South Carolina and “Behind the Scenes Stuff”

Based on this string of twitter messages, South Carolina appears to be putting the screws to Bryce Sherman.  There is a 99.9999% chance that the "behind the scenes" stuff is oversigning and the numbers crunch.  In reading South Carolina sites, there really isn't another reasonable explanation.

This is yet again another example of coaches not being honest and upfront with kids, but who can blame them with the pressure to win and the money involved being so great that they don't have a choice, right?  All it takes is one school in a conference to abuse oversigning and next thing you know nearly everyone else is having to do it in order to compete.  It's a slippery slope that often leads to stories like Bryce Sherman.

The guys over at GarnetAndBlack.com have it right, Bryce Sherman deserves better than this. 

However, at the same time, Sherman was committed to this football program. After he earned his scholarship and worked hard to retain it, we owed him better than this. Now, after pouring his soul into the program, he'll have to pay out for his final year of college, simply because he wasn't going to get much playing time and because we signed more players than we had room for. Presumably, it's too late for him to find some other school that will give him a scholarship, considering that we waited until this late to cut him. His options are limited.


Why does this happen???

The answer is simple.  South Carolina, by current SEC rules and NCAA rules, is allowed to sign up to 28 players in a single class regardless of where that puts them with the 85 limit.  This opens the door for abusing the numbers and abusing kids like Bryce Sherman.  Most likely, South Carolina signed more than they had room for and they had to wait until now to find out who is going to be eligible.  Why?

“It's also different recruiting in a lot of the SEC states than it is in other parts of the country in that coaches are dealing with a larger pool of at-risk students academically. Granted, it's not politically correct to say that, and coaches are hesitant to say it publicly. But just about all of them deal with it in the SEC, and often it's a guessing game down to the last minute about whether a handful of players in each class are going to qualify academically.”


By allowing Steve Spurrier to oversign and by scholarships being only 1 year renewable contracts, kids like Bryce Sherman are being held hostage and kept in the dark until the coaches find out who from the incoming class is going to qualify.  If everyone qualifies then someone has to go, and in the end, a good, unsuspecting kid who has done everything that has been asked of him is cut loose by a coaching staff and school that has made money of his efforts and dedication while operating as a tax exempt entity with the stated purpose of providing higher education.  And the kicker, that tax exempt entity (the university) is governed by another tax exempt entity with the stated purpose of ensuring that athletics are integrated into the educational process for the sole purpose of enhancing the educational experience.

Everything about this situation is wrong and the new SEC rules on oversigning are not going to stop it completely because the SEC did not address oversigning by capping the annual signing limit at the number of signed LOI that it takes to get to 85 when you combine the signed LOI with the number of players on scholarship when the LOI is signed.

The NCAA has got to step in and put a complete end to these scenarios, even if it takes completely restructuring the scholarship program.  Next year's Bryce Sherman is counting on them to live up to their mission statement.

Filed under: SEC Leave a comment
Comments (86) Trackbacks (0)
  1. What just about every article on Sherman mentions, but Josh fails to mention (shocking) is that Bryce Sherman was recruited to South Carolina as a Track & Field athlete not a football player. His sophomore year (2009-2010) he walked on to the football team and was awarded a scholarship for the following academic year (2010-2011).

    Remember one of the ways that Josh attempted to defend Ohio State was by suggesting – with no real evidence – that one of the Ohio State walk-on’s had been awarded a scholarship for this past year. The implication was that it would’ve been perfectly acceptable for Ohio State to not renew the scholarship that had been awarded to a walk-on. I guess that stance – like most all of Josh’s stances – varies depending on the conference/team.

    • You’re reaching. Here is my exact quote:

      “We don’t know the details of Griffin’s situation, but it is reasonable to think that he gets to remain on scholarship provided there is always room. Now technically, by our definition of oversigning, if Ohio State were to go over by one and then release Griffin from his scholarship we would call it oversigning.”

      • Guess I should have added, “and if the release him in the middle of July not only would it be oversigning, but it would be borderline criminal.” None of it matters because Griffin is on scholarship and there appears to be 3 openings to get to 85 after the depatures of Pryor, Jackson, and Price.

        • Given that Sherman was previously a walk-on, is it not possible that South Carolina told him that they were awarding him a scholarship for 1 year and renewal would be subject to the discretion of the coaches?

