fall on in terms of the debate over oversigning, but it would be good to have more like you. You seem to be well reasoned from what I have seen.

          • I know it is difficult to tell because of how this site handles replies, but the above comment was aimed In the Middle (Tar Heel).

  18. I think that is the core of the issue. People against over-signing hide behind it saying it hurts the student, but in essence it does not. No student is being forced to leave the school and each one, unless they do not have the grades, have the opportunity to return the next fall. The only difference is they have to finance it. A big difference from an athlete who may be pushed off the team if that is happening.

    I think there needs to be a separation between the two. One is a student and the other an athlete. Just because you no longer have an athletic scholarship does not mean you can no longer be a student at that school and hence you may even qualify for academic scholarships, grants, loans, or work like the majority of the student population. Each student as long as they have the grades once enrolled should have some financial means to stay in school. As a parent I do not care about the athletics, but my main concern should be the academics and can we as a family afford it if my child no longer has that athletic scholarship. Each student should make sure before they decide to attend as an athlete, is that school one- they would want to attend if they were not playing sports and two- can they afford it if they are no longer on scholarship. I love all the recruits that get quoted I really like it for the academics but unless you are naive most could care less and make their sport a priority.

    You also state that the athletic scholarships have no requirement to be better than other players, but yet they are required to be better to get one over others just like with academic scholarships. Maybe the problem lies there in the fact that there is no specific clause defining how to maintain their scholarship status as how they get it renewed. Maybe it should be defined in their scholarship paper that if they can’t make the three deep in the rotation their scholarship may not be renewed at the coaching staff discretion. This gives them a better understanding of what they need to do to maintain the scholarship. Because right now all they need to do is maintain a D grade performance on the field and people like Joshua will defend them maintaining their scholarship. Sorry I just disagree with today’s current status quo on work ethic. I assume Joshua supports the unions to. Another organization that allows subpar performers to maintain their position.

    Again these players are not being recruited to be outstanding scholars, but to be great players that live up to all the hype coming out of HS. Which in return will sell tickets and make rabid fan bases like UA, OSU, and others stay excited about the programs. Because not once have I seen anyone on here or really elsewhere show any concern about why all of the BCS schools do not have a 90% or better graduation rate. Why does Joshua or others not get upset that their schools have lower grad rates for athletes vs. the general population. I mean they scream that these kids are getting robbed of their education, but yet have no concern whether they actually receive it or not. Just because you attend a school for four years does not mean you will graduate. Most athletes in colleges have the best available resources provided to them to learn and graduate unlike the general population, but yet fewer graduate.

    Again just showing up does not earn anyone the right to anything. People that live by that analogy are lazy in my opinion. Not only should you have to show up, but have to perform to a high standard to maintain that position. If you can not the strings should be cut. Plain and simple. Sorry I do not believe in handouts. Joshua thinks you should reward non performers, and blames the coaching staff if players do not perform up to their potential. Because they either failed to properly evaluate them or could not develop them. Sorry again that is assuming that there is no room for error, which in a perfect world may be the case but these are real people we are talking about not the World of Disney where everything has a story book ending.

    Maybe sometimes a player just does not pan out, and yes I believe if they can’t perform they should be gone. Again they were recruited to be an athlete not a student. If the student part was really true the school would require higher scores to qualify. Sorry this current status quo in our society that we need to caudle everyone is a joke and hence why we have such poor performers in our workforce. Where do we finally step in and say enough. Now people want us to do it college athletics. Something that is based on pure competition. Competition is not designed for the faint at heart but based on the foundation of the survival of the fittest. Next thing you know these same people will no longer want to keep score in college football and take the YMCA approach that everyone is a winner. That is great for my 3 year old but not college football.

    • Great post. You summed it up well.

      I only disagree on one point. In recent years, the SA has surpassed the student body in terms of graduation rate. It is still slight, but SA’s do graduate with a degree at a higher percentage than the general student body. Which is frankly disturbing that both numbers are not higher.

    • The point isnt that everyone who is cut isn’t trying. The point is that a kid are being cut because a BETTER student is coming in. Not that they aren’t trying, or doing well.

      • I could care less who is trying and who is not. The coaches bring them in to play football, not to be a scholar. If they fail to perform so be it and replace them. A lot of students that are not athletes who fail in the classroom also really try, but guess what the school no longer holds their spot after two semesters if they continue not to succeed.

        Again sorry but I will not support a status quo that rewards someone who tries hard but yet can’t add anything with their effort at a certain point vs. someone who may come in and succeed. Why do so many people want to hold these kids hands and coddle them. The reality is some of these kids will never make it no matter how hard they try and pampering their ego by keeping them around will do nothing for them in the long run once they have to go out on their own.

        I understand the concern that in a conference like the SEC where not only the fans have high expectations but the schools demand results quickly that maybe there is not enough time to actually allow players to develop or not develop. Especially where coaches are making millions of dollars to succeed. Do you actually think the school cares if the players are trying hard? No they are only concerned with results and results are measured by wins and specific wins.

        I mean look at Richt at UGA. He has his first bad season in how long, after how many 10 win seasons and the fans want him gone. Even if this year they win 10 games but drop the game to UF who has a new coach my money is he is gone because he can’t beat UF. Or look at Miles at LSU who won a NC 4 years ago and wins 10 games every season and most say if he can’t win the SEC this year they will fire him.

        This is not the YMCA where everyone gets to play. Why do you think fans like Joshua get so upset about it? Do you really think he cares about the students? If you do you are naive. Now if he was a UA fan I would believe the concern is genuine, but he is a rival fan who wants to see his school and conference get to the level that the SEC is at. And I can see the concern that the SEC has an advantage to the way they manage their roster. Again nothing illegal just questionable and even at that we have very little truth, with the exception of one or two players that have been interviewed, to say any current practices were malicious except for people with the accusations and assumptions.