          Remember, Sherman was not recruited by Spurrier and his staff. They didn’t lure him to Columbia with promises of greatness on the playing field while getting an education on a full ride scholarship. If all they promised him was a 1 year scholarship, I don’t see how they’ve done him wrong. Would they have done better in your opinion if they never gave him a scholarship and just let him continue as a walk-on?

      • Yeah, that’s one of your quotes on Griffin. Here is another:

        “As mentioned, Ohio State was at +2 on NSD based on the charts submitted by readers. Those numbers included signing 24 and most likely included Adam Griffin, a walk-on that was awarded a scholarship last year for 1 year, counting towards the number of players returning. One of the 24 signed was Cardale Jones who was a greyshirt signee (announced on NSD) and doesn’t count towards this class. If you take him out and you take into account Adam Griffin not being renewed as a walk-on, Ohio State arrives at 85″

        I’m not reaching. At the time you made the above comment you seemed pretty sure that Griffin’s scholarship was not renewed in order to make room for an incoming recruit and if you felt like that was wrong in any way you sure didn’t express that feeling.

  2. The really messed up thing is that you didn’t even mention the fact that Sherman is a former walk-on. Did you honestly not think that was a relevant piece of information because you sure as hell did when you were trying to find extra available schollys on Ohio State’s roster.

    It’s just another indication of the progressively shady way in which you’ve been operating the last couple months:

    - altering Ohio State’s numbers in the cup standings (should be at least +1)
    - making claims with no supporting evidence (“Ohio State has a 10 year track record of having never once oversigned, even by a single player”)
    - frequent “mistakes” that always seem to either favor Ohio State/Big Ten or damage the SEC (Dilillo being on scholly for 4 years; Tennessee being over 85 limit)
    - turning off the comments section during a very convenient period
    - using an anonymous and unreliable person on twitter as a source (recent piece on Tennessee)

    And now we can add omitting pertinent facts to the list. It appears that the deeper Ohio State sinks, the more dedicated you become to taking down the SEC even if it means resorting to unscrupulous tactics.

    • I think the South Carolina bloggers said it best:

      “I’ve seen some people defend the coaches’ decision by suggesting that Sherman’s case is unique because he’s a former walk-on to whom we don’t owe a long-term commitment. According to this argument, the case would be different and less excusable if Sherman were a player to whom we had offered a scholarship out of high school. I don’t buy this. Sherman wasn’t cut because he’s a former walk-on; he was cut because we treat football scholarships as one-year commitments. What happened to Sherman could have happened to any scholarship athlete on our team who wasn’t slated to be a major contributor next year. Sherman was simply the player our coaches decided they needed least.”

      I felt as though Griffin’s situation was slightly different because his father actually works for Ohio State and financially I didn’t think Griffin would be affected and it seemed more likely that there was a front-end agreement. Perhaps I was wrong there. However, had they released Griffin from his scholarship in July and he quit the team because of it, as is the case with Sherman, I think we would all be a lot more critical of the situation.

      The situation with giving walk-on players scholarships is very similar to grayshirting. The whole key is communication on the front-end. Ideally, I think we would all like to see better education for these players and something in writing regarding these “agreements.” But if there is an agreement on the front-end as to the conditions of the renewal then it eliminates the kind of surprise and disappointment kids face when they are hit at the last minute with a non-renewal for “behind the scenes stuff.”

      • I don’t agree with the Sough Carolina blogger’s take, and judging by your last paragraph I don’t think you really do either. We all know that scholarships are 1 year renewable but I think most would agree that the school does “owe a long-term commitment” to a player that was recruited out of high school to attend that university as long as the SA does what is required of him and stays out of trouble. When a walk-on is awarded a 1 year scholarship, there is no long-term commitment. I agree that communication on the front end is key, but not knowing what was communicated to Sherman on the front end didn’t stop you from blasting South Carolina. I guess being in the SEC is all the information needed to be indicted in the oversigning.com court of justice.

        By the way, the author of the USC blog doesn’t completely capitulate, but if you read the comments he does back off his stance a little after reading comments like the following:

        By the author’s reasoning; if a scholarship is available to reward a walk-on; it should not be granted unless there is intent and ability for the coaching staff to renew it for his remaining years of eligibility. I disagree, I hope that if a scholarship “opens up”, the coaching staff will use it to reward those unappreciated walk-ons

        As much as I appreciate Bryce and I was just as happy to see him on the field as any other Gamecock fan, he choose to play football without a scholarship when he walked on. He can choose or not choose now. His hard work was rewarded last season because there was a scholarship available. There isn’t one available now.

        By your argument, coaches that want to maintain flexibility in scholarships should sit on an unused scholarship rather than give it to a player in Sherman’s position with the understanding that circumstances might change in the future. If the coaches would have had to commit to giving Sherman a scholarship for the remainder of his collegiate career a year ago, I don’t think he ever would have been on scholarship in the first place.

        The only thing separating Sherman’s case from other cases where walk-on’s were awarded scholarships for one year and then went back to being walk-on’s is that Sherman decided to quit the team. If he had decided to stay on the team as a walk-on, we probably wouldn’t know anything about this. It’s also worth notiing that Sherman plans on remaining a student at South Carolina. He just won’t be on scholarship and won’t be on the football team. Just a regular college student with a job paying his own way.

        • No everyone doesn’t know scholarships are 1 year renewable, James Jackson thought his was good for 4-5 years because that is what every coach that recruited him told him. Talking to Sherman now on twitter and he tells me USCe didn’t tell him anything. They didn’t tell Jim they weren’t going to renew him when they signed his replacement in feb.

          • So, you believe Sherman, but don’t believe Jackson when he was told that he was cut because they needed his scholly?

    • The Buckeyes were never oversigned. Not on National letter of intent day, not when Jackson left school and not today. They would have had a problem if Aundrey Walker would have signed on signing day but he decided to goto USC. My suspicion (and I’m assuming Josh’s as well) was that Griffin would have gone back to walk-on status like the previous year but since there was room, it didn’t need to happen.

      • They were oversigned by at least 1. Two depending on when Dilillo got the boot.

        • Umm. Ironic that you post this, considering you were big on “making claims with no supporting evidence”

          pot, kettle? Despite the OSU rivals breakdown, etc… hahah.

          And EVERYONE knew cardale jones was going to greyshirt. You can find that out before signing day. There is a big difference between a player announcing he is greyshirting before he signs, versus in the fall/summer.

          • Despite the OSU rivals breakdown? That is what my claim is based on!

            As Josh previously provided, here is OSU’s scholarship breakdown dated 11/04/10:

            They were at 80 scholarships at that time. Prior to NSD, they lost 17 seniors (the 18 listed minus Moeller) plus Sam Longo. That leaves them with room for 23, but they also brought in a transfer (Allen), so they only had room for 22. They signed 24. That’s 2 too many for the mathematically challenged. That’s why Ohio State was at +2 in the oversigning cup standings for several months until Josh went back and altered it a couple of weeks ago.

            In Josh’s explanation of the numbers, he sneakily deducts Dilillo from the calculations prior to NSD even though we learned that he was no longer on the team at the start of spring practice (after NSD).

            But let’s say I give you Dilillo. That still leaves Ohio State +1 on NSD. Yes, Cardale Jones is greyshirting. He still SIGNED an NLI with Ohio State on NSD. That is the accounting method that Josh established. You can’t just throw out the accounting methods because you don’t like the results that they give you for one particular team.

            Like I said, Ohio State oversigned by at lest 1; 2 depending on how you count Dilillo.

            • The reason Cardale Jone’s Isn’t accounted for is that he purposely stated before that he was greyshirting.

              If you can point out to where other people from Alabama, SC, Tenn, etc, have said before signing day that they WILL greyshirt (with no equivocations) then they should be taken of the list of oversigning. Feel free to back it up.

              • Did he or did he not sign an NLI?

                Again, you can’t change the accounting methods because you don’t like the results they produce. Even Josh admitted that Ohio State oversigned. You’re on your own.

                • Clarifying accounting methods is not changing them. I see you never addressed the issue of up front Greyshirting. No one seems to have a problem with UPFRONT greyshirting.

                  Straw man argument.

                  • The evils of greyshirts have been addressed several times by the site author.

                  • UPFRONT greyshirting is fine. But just because a greyshirt isn’t made public at NSD doesn’t mean that it wasn’t upfront.