        The SEC did not look for any loopholes to gain some competitive advantage. All they did was realize that these are athletes that are coming to school for football first and the classroom second. Especially with all the summer 7v7 and all star games going on these recruits are selling themselves to schools for a chance to play football. If academics were such an concern on their part, grades and transcripts would be what they or their coaches would be mailing to college coaches not a highlight film that only shows a few great moments.

        Again I have no issue with teams looking for players that will contribute and if not within a certain time frame send them packing from the team. Again not one player that Joshua or any person on this site or off that is against oversigning can show where any of these players in question were not allowed to stay as a student. Every kid that transferred, medical scholarship, or probably most that were dismissed from the team for some violation still could all be students at that said university.

      • Luke, I am using Saban and Alabama for two reasons. 1) I know them better than any team. 2) Most importantly, this site uses Alabama and Saban as it’s primary focus of what is wrong.

        I agree Les Miles was dead wrong on how he handled several players.

        You say you have more than one, who do you have from Alabama? Don’t just say we have more than one and not list names or tell me they don’t complain because they gray shirted and got a full ride. Names and documentation on where they complained that they were removed from the team unfairly. Otherwise yours and Joshua’s argument is just so much speculation.

        Using that as the basis for an argument I could say that every player on OSU is a cheater and should be kicked off the team, base on what we have seen come to light in Columbus. But I won’t do that and I will call anyone on the carpet who makes that claim without some proof. What you are saying is no different than doing that.

  19. To make this simple and to address issues of not being upfront there is an easy solution.

    —-Allow coaches to simply just cut players who can not contribute past the 3 deep, but to help alleviate concerns of not having time to develop the player gets at least 3 years including a redshirt season to develop and an opportunity to demonstrate that players ability.

    —-Make the redshirt year not count against the 85 rule since they cannot play anyway but limit the number of players that can be redshirted to let’s say 15 each year.

    —-But the next year they will count against the incoming class where limits like 25 would still count. And if they do end up playing during the redshirt year they become a qualifier for that current year.

    —-Also allow a school a certain number of Clearing House exemptions, let’s say 3 each incoming class.

    —-Have all this written into the scholarship itself so that every athlete is aware of it.

    This would eliminate the 1 year renewable scholarship and guarantee every athlete at least 3 years upfront. And if they are cut after year 3 they would only have to find a financial means for 1 year to pay for school. That is if they were really concerned to get a degree and just play football they should only have 1 year left to earn a degree. So now financially it will not be bad.

    This could also be used to eliminate sign and place issues where maybe borderline athletes get one year to prove themselves in the classroom and stop farming these kids off to JUCO or prep schools. Because after one year at that college if they can’t pass their classes they do not need to be there via another route. If a player has a hard time passing general education courses they will never get past 300 and 400 level courses. Also the people that feel any changes in sign and place will hinder certain demographic areas, now they are given that chance.

    As most say if the schools are upfront so be it and this way they would be. It does not mean students will not drop out, transfer, or get hurt but it does address the issue of people concerning their view negative view of roster management. After 3 years the coach has had enough time to truly evaluate their progress and if they see another player can has potential to do better, so be it cu the player from the team and bring in someone new.

  20. Bowden picks up another delinquent so he can win games with accepting Janoris jenkins.

    • That’s why they hired him. It works for Jenkins too. Do you just have a problem with kids that are from the South? Or is it southern people in general? Did you get your butt whipped on the playground by a southerner when you were a kid (or maybe more recently)?

      Find something else to whine about.

      • Did I miss the post about OSU cutting players?

        HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — James Jackson assumed that when he was offered a full football scholarship to Ohio State it meant that as long as he stayed out of trouble and kept up with his school work, the university would pay for his education for four years.

        He later discovered, that’s not always how it works.

        Jackson, a wide receiver, says he was asked to transfer after last season, two years into his college career.

        “They had an oversigning issue,” Jackson said. “They had to free up a few scholarships, and coach (Jim) Tressel told me I probably wouldn’t play and maybe Ohio State wasn’t the place for me.”

        Jackson said he didn’t understand when he was being recruited that all scholarships are only good for a year, subject to renewal at the discretion of the school. He was never told that he might be asked to transfer if he wasn’t performing up to expectations and the school wanted his scholarship for someone else.

        In response to cases similar to Jackson’s, California and Connecticut have passed legislation that will require colleges in those states to disclose the fine print of athletic scholarships to student athletes.


  21. You did not miss it. It would not be here if it was left to the site owner. The only players that get treated unfairly come from SEC schools.

  22. Does anyone know why comments are no longer being allowed on more recent post? I can assume it is because Joshua does not like the fact that some many arguments are not going his way, but surely that is not the case.

  23. And gosh, it seems some guy named 7NCs7Heisman on the O-Zone is saying this is NOT an oversigning issue, despite the fact that the player is saying unqualifiedly that it is. Why post speculative things like what a high school player that has been sent packing by OSU says when you can post speculative things, with far less direct evidence, about the SEC?

    Is anyone still giving any credence at all to this yahoo?

    • In case you did not know they are the same and he talks alot different over there then he does on this site. What is even more amusing is when he bashes the SEC and Saban over there. Joshua looks like a saint when on here compared to posting over there.

      If you follow him on the Ozone you realize his true motivation for this site. Which has little to do for the most part regarding the SA.

      • I suspected as much. Well at least he is making precious little effort to hide his motivations. The national media grabbed onto the oversigning “issue” several months ago, which made Josh a closet media darling, but since he won’t use his real name and because “his” team has been found to be far dirtier than any of those he has been attacking, his credence is virtually nil now.

  24. As someone who is more or less “on the same side” as Josh when it comes to oversigning, I have to say I’m disappointed in what I consider (and most of you do too, I’m sure) two major recent occurrences here. The first is the decision to turn comments off on the two most recent posts. I’m not sure I’ve ever noticed a post here that didn’t allow comments, and neither of these seems to have any unique qualities that would explain such a choice. One can only assume that Josh either does not want people talking about the James Jackson situation or is simply running from all arguments. Either way is pretty sad.