                    • Vesper – so you agree that upfront greyshirting is fine. Please explain why it would be a bad thing to publicly state greyshirting status.

                    • Luke,
                      Perhaps the student athletes and coaches don’t want to publicly state the status.

                  • Luke, please do yourself a favor and stop using argumentative definitions incorrectly. Vesper is not making a straw man argument. Using terms incorrectly only weakens your already sparse argument.

                    Josh changed the numbers, that is a fact. Josh spent a good amount of time, by his own admission, digging into those facts. Although he could not come up with definitive answers, by his own admission. Yet he continues to point the finger at other schools without doing the same due diligence and does nothing to “clarify” his mistakes when it pertains to certain team. You defend his actions, which makes you just a s guilty of hypocrisy.

                    You said “he (Cardale Jones) purposely stated before that he was greyshirting, ” with “with no equivocations.”

                    First, you are making the false assumption that if a player does not publicly state that he knows he is grey shirting, then he must be grey shirting with his knowledge or consent. That is a broadly overreaching assumption on your part.

                    Second, I did a search, and no where can I find Cardale Jones being quoted saying he was grey shirting prior to NSD. For that matter, I searched after signing day several weeks and did not see him quoted either. I found a great deal of assumptions, message board rumors and second and third hand information, but not Cardale saying he was grey shirting.

                    Could you be so kind as to provide a link to said quote?

                    If you cannot, I would say you are coming pretty darn close to setting up a straw man argument yourself.

                    Even if you can provide that quote is still leaves the problem that you, and Josh, are making far too many assumptions in order to support your arguments.

            • Oh, and BTW -


              huh. August 5th 2010. Is that BEFORE national signing day?

              • Yawn. He rejoined the team after the start of the season:

                I have to thank you though. In the course of searching for the above link, I found this one from last August: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/08/27/rumblings-8-27-art-god9lege-1.html

                Sophomore tight end Nic DiLillo is buried on the Ohio State depth chart behind Jake Stoneburner and Reid Fragel. What’s surprising is not that he has fallen behind, but that he is a scholarship guy who was left off the 105-man roster that teams are able to bring to camp.

                People close to him say DiLillo was told he “didn’t make the cut” to be on the 105. They also say Ohio State has been sort of pushing him to transfer, telling him they would help him with the process.

                This kind of thing is commonplace at some places – there has been a national discussion in college football circles recently about schools that sign more players than they can have under the 85-scholarship limit and then try to “cut” players who underperform – but this situation is an unusual one at Ohio State, which has never signed more players than it can use under coach Jim Tressel.

                DiLillo, though, has no plans to transfer and is expected to report when the roster expands today.

                So, maybe Dilillo shouldn’t be counted. According to that report, Dilillo was being pushed out the door starting last fall. The question is whether they gave him the final push before or after NSD.

                • Look at the Date of your transfer article. Its “august 2010″. Hardly being pushed out, no?

                  Though i see you conveniently left out the part

                  “DiLillo was left off the 105-man training camp roster last August, which is virtually unprecedented for a scholarship player with no known disciplinary problems”

                  This is pretty much a clear cut case of not oversigning. Could it be roster management? Perhaps. But it really doesn’t appear to be oversigning because the data, etc, shows otherwise.

                  • Luke, the August article states that OSU was encouraging him to transfer (leaving him off the fall camp roster) but that he had no intentions of doing so. The April article recounts this, then goes on to say that he rejoined the team for the season, and was again left off the spring roster. Unless you can show an announcement by DIlillo that he was transferring before NSD who’s to say they weren’t pulling the same trick in trying to force him to transfer? Whose to say he wasn’t still on scholarship at NSD like he was in August? This is a clear case of what you and Josh have been accusing Alabama of doing for some time (with nowhere near the evidence) yet you bend over backward to excuse it.

                  • I think DiLillo’s problem was that as a tight end, he balooned up to 900lbs and started running a 7.2 Forty. Those aren’t true numbers, but there were O-Lineman out running him. Basically he got cut for sucking a$$.

          • I just spoke with an official at the University of Alabama. He told me that they didn’t oversign. There… I just proved that Alabama didn’t oversign in the same way that Josh proves that OSU didn’t oversign.