    The other thing is, of course, the lack of a post about Jackson’s comments. This site has never worried about whether an athlete’s accusations were true before and there is no reason to start now (and yes, I’m an Ohio State fan). Jackson made the comments and they are precisely what this site is supposed to be about. You’ve got to be willing to deal with the uncomfortable stuff if you want to be taken seriously (this is why ESPN has become such a joke). Previously, when commenters have veered into the Ohio State scandal to make points about oversigning, I’ve felt that Josh had no reason to address it, since it is not actually related (yeah, I know that he often brings up unrelated stuff about other schools – for the record, I don’t think he should be talking about that stuff either). But this is EXACTLY what the site is supposed to be fighting against and it has been completely ignored. There is no way a hasty, hyperbolic post wouldn’t have been up within minutes if this was about Alabama. If Jim Tressel was engaging in the type of roster management this suggests, then I am incredibly disappointed, but I don’t see how anyone claiming to be against it can completely ignore the accusation.

    I’m still against oversigning as a method of roster management. I still think the Big Ten’s rules (as much as we know about them) are better than any other conference’s. I still wish the NCAA would man up on this issue. But, Josh, I just don’t think I can support you as a serious champion of this cause anymore.

    • You are correct Jason, point in case is that Joshua jumped all over a still uncorroborated tweet about Keiwone Malone transferring, inferring that, if true, it means he was cut. Yet an OSU player James Jackson is quoted by the AP that he was the victim of oversigning and Joshua is silent.

      While there is always the possibility that Malone was cut and Jackson is incorrect, the hypocrisy of Joshua’s treatment of these two stories speaks volumes about his motives and ethics.

      • Yep, he jumped all over the completely uncorroborated tweet about Malone, but in Jackson’s case he’s holding out in hopes that Ohio State or the Big Ten will send him something that he can use to defend Tressel and discredit Jackson.

        Josh is a true advocate for student-athletes…as long as those student-athletes aren’t in the Big Ten.

    • I’m sure that most sportswriters have some sort of bias in them, but it’s usually nearly impossible to detect. OSU fans are always on the lokoout for anyone that displays even the slightest amount of bias against them. In fact, most OSU fan forums suggest a total boycott of ESPN and some other media outlets due to what they believe is anti-OSU sentiment. So it’s not surprising that Joshua has this bias in the first place, but it’s impossible to take the whole topic of oversigning seriously when the author will only discuss it as it relates to a conference that he clearly wants to harm if he can.

      For all those that have been suggesting Josh has used this site purely to support a vendetta, it’s clear they were right all along. What a sham this site is.

      • I think the problem that Josh has run into is that he thought at the beginning that it was impossible for Big Ten teams to oversign. So it never occurred to him that, in taking on an issue that actually does have some merit to it, he would ever have to turn his sights on his own favorite team. I’ll go ahead and make the assumption that he thought this was a predominantly (if not exclusively) SEC issue. Since most fans outside of the SEC have a distaste for that conference (and as Ohio State fans, we are constantly beat over the head by our team’s poor performance against that conference by ESPN), this seemed like a perfect way to call the SEC out, paint their practice of oversigning as an immoral competitive advantage, and hold up the Big Ten/Ohio State as superior.

        Not all of those things are completely baseless, but Josh has clearly gone too far. The site has picked up in popularity because of an increased interest in the issue that perhaps he helped create. But with that comes even greater scrutiny and that’s where his motives have caught up to him. If this were a site dedicated only to the eradication of oversigning and other questionable recruiting-related tactics, then there would be no reason not to feature James Jackson’s comments and investigate their validity in the open, and to do the same for ALL players who claim to be victims of oversigning/roster management, regardless of the school in question.

        Therefore, one can only conclude that while Josh probably is against oversigning, 1-year scholarships and the problems they create, he is even more against the SEC and Alabama (for some reason) in particular. He thought this would be a way to knock down their perception a little bit, and he wasn’t entirely wrong in that. The problem is he didn’t fully understand what he was getting into and has been unwilling to adjust his initial view in light of new information.

        To your other point, ESPN does employ quite a few commentators with a clear disdain for Ohio State. They also employ several former Buckeyes, some more loyal than others (not that that’s a requirement or anything). As they move more toward the entertainment side of the spectrum, they have shown that they will dogpile any story that they think the majority wants. It’s difficult to watch the channel when your team is the most hated in the sport and has some controversy surrounding it, while other programs (UNC, Boise State) with bigger, more wide-reaching issues get very little coverage. But that’s the ratings game, and ESPN is entitled to play it. Getting into financial arrangements with some conferences (SEC, ACC I think and possibly now the Pac-12) just diminishes their already suspect neutrality. While a boycott is silly and ineffectual, I understand why many Ohio State fans (and fans of other teams, I’m sure) get frustrated with the network, as it is the only viable sports-only channel out there.

        • And the silly notion he seems to have adopted that if he doesn’t respond to something (liek this), then that means he either doesn’t believe he has to because the bigger issue is still and SEC-only issue, ot his arrogance is so profound that he thinks his angle is above reproach. In either instance, he is way out of bounds. And frankly, my opinion that he is a bit of a chicken shit is confirmed when I see him take these weak swipes at Bama while turning off the comments, but then refuses to acknowledge his own team’s problem.

          Over on the O-Zone they told Josh to cool it when all the Tressel stuff was coming down, because they were afraid Josh would begin to lose much of the traction he had built up over the past year-plus. Well, don’t worry O-Zoners. Not only did Josh NOT cool it, but he started to get even more careless than he had ever been in the past, making the whole site reek to high heaven.

        • ESPN has a ten year contract with the BigTen, with five years remaining worth over one billion dollars. I would bet just about anything that ESPN will have a new contract with BigTen when the current ends. ESPN may be biased, I don’t know and don’t care but I doubt it is motivated through financial concerns.

          • I don’t think it’s so much that “ESPN” is biased as it is that a number of their commentators are incredibly biased and have no qualms about showing it. The deals with the conferences are for showing games (for the most part) and the truth is I’m going to watch Ohio State play no matter what channel their own or what people who work for that channel have said. ESPN knows that. The financial concern is more in the ratings and attention drawn from constantly re-hashing the same negative stories because their about a team/person/program/etc. that most of their audience hates.