  3. laughable again. Jackson says he was forced out at OSU, and Josh spends weeks trying to dig up his truth as to what happens, but any chance to smear an SEC and he jumps on it. I see he still has the tweet from some unknown person about an Alabama player “reportedly” leaving because of oversigning.

    not saying SC isnt doing anything good or bad. They already had a black eye from yanking a scholarship offer earlier this year, but then again, that wasnt oversigning, that was offering more scholarships than they could sign for that period.

  4. This stops being a problem when the NCAA eliminates the 85 cap. That artificial and arbitrary number creates these situations.

    But by the logic of the 85 rule, combined with the opprobrium being directed South Carolina’s way, it’s clear that USC would have been better off never granting Sherman any aid whatsoever.

    Annual signing limit of 25 (with an appeals process for special circumstances), 4 years on the GIA, no 85 cap.

    Easy. Problem solved.

    • I think most people here agree with you. I wonder if the NCAA will ever consider it as I’m sure most small schools would be against that change (more scholarships to big schools = less opportunity for them).

  5. Georgia Tech football in trouble now. Looks like praise from Josh is the kiss of death.

  6. Double standards abound. When OSU doesn’t re-award a schollie to a walk-on, it is reasonable. When an SEC school does it; the coach, the school, and the conference has done something “wrong.”

    You are quite inconsistent on the topic of oversigning and roster management. You are quite consistent on your positions towards the Big 10, OSU, and the SEC. Your motives are revealed in the consistencies and inconsistencies.

  7. Luke, nice try.
    But you stated “EVERYONE knew cardale jones was going to greyshirt. You can find that out before signing day.”

    As I stated I found NOTHING prior to signing day and what little search I did after NSD I found nothing either. But thanks for the one link that actually has him quoted/discussing grey shirt, more than a week after NSD. I had seen links similar to the other two you posted, and just like them, none quote CJ as to grey shirting. You can show me all day what other people say, but until he says it, so what. And ALL three were post NSD. SO no, you did not support your assertion everyone knew, or at least not the most import person, CJ. Because just 48 hour before NSD he was talking about taking advantage of TP being suspended for 5 games.

    ‘Knowing that Buckeyes starting quarterback Terrelle Pryor has been suspended by the NCAA for the first five games of next season has only whetted Jones’ appetite.

    “Five games would give me an extra five weeks to show my talent,” said Jones. “That’s if I go to OSU.”‘ that was just two days before NSD.

    Reading the article clearly he knew grey shirting was a possibility but not a reality.

    AS for putting words in your mouth. Here are yours:
    “There is a big difference between a player announcing he is grey shirting before he signs, versus in the fall/summer.”

    “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?”

    SO what is the “big difference?” Are you simply referring to the time of year s the “big difference?” Because it sure sound like the big difference has something to do with either the SA not knowing or the SA making a public statement precludes grey shirting from being considered over signing.

    So if that is not the “BIG DIFFERENCE,” what is?

    • Yes. And right afterwords, he says
      ” If I go to a prep school for six months, get more playing time and experience, then enroll at OSU next January, the Buckeyes will have three quarterbacks.

      “I haven’t looked at any prep schools yet because, right now, I don’t know where I’ll be going.”

      He’s talking about possibly going to Toledo or OSU. So he clearly knows about greyshirting with OSU. He is making a choice between starting immediately for Toledo, or waiting and going to OSU.

      Where is your evidence to the contrary? That all of a sudden, every single website and signing decided that he was going to greyshirt?


      So basically, we have a bunch of websites on NSD and before saying he will greyshirt, versus your word that you think he wasn’t told of doing that? Despite every single websites i have looked at 30+ saying on NSD that he is greyshirting.

      Please. You are suffering from confirmation bias. Even if I had a picture of him holding up a sign on Feb 2nd saying “I’m going to prep school” you would dismiss it as a forgery.

      Do you think that Elliot Porter’s situation never happened? I have no problem with any school offering a greyshirt, provided they are direct and upfront about it.

      If a student is aware that he is being greyshirted before, it can work out well. That does not give the coach a right to use it because some kids whom he signed who didn’t think would make the grades made it.

      That is the big difference. One system has the potential for screwing over players. One doesn’t. You still haven’t given me a good reason for not declaring greyshirts immediately.

      • “You still haven’t given me a good reason for not declaring greyshirts immediately.”