            But, hey, it’s their channel and they can use it for whatever they want. If I turn it on and don’t like what I’m hearing, I’ll turn it off. No big deal to me. I just get where the “boycott” crowd is coming from. Again, I’m sure fans of other teams feel the same at times too. I really don’t think it’s some kind of conspiracy.

            • You’re welcome to the general lack of buzz surrounding UNC’s football program, which comes with any 8-5 program that will never sniff an at-large BCS bowl because we can’t guarantee enough tickets. Trade you any time.

              It’s not conspiracy or bias. It’s the flip side of success.

              • May Delaney can argue to the BCS that it’s not fair theat UNC has to sell tickets and get them a bid anyway. That’s what he’s trying to do now with the CWS–make them take Big Ten teams. Like he cried that Florida had good DEs in the ’06 BCSNCG because Florida has lower academic standards. So let’s start keeping track of all the things that need to be “adjusted” so that the Big Ten can compete again and we can stop listening to the excuses:

                1) Oversigning
                2) Weather in the South needs to be harsher, and if that can’t be arranged, then force them to start their baseball season later. Better yet, just GIVE a CWS bid to the Big Ten
                3) Force every school to adhere to the strictest academic standards until and unless it has a negative impact on the Big Ten
                4) Force the NCAA to put every SEC school on probation as bad as whatever Ohio State gets because, after all, they have always cheated the most and continue to cheat the most, the NCAA just hasn’t been adequately focused on righting that ship

  25. Is this the Internet’s version of “fade, curtain”?

    • Probably, he and this site have had their 15 minutes of fame. There is only so long that hiding behind a topic to further a hidden agenda can last. Particularly if you one does not have the courage of his convictions, and since “Joshua” remains anonymous, and refuses to treat OSU the same way he has treated other schools, he clearly does not have the courage of his convictions. The word hypocrite come to mind. I would say “the king is dead, long live the king,” but it has been more about the joker parading around making a fool of himself. Eventually, everyone tires of the fool.

  26. FWIW the rumors about Sentimore and Malone at UA had some truth to them. Neither were looking to transfer because of playing time apparantly both are in trouble and are now suspended indefinitely. If my understanding of the NCAA rules are correct if suspendid you can not transfer to play. Also neither have been kicked off the team, but they appear to be in the same boat as R Green who has been suspended for the last 3 semesters and now is leaving. It looks as CNS is keeping them around to see if they can straighten their act up, but if not like Green will be shown the door.

    Again Joshua will say it is because CNS oversigned, but Green remained on scholarship and counted and so would they if they stay. Also unlike some other school I will not mention CNS when he finds out his players did something wrong he addresses it and not hide it from the school and the NCAA.

    • That is the problem with relying on rumors, or creating them, there may be a grain of truth there but the core issue is far off base. Then someone takes the angle that best fits their agenda and runs with it. The truth matters little, if at all, only that they can exploit a kids situation for their own agenda.

      Oh, wait a minute, isn’t that what this site is supposed to be against?

    • Masoli was suspended from Oregon and transferred. It isnt an NCAA rule. And Josh is a tool. He knows that the rumor is not true, but leaves it up for days just to make Bama look bad, of course with no comments so that people can shoot him down.

      • I just found some info on that. He was suspended then got in trouble again. Supposedly the suspension was lifted as it was there to keep him on the team if he stayed out of trouble. Once he got in trouble again they kicked him from the team.

        But as of right now both players are still on the team.

  27. Based on a comment Joshua made within the past 24 hours or so on the O-Zone, he has been working for several days to get on here and refute the fact that Ohio State oversigned.

    So let me get this straight. Joshua, you post whatever nonsense that you can find on Bama if someone tweets you or you think you may have found another smoking gun, but with OSU you are willing to spend several days vetting out your information. let’s go ahead and preeempt your comments. the kid says he wasn’t able to stay on the team because he was oversigned. If we are going to believe the kids that spoke to the WSJ or that aren’t happy because they have been thrown off the team, then we need to give the same credence to OSU signees. The kid says he was a victim of oversigning. Good enough for me. Thanks for setting the bar on this.

  28. No one should be surprised. Josh was exposed a few months ago when he found out that the Big Ten allows oversigning by 3. Prior to that point, he argued vigorously that all conferences (particularly the SEC) should adopt the Big Ten’s rules to completely ban oversigning since oversigning by just one player was unethical and unfair to student athletes. Overnight, his arguement changed to: all conferences (particularly the SEC) should adopt the Big Ten’s rules to allow oversigning by 3. If he had truly believed everything that he had been preaching for the previous year, then he would have called for the Big Ten to revoke the +3 allowance. He did not. He is not an advocate for student athletes. He is not a reformer; he is a follower. He is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Big Ten and is motivated out of his desire to see his team win football games.

    This same principle has been demonstrated again with the news of the last few days. A student-athlete went on record stating that he was cut due to oversigning. This should have been the smoking gun that Josh has been waiting so long for. What has been his response? A concerted effort to exonerate Ohio State:

    1. He has been pouring over Ohio State’s roster trying to use some creative math in an effort to disprove that Ohio State oversigned. What about the Oversigning Cup Standings that showed that Ohio State was +2 on NSD? I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but OSU’s numbers were changed 2 days ago, so that Ohio State is now at 0 points instead of +2 like they have been for the past 4 months.
    a. There is now an astericks by Ohio State with a note containing a very convaluted and frankly unsubstantianted claim about one of the members of the 2010 class being a quasi walk-on. The reality is that he signed an LOI, he was awarded a scholarship, and no one has provided any evidence that he was told that he would not be on scholarship after his freshman year. It’s wishful thinking on Josh’s part in an attempt to make Ohio State’s numbers look better. Furthermore, both of the links that Josh cites as sources have him listed as a scholarship player.

    b. For some reason Nic Dilillo isn’t being counted in Ohio State’s numbers. He was a scholarship player on the team last season. Much like with James Jackson, his name was absent from the spring roster. At that time – well after NSD – Ohio State announced that he was no longer on the team. Wonder if he had a similar chat with Tressel about oversigning and scholarship shortages.

    Basically, Josh is retroactively manipulating Ohio State’s numbers in an attempt to take some of the heat out of Jackson’s claims.

    2. Josh has taken to twitter to wage a PR war in defense of Ohio State. Here are some examples:

    It should also be noted that Ohio State has a 10 year track record of having never once oversigned, even by a single player

    Really? If you’re going to make a claim like that, you had better be able to back it up or risk losing all credibility. I’d love for some member of the national media to call him on it because I believe it’s based much more on his fandom than fact.

    OSU Numbers: As it stands right now, OSU signed 24. Cardale Jones was a GS at NSD and doesn’t count, Price went to Pitt. That’s 22

    All online ‘ship charts show OSU at 82 ‘ships. With only 22 enrolled this yr, 82 total, there will be room to give 3 walk-ons ‘ships.

    Talk about misleading! “So, if you disregard the greyshirt, the player who got cut, the player who quit, and the transfers, then the numbers work out just fine”. If OSU is at 82 now, then they were at 87 on NSD when you account for Price, Pryor, Jones, Jackson, and Dilillo.

    It’s a shame that #oversigning is being used in the context of James Jackson’s story; it’s factually incorrect, but his story is important.

    Don’t you just love how Josh refuses to make a blog entry on this site until he gets an answer from Ohio State about their scholarship numbers, but that doesn’t stop him from tweeting that the the claim that Ohio State oversigned is “factually incorrect”? Guess he doesn’t need those Ohio State numbers after all. On a side note, I guess James Jackson just took Tressel’s word for it instead of asking him to produce a scholarship list.

    My question is where is Marc? I never expected Josh to utter a critical word directed at Ohio State, but Marc is another story. He’s known about this for a month (http://www.parentsofplayers.com/2011/05/18/big-story-about-to-break/) and seemed excited to talk about it. What’s he waiting on now?

    • Oh, and I didn’t have to go very far back to find an example of Ohio State oversigning. This past November they signed 5 basketball players to LOIs when they only had 4 scholarships available.


      They were bailed out when an injury-proned upperclassman decided not to return for his final year of eligibility…four months after the 5 new players had been signed. What would Ohio State have done if the upperclassman had decided that he wanted to return?

    • Over on the O-Zone, josh has been assuring those guys that he has been “working on” the numbers. As someone above said, he has been putting together some sort of regression analysis or some smoke screen that he believes will fully “exonerate” OSU.

      Now that Josh has been fully exposed as a fraud and everyone here completely understands his motives, I am enjoying the site at long last. Some very creative and smart people are simply eviscerating him. Maybe the anonymity thing was a good call. He won’t be publicly mocked everywhere he goes in Birmingham. Yeah, that’s where he lives. Right in the heart of Bama country.

      Hey Josh, have you picked up Phil Steele’s pre-season mag yet?

  29. Oh, and he’s now (obliquely, of course) accusing Bama of racism on twitter. Pathetic.

  30. If there was any doubt how dishonest and hypocritical the owner of this site is, it has been totally erased with “Joshua’s” handling of Ohio State getting caught red handed oversigning.” I guess dishonesty is just part and parcel of being an Ohio State fan. Like the owner of this site, Jim Tressel was the most dishonest coach in college football. His cheating and lies are forever exposed in the recent Sports Illustrated article.


    Tressel was always a cheater and a liar going back to his Youngstown State days, but like a TV preacher, he cultivated a false image of integrity where there was none. Like his cheating and lying coach, Joshua,” has an agenda alright, but it has nothing to do with oversigning. It has everything to do with his hatred of the SEC and specifically Alabama for their dominance over the Tinny Winny Ten. See New Year’s Day Massacre here:


    Now with the coming death penalty for Ohio State, the conference will be irrelevant for the next couple decades no matter what changes with recruiting, but fortunately, reasonable people are catching to how pathetic Joshua and his site are as evidenced by Chase Goodbread’s tweet and Joshua’s response.


    Sooner or later the truth always comes out, and like Anthony Weiner, Joshua has been exposed.
    This will be my last post on the site. The creep isn’t worth five minutes of my time.

    • It’s good that this is your last post, because it’s pure nonsense. The accusations in the SI article are as flimsy as most of Josh’s arguments here. Tressel lied, probably more than once, like a lot of coaches do. He did a lot good things for the community too, but that’s not really the point here. Even if you want to believe that Tressel is evil incarnate, don’t lump all Ohio State fans in with him, Josh and whatever other Buckeyes you hate. That’s pretty much the kind of thing you’re bashing Josh for doing in the first place, right?

      There is no death penalty coming for Ohio State, no matter how badly you want it. This is not an SMU situation or even a UNC situation. It’s not as bad as what Oregon may have been involved in (although that’s been mostly speculation too, so we’ll see). ESPN, SI, and every other sports media outlet knows that Ohio State In Trouble sells better than virtually any other imaginable headline, so that’s all you hear about and it makes you think things are worse than they are. Again, the hyperbole reminds me a bit of one of Josh’s breathless Nick Saban posts.

  31. Josh is a hack with a racist agenda. He is simply utterly pathetic without credibility.

  32. Josh, why are the comments off?

    • That way all the national media members that are undoubtedly reading this every day won’t see any contrary remarks and simply assume that Josh’s comments are 100% accurate.

      • Yep. As someone else said, one way to ensure that you win an arguement is to make sure that you’re the only one who is heard.

  33. Josh, I have 2 questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would respond.

    1. When you modified Ohio State’s numbers a few days ago, you lowered their SPES from 83 to 81. Presumably, Adam Griffin (who is likely still on scholarship btw) accounts for one of the spots. Who accounts for the other?