        I provided a good reason. The owners of the information do not wish to share it.

        • Thats not a good reason. What is wrong with announcing greyshirts? What is so bad about sharing that information?

          Just because the owners may not want to share it is not a good enough reason.

          • Luke,
            Wrong. You’re not entitled to that info.

            • Any reason why? Is it harmful to the SA?

              • How much money do you make? How much money do you have in your bank account? Why shouldn’t you tell me? Would it harm you?

                • Completely different scenario. Apples to oranges.

                  Is the LOI private?

                  Still waiting for that response…

                  • Of course it is a different scenario. I used a different scenario to illustrate how ridiculous your argument is.

                    Is an LOI private? Maybe… I’m not sure. Whether an LOI is necessarily public is irrelevant.

                    • Really… so an LOI is not public?

                      And btw – i report my income and bank account to the FED for income taxes. What would be wrong with the SEC/BIG office knowing about which students are being greyshirted?

                    • Tell us your income… is it harmful to you? Demonstrate how logical your argument is by giving us the information that we want.

                    • Is the letter of intent public? Yes or no. Can’t you answer this? How is that irrelevant?

                    • Luke,
                      I do not understand why you believe that an LOI being public (or not) necessarily means that grayshirting status should be public. There are obvious reasons why the nature of an LOI in general is by necessity different than the status of grayshirting.

                    • Please elaborate on these “obvious” reasons. Why are they so different?

                    • Here’s one… whether a player grayshirts or not is typically not resolved with certainty until well after NSD. What would you have made public in this case?

                    • Thats a bad way to greyshirt. That’s what we are arguing against, that that scenario is wrong. Greyshirts should know whether they are going to greyshirt or not when they sign.

                    • So if a coach has some unanticipated space, you believe that he should not allow “grayshirted” SAs to step in and take the scholarship? For what reason?

                    • Because that gives an incentive for coaches to cut players who aren’t living up to a coaches expectations. Or because a coach found a better player.

                      No incentive = no reason to cut.

                    • I guess that your version of wrong is just going to be different from my version. But I like how you just declare that it is “bad” to do it the way that everyone does it. Seems a little high-and-mighty.

                      And it does little to prevent “cutting” players anyway. If a coach wants to cut, they can do it before NSD.

                      I really believe that coaches and players are both in better shape when you are not in the middle trying to make lame rules that don’t accomplish anything apart from a larger, less manageable pile of legislation.

          • Luke, the owners are 18 year old kids (sometimes 17). What right do you have to the details of their agreement with the university? If they want it to be public, then they can announce it. If they don’t, then they have the right to keep it to themselves. Yes, their LOIs are often made public, but I imagine that if a recruit wants to keep his signature secret, I’m sure he could (at least for a time). I think we can all agree that signing an LOI is something that most people are extremely proud of and want it known, where as if that LOI comes with a grayshirt tag, they may want that kept on the down-low. Is that not reasonable?

            • An LOI is a public thing. Are you saying recruits should be able to keep their LOI a secret?

              You are making it out to be very shameful to have a greyshirt. I don’t think thats a fair assumption. The LOI is already a public thing. I’m baffled as to why you think it should be so secretive

              • I am not sure an LOI is a public document. But even if it were, it would not tell you anything about when the student would enroll. A separate document altogether, award of grant and aid, which is also required to be signed when the LOI is. That is a legal/financial document, do you really want to go down that slippery slope to satisfy outsiders concerns?

                As I said, I would like to see an addendum to the process so a student would know if they might become a grey shirt, but I still do not see a valid reason to make it a public document.

                If it is regulated, protects the student and provides due process, then what business is it to the public?

                • You are not sure an LOI is a public document? It is by its nature. And yes, it does tell you financial aid items, and the length of such.

                  If it is submitted to say, the B1G or SEC offices, i am okay with that. But i see no reason for that not to become public knowledge when the LOI is a public document.

                  • I’ve never seen a signed LOI; I am not so sure it’s necessarily a public document. And to be sure… just because one has been seen does not necessarily make it a public document.

                    • Great. Now if a SA is announcing to everyone else not to recruit him because he is signing a letter of intent from a school, why would it be a secret? That kinda defeats the purpose of it….

                      Do you still think the LOI is not a public document?