    2. When did Nic Dilillo leave the Ohio State team? When was it made official?


    In addition, 2011 signee Adam Griffin, is not listed on the chart

    That is pure speculation on our part, but the fact remains that [Adam Griffin] is not listed here.

    You keep saying that but he actually is listed there. Check under the “Special Teams” row of the “Freshmen” column.

    • You are correct and I will fix that. Griffin is on the scholarship chart, so that leaves only Dilillo. There was a story that ran a while back that he had been released from the team but remained on scholarship. Not sure when the first announcement was made public. The numbers in the cup where changed because the links that supported the cup data changed. Griffin was signed as RB an I overlooked that he was listed on ST.

      • The numbers in the cup where changed because the links that supported the cup data changed.

        I don’t see how you can do that in good conscience. That scholarship chart is updated so that it accurately reflects the present, not to reflect the numbers on NSD. If he had 87 on NSD, and now has 83 (counting C. Jones) by removing Pryor, Price, Jackson, and Dilillo, it doesn’t change the fact that they were at 87 on NSD.

      • Let me try a different approach. If you go by the scholarship charts that you’ve been linking, then Ohio State should be +1 at the very least. The chart you included in your last post has 82 scholarship players not inlcuding C. Jones. I will remind you that C. Jones signed an LOI, so there’s no question that he should count in your oversigning cup standings.

        82 + C. Jones + Jackson + Price + Pryor = 86

        Using your own source, Ohio State should be +1 without even getting into the Dilillo situation.

        • Very frustrated that I couldn’t get exact numbers. This is most likely the case, which, given the fact that Jones announced that he was greyshirting on NSD it’s hard to cry foul. The move to put osu at zero is based on Hawley’s comments that osu never petitioned for the oversigning waiver. I still have a line of communication there and hopefully when they do the final inventory a FOIA request can be placed to get the documents. All I can say is that I tried really hard to get to the bottom of this and it doesn’t appear to be an oversigning issue, it appears to be a roster management issue and based on Jackson’s hs coach’s comments, James was cut. If true and osu would not renew his scholarship simply because he didn’t pan out then it’s wrong and they are wrong for doing that to him. I tried to get the whole story.

  34. “Ohio State did not over-offer or oversign for the 2011 football season. Each year available scholarships are calculated based on the number of slots available through exhaustion of eligibility, graduation, departures to professional teams, student-athletes known to be transferring and known situations where aid will not be renewed by Ohio State for various reasons. Once all these factors are considered, Ohio State then offers National Letters of Intent.”

    I find this very interesting. This could very well be the source of the discrepancy between what the Big Ten office is telling us about oversigning and what the numbers are telling us.

    Using Ohio State as an example, is it possible that Ohio State reported 24 available scholarships (knowing they weren’t going to renew Dilillo and Jackson) to the Big Ten office, say, back in December? Ohio State then signed 24 on NSD. It’s not oversigning in the eyes of the Big Ten because Ohio State signed 24 LOIs for 24 reported openings. Then, a couple days before spring practice starts, Ohio State informed Dilillo and Jackson that they weren’t fitting in and their scholarships were needed for incoming signees. Is this not a plausible scenario given the comments made by James Jackson, the Big Ten office, and Ohio State?

    • That’s exactly what I have been saying. The B10′s definition of oversigning is not the same as this site’s and thus they can do just what you’re saying. Of course, we haven’t seen the actual B10 rules either…

      To take it a different direction, Alabama isn’t oversigned by the B10 rules if Saban knew about the direction the recent transfers were heading* (see Goode). By their rules, if he knew he had a couple of guys going on medical and half a dozen or so transfers, then he didn’t oversign either.

      *I’m not suggesting he had foreknowledge about Douglas. Please don’t go there, this is just a point about the B10 rules.

      Lastly, this is just another illustration about how banning oversigning wouldn’t do what Josh says is it’s #1 purpose – protecting kids from being “cut”.

    • It’s not oversigning in the eyes of the Big Ten because Ohio State signed 24 LOIs for 24 reported openings. Then, a couple days before spring practice starts, Ohio State informed Dilillo and Jackson that they weren’t fitting in and their scholarships were needed for incoming signees.

      I think this is the most likely scenario. It also makes Jackson’s quote about him being released because of an oversigning issue correct. Josh, you better vet this thought out completely before you go any further towards accusing this kid of making things up or not knowing what he’s talking about.

      • This is not the most likely scenario. This is what YOU think the most likely scenario is, but its probably farther from the truth

        • It is the olny way that everyone could be telling the truth and being one who assumes first that people tell the truth, I take that scenario as the most likely. Am bi wrong? Is there another scenario where everyone is telling the truth? If so, please enlighten me. If not, who is lying? The student or the coaches and commishiners who (as Josh likes to point out) make millions of dollars off the work of these students.

    • This is all your speculation. We don’t know the real reason he didn’t transfer. It could be due to grades, off the field issues, or other things (skipping team meetings, etc). Kinda ironic that he didn’t really give a reason for transferring, no?

      OSU also has to give the numbers on who tranfers, when they transfer, ETC to the B1G office, when the student looks at other colleges, ETC. And if anyone in the B1G office does look at the numbers coming back, they would see a huge discrepancy between dates from when OSU claims they knew he wasn’t coming back, and when he chose not to.

      But you continue with your belief that the B1G office makes rules that aren’t out to help the students, or are so dumb as to easily be circumvented.

      • This is all your speculation

        You’re right. Just like Josh’s claim that Adam Griffin isn’t on scholly is speculation, and your claim that Jackson could have had grade or off the field issues is speculation. As long as Ohio State refuses to release its scholarship numbers, all any of us can do is speculate.

        Kinda ironic that he didn’t really give a reason for transferring, no?

        Didn’t give a reason? His coach told him that they needed his scholarship, that he probably wasn’t goint to play, and that Ohio State wasn’t the place for him. Seems like a pretty good reason to transfer to me.

        OSU also has to give the numbers on who tranfers, when they transfer, ETC to the B1G office

        Schools only have to provide that information if they are classified as oversigners. In the scenario that I lied out, Ohio State would not have been classified as an oversigner and would not have had to provide that information to the Big Ten office.