  8. My evidence to the contrary is that in the same article. He is talking about taking advantage of TP being suspended, ergo he at least thought he would be suiting up for the fall OR he does not have a clue what grey shirt means. He does not sound like an unintelligent kids, so I am left with he thought he might suit up for OSU in the fall.

    Website constantly post speculation, conjecture and opinion that have nothing to do with reality, take this site for example. They also pick on something written on a site and run with it as fact even when they don’t know from first hand knowledge. I cannot tell you how many times I have read something similar to the following “as we all know, Big Ten rules prohibit over signing,” but how do we know this, because we are told they do? I have searched for and even requested from the Big Ten office a copy of those rules. Call me a cynic, but I would love to see what the rules say, and in context, not just cherry picked to support someones argument.

    I absolutely believe Elliot Porter situation happened, and it was terribly wrong for LSU to do that. But I am not the one that is implying that failing to declare on or before NSD that a kid will grey shirt means he is getting screwed. That drum is being beat by this site, it’s supporters and others with a vested interest in making certain programs out to be the bad guys. You are holding up one kids and his declaration and implying that those that don’t declare on NSD are being screwed over and that is a MAJOR assumption. If that is not what you are saying then perhaps you should read what you are writing before you hit that little black submit key below. I am certainly willing to bet, and heavily, I am not the only that reads your post that way.

    I have proposed and continue to support an addendum to scholarships that state possibility of grey shirting. If a kids wants to sign it, great, if not he can look elsewhere, but he has the option of making it public or not.

    I also think it is pretty disingenuous to hold up grey shirting as a component of over signing and part of the “evil” in some cases and not in others.

    • Here is the difference between the arguments.

      We are saying “Some kids are being screwed over”

      Which is different than “All kids are being screwed over”

      Yet you would equate the two. We’ve already seen through the Elliot Porter situation that some kids are not getting the proper greyshirt education. Why not make it part of the LOI, a public thing?

      • I would argue that you are saying “all kids that don’t announce they are grey shirts on NSD” are getting screwed.

        Besides the LOI has nothing to do with grey shirt. The award is a separate document. The award spells out terms of the scholarship including length and which term the student is enrolling. I am pretty sure that the financial terms of a scholarship would not be public record and would be protected by law. The letter of intent would not tell you anything about when a player is going to enroll, LOI’s are identical.

        • I need to go back to what you said about some or all kids getting screwed.

          I am certainly not equating some and all. I am basing “all” on this sites current and past post as well as yours.

          Your post holding up CJ’s public declaration of grey shirt proof OSU did not over sign and implying the “Alabama, SC, Tenn, etc,” are over signing because their recruits have not made public declaration “before signing day that they WILL greyshirt (with no equivocations).” You can’t have it both ways. Either OSU over signed or you cannot say you know those other schools did because you don’t know what grey shirt agreements are in place. So now you go to the “make grey shirting public before NSD” in an attempt to validate your argument by implying those other schools are doing something wrong even though they are not doing anything different that OSU.

          You would have us believe that you and this site “some” kids are getting screwed then perhaps you and Josh should try to be serious about what is said. But that is not the case, this site take any opportunity to post ANYTHING, including unsubstantiated tweets, that make non Big Ten schools look bad, regardless of what the truth is. You don’t look into these stories at all to see if there is any fact, you just post and assume them to be true. In some cases you draw conclusions about a situation with no facts to support your point. “Look X player is leaving Y school, it is proof of over signing.” Yet when a player comes out and says he is over signing casualty from a school this site supports, then a great deal of time is spent trying to make him out a liar or fool. Shut down comments on post so others cannot disagree, on so on.

          Now you want to say you are being reasonable by only saying “some” are being screwed. Yet you want a policy that effects EVERY single player and school? And a policy that really would not accomplish your stated goal at that.

        • Go ahead and put where i said all kids who greyshirt are getting screwed. Though i am telling you now thats not my opinion. So basically you are telling me what you think is my opinion, then arguing against it.

          You seem to be really caught up in the difference between “some” and all. Thats never been the case. Yet if you can’t understand/argue my opinion, why are you so dead set on trying to tell me what my opinion is? I’ve just told you.

          As to kids being left because of oversigning, do you not agree that oversigning has the potential to screw over kids? Isn’t the system set up to reward those who oversign? I would argue that the way the system is set up right now it encourages coaches to oversign, then cut. There should be reasonable safegaurds against that. Does that seem like an unreasonable position?

  9. I have only visited this site periodically as the authors have developed more and more of a bunker mentality once it was shown that Coach Tressel didn’t run the saintly program once thought. I have also resisted posting a defense of my SC program, as it is obvious that situations and comments are twisted to fit the agenda of the site: that the success of the SEC is all due to oversigning.

    However, against my better judgment, I decided to peek back following the recent news of our walk-on, Bryce Sherman, quitting the football team when his scholly was not renewed and he was told he could continue with the team as a walk-on. Needless to say, I was not disappointed in the two articles posted about the situation. Despite the fact that it will fall on deaf ears for the most part, I decided to waste 15 minutes of my life and post my own “March to 85” for SC’s football program along with comments on certain situations. Most of the notes below are from readily available info.

    Scholarships Background
    85 Beginning of 2010 pre-season
    77 By the middle of September, SC was down to 77 scholarship athletes due to 7 transfers/quit football, 1 dismissal, 1 medical redshirt and 1 walk-on awarded a scholarship
    59 17 scholarship athletes graduated and 1 junior declared for the draft
    57 2 players transferred after the season and prior to signing day
    61 4 players signed and enrolled early in January to count back (since only 17 of the previous year’s 24 commitments enrolled due to academics, there was plenty of space)
    86 SC “signs” 28 as permitted; 3 don’t qualify academically so only 25 will enroll. Of note, 2 other players were not allowed to sign LOIs due to the numbers
    83 Walk-on scholarship not renewed; 2 others given medicals
    84 Basketball player who played only basketball his freshman year but wants to now play both must count against football

    • The first shot across the bow will be on the 8 players who quit/transferred/were dismissed from the team during 2010; that must be some part of plan to manage the roster. Of course, the first rebuttal is that several of these players moved during preseason/early season, not exactly the “roster-trimming” time noted on this site (i.e. they were still on scholarship and would have been had they chosen to stay). Playing time was an issue for a RB who found himself 4th string after the arrival of our freshman RB (with the former transferring to another D-1 school in Louisville). A couple were walk-ons who had been awarded scholarships the previous year (and still were on scholarship) but were also well down the depth chart. At least 2 others had well-documented off the field issues that warranted dismissal.
    • The next shot will likely be the 2 players who quit after the season and before signing day. I honestly don’t know much about their stories other than one was a WR down the depth chart and the other had only spent one season on the team as a redshirt OL. Both went to 1-AA schools.
    • Now comes the big shot: SC is an “oversigner” because they have 32 athletes sign LOIs, well over the 25 permitted each year. Let’s look at it in two ways:
    o First, the numbers in “buckets.” SC complied with all rules. They had 4 sign early as they only had 17 enrollees the previous year (this site would tell you that number was 23). They signed 28 (permitted) and enrolled 25 (also permitted). No one who signed a LOI was gray-shirted. To be fair, I am sure the coaching staff spoke to several of the players about this possibility given they “oversigned” by three and the staff has gone the grayshirt route 3 times in the first 7 classes.
    o Second, they exceeded their “budget” when the extended 32 LOIs, taking that number to “+4” or 89 (this site would tell you that number is +6). This is a fair note, although SC has a history of taking chances on athletically-gifted but academically challenged players to be competitive on the football field. In the 4 years prior to this year, the program has had at least 5 students each year not enroll due to academics and had 3 in this class. This practice of academically-marginal student athletes is much debated on this site but personally, I believe some level of this is OK, PROVIDED any potential grayshirt candidates are told early in the process where they stand.
    • Related to signing day, two athletes were told they would not be able to sign LOIs due to numbers and where they fell in the class academically/athletically. One remains a SC target and is going to prep school. The other (because he had not signed) ended up signing with Louisville. I know Spurrier was vilified for the latter. Of course, ignore the fact that the kid was a “diamond in the rough” kind of player who was from a troubled background and with questionable grades. Prior to SC’s involvement, the schools recruiting him were Middle Tennessee State, Troy and South Alabama. After our involvement, Kentucky and Louisville got involved. Because we didn’t sign him, he was able to sign with Louisville. Uhhh, I hate to tell