        But you continue with your belief that the B1G office makes rules that aren’t out to help the students, or are so dumb as to easily be circumvented.

        Your words not mine. Speaking of lack of confidence in the Big Ten rules, mgoblog (quoted by Josh in his most recent post) had this to say:

        Brady Hoke has said Michigan is planning on taking 26 kids in this recruiting class, which is five or six or seven spots more than they currently have. They’ve only got a couple fifth year seniors they can reasonably give the Firm Handshake, so unless there is a cavalcade of medical issues and other convenient transfers there are going to be some tense conversations that go like this:

        BRADY HOKE: So how do you like Michigan despite never playing and never having any prospect of playing and being way too short to ever play?
        SLOT RECEIVER: I love it. Angelo’s hollandaise sauce, man. I put it on everything. I took a bath in it last night.
        BRADY HOKE: /closes Angelo’s by fiat
        SLOT RECEIVER: And I am very close to getting my degree in astrophysics.
        BRADY HOKE: /turns off the stars

        If you can’t tell, I’m uneasy about this. The system is full of perverse incentives; if the big conferences are really keen on student welfare above all they should move to a system where the only cap is on the number of signees per year, Title IX be damned.

        Sounds like everyone in the Big Ten isn’t as high on the Big Ten rules as you and Josh.

      • Virtually everything posted on this site by Joshua and his supporters is speculation. Or is it only speculation when critics of this site post something that makes the Big Ten and this site look questionable?

        The bottom line is that people have called SEC coaches everything in the book and defended the Big Ten coaches to their last breath and it turns out that coaches outside the SEC do the same things. But I would not expect you to grasp that, it does not fit the your preconceived notions of your beloved coaches, schools and conferences.

        If you want to call the SEC evil then you need to be willing to do the same of the Big Ten, but apparently that won’t happen.

    • I’d buy it. Disappointing as an Ohio State/Big Ten fan if this is the case, but I can’t say it would surprise me. Everyone tries to work within the rules they’re given to gain the most advantage. Pretending otherwise is naive.

      Goes to show that the NCAA needs to take an honest, serious look at how scholarships/limits are handled. I’m a big supporter of the IA split that’s been gaining some traction surrounding the stipend/cost-of-attendance discussions. Regardless of the direction that goes, I think it’s clear that IA is bloated and there are at least two tiers of programs that need to be separated and offered a rule set that more reasonably addresses their situations/budgets/stature. It’s nonsense that Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Texas and Miami are treated the same as Tulane, Akron, San Diego State, UNLV and Florida International.

      The 85/25 rule needs to be re-evaluated. The value and duration of an athletic scholarship needs to be re-evaluated. The post-season (not really the NCAA’s fault) needs to be re-evaluated. College football has exploded in popularity and revenue over the past few decades and it has outgrown the old boundaries. I still think there’s a way to do it and maintain amateurism (although the NCAA will need to rethink what that actually means in a more real-world sense) and integrity. I won’t hold my breath though.

  35. What’s with the disabling of comments? I can remember a high ratio of uninformed and hyperbolic comments directed at Alabama, the SEC, and “oversigning defenders” for months. J felt at the time it was up to the adults in the room to be adults and keep things informed and civil. Out of his hands. Not his job.

    An advocacy which cannot stand the scrutiny of an engaged commentary needs to rethink its mission, pronto. And I sincerely hope we don’t see any more semantic contortions in order to defend a double standard.

    • In Josh’s defense, I saw where he tweeted the following:

      Experiencing technical issues with the website, should be resolved shortly and back up. Issue with hosting company hardware.

      He does seem to be taking this time to post some very inflamatory things about Bama while making excuses for the latest OSU scandal (which actually does have something to do with oversigning this time). It is very ironic to read the latest OSU story, and the ends they go to in excusing or explaining how it is not oversigning – then proceed to see a post on a rumor about a Bama transfer, then complete crap in the Bama March to 85 update.

      • I believe that tweet was about the site being down the other morning, not the comments being turned off. Comments were disable prior to the site going down.

  36. Former Alabama player, Robby Green, was recently interviewed: http://www2.tbo.com/sports/prep-sports/2010/jul/17/sp-ely-invited-to-elite-11-qb-camp-ar-46960/

    Unfortunately, it’s behind a pay wall. It’s a pretty lengthy interview where Green does nothing but praise the University of Alabama and Coach Nick Saban. He states that he was given every opportunity by the coaches and they have been very supportive. He goes on to state that he plans on watching Alabama play in the BCSNCG in New Orleans in January and he plans to transfer his credits from his next school back to the University of Alabama so he can earn his degree from UA. Contrast the comments of BJ Scott, Corey Grant, Petey Smith, and Robby Green to those of James Jackson.

    • A quote from Green

      “There was nothing unfair about what happened with me at The University of Alabama. Coach (Nick) Saban is a great coach and a great guy, and he’s the only reason I went to Alabama. I learned a big lesson not to take anything for granted.”

      As Vesper says, big difference in the Bama exit interviews and the Jackson(OSU) interview. Yet the way these situations are addressed on this website are curious.

      Jackson states he was asked to leave and that it was because of an oversigning issue. He leaves as an unhappy student-athlete. The site dedicates a lengthy post to defending, spinning and deflecting the situation.

      Bama players that have transferred this year, have had all positive things to say about their experience. Yet this site continues to cast these situations in a negative way.


    • vesper – not sure what you meant to link to, but that was a year old article on Phillip Ely being invited to elite 11 camp.

  37. Recent tweet from Josh regarding media coverage of scandals/wrongdoing at Notre Dame, UCF, Oregon, and Ohio State:

    @BryanDFischer @mattzemek_cfn but based on media coverage, what Tressel did was worse than all of them combined.

    I don’t necessarily disagree, but does anyone else find that comment extremely ironic considering the source? Maybe karma is real afterall.

  38. Just read your latest on Ohio State’s numbers. So, you admit that they were +1, but you’ve decided to leave them at 0 in the cup standings? Glad there are no sacred cows on this site.

    P.S. Nic Dilillo was not on scholarship for 4 years. You’ve been making a lot of little, we’ll call them “mistakes”, lately and they seem to always be to the benefit of Ohio Stat/Big Ten.

  39. I would like to believe that comments off is not cowardice, but it really seems like it. I have asked for an explanation. Josh? Will you state the reason that you have turned comments off? It is obviously your right to turn off comments… and you certainly have the right to ignore my questions… but it really makes you look like a coward.

    • It’s not. Way too many new personal attacks and stuff coming in that you guys weren’t seeing that I was having to delete, etc. Easier to just shut it down for a while. Even many of the “old-timers” have been unable to control themselves with off-topic comments regarding Ohio State.

      • Then don’t delete them. If people are showing their ass, let them. It certainly doesn’t promote whatever they are arguing if they attack you personally (I’m talking about personal threats and such – pointing out your biases as the editor is perfectly relevant, though it should be done with tact as well).

        Same thing with the OSU stuff, let it go. If someone wants to get off topic and rant against OSU, just ignore them and move on. You aren’t going to have an internet discussion anywhere without someone going off topic now and again, but with the way your messages are stacked, I often skip over that thread entirely and move on to the next point. It isn’t worth it to let this hijack your page and cancel the comments.

        It goes without saying, but that is just my opinion.

  40. I guess it is an admission of defeat if he is refusing to allow comments. His position doesn’t stand up too well when opinions from all perspectives are allowed. Where most people go by the adage”if you can’t beat them, join them”, Josh must believe “if you can’t beat them, shut them out of the discussion.”

    • No admission of defeat, just too much junk in the comments section and too many personal threats from new users. Easier to just turn it off than to read each one and delete.

      • It is awfully hard to have a discussion, especially a national one, when you are the only one talking. And since much of what you are currently putting up with no chance of rebuttal/correction is blatently biased toward OSU (now that they have oversigned) while concurrently continuing to blast Alabama at every chance (with no benifit of the doubt like what you have given OSU). I have read most of the comments to come across this board and I haven’t seen anything harsher than what your buddy Texas Dawg said about me and other “pro-oversigning” posters (as well as every resident of Alabama) repeatedly on this site – and while I have seen several people calling you out as a hypocrite (and at this point they have a point) I haven’t really seen anything worth shutting down the debate and opportunity for more information to be presented (may I remind you that Vesper has pointed out more cases of oversigning through your comments than you have on the main page?)

        If some people are a problem (by their actions) then ban them, you did it with DSB, do it again, but simply shutting out all discussion only gives crediance to accusations of bias, cherry-picking information, and cowardice.

  41. I was hopeful, despite the uneducated nature of the site owner, that the other contributors to this site could have a meaningful discussion about the problems and pitfalls presented by oversigning, and reasonable discussion of real ideas that could contribute to solving them. DAMN SHAME that isn’t allowed to happen here anymore.

    • Meaning conversation on oversigning such as this:

      “Given all that, I still expect the NCAA to hit OSU harder than their recommended sanctions for the first notice. Rarely does the NCAA allow playing ineligible players to go without scholarship reductions and the blatant lying to the Big 10 and NCAA by OSU’s head coach and subsequent egg on their collective faces when the truth did come out, will allow the NCAA to rubber stamp OSUs desired sanctions.”

      The reason I shut it down, and will again, is that a lot of people were starting to use this site as a Big 10 vs. SEC pissing contest on subjects unrelated to oversigning and I was getting a lot of junk in the comment sections that had nothing to do with the site. Personal attacks, etc.

      • Josh,

        I understand where you’re coming from, but at the same time, you’ve got no one to blame for the SEC vs Big Ten pissing contest but yourself. Just yesterday, you retweeted an article highlighting the number of major infractions at Alabama and the SEC. What did that have to do with oversigning? A couple of months ago, you bragged in a tweet about how many more academic standouts there were in thh Big Ten vs the SEC. What does that have to do with oversigning? Nothing, but you can’t help yourself when it comes to casting the Big Ten in a favorable light compared to the SEC. Again, you have no one to blame but yourself.

      • So be an editor and remove objectionable content. Personal attack post should be deleted. It really isn’t that hard to identify a personal attack in a post is it?

        As for the Big 10 versus SEC, the style of writing by the creator of this site has as much to do with that happening as any poster.

  42. In no way am I defending OSU in making the following post.

    As of today, the NCAA has not issued a new or amended notice of allegations to OSU. This response by OSU is just a required response to the first notice. It is a reasonable response for Saint Jim lying and playing the Tat 5 all season which were the only items in the initial (and currently only) notice of allegations released by the NCAA to OSU.

    Nothing has been determined (for public consumption) that there will be any findings around any of the more recent allegations (money for autographs, lack of compliance checks on cars, free golf, etc). Don’t lump these allegations with the current response.

    I was hoping that the NCAA would amend their notice to include other actions that the world believes occurred. Maybe they didn’t have the time to put everything together and are allowing the first notice to go forward as is. I hope they come back with a second notice.

    Given all that, I still expect the NCAA to hit OSU harder than their recommended sanctions for the first notice. Rarely does the NCAA allow playing ineligible players to go without scholarship reductions and the blatant lying to the Big 10 and NCAA by OSU’s head coach and subsequent egg on their collective faces when the truth did come out, will allow the NCAA to rubber stamp OSUs desired sanctions.

    • This is the reason why the comments were shut down and will go back to being shut down. What the eff does this have to do with oversigning?

  43. Another example of why I shut the comments down. Off topic.

  44. Oh, but hurling unsubstantiated charges of racism at UA via Twitter (and insulting the RBR blogger along the way) is perfectly on topic, right? You’ve made your bed, kid – sleep in it. You can’t take being discredited, so you take your ball and go home. As I said before – pathetic.

  45. Joshua wants the benefits of an audience without the responsibilities or risks. Works well in China. Not so much in America.

Leave a comment

No trackbacks yet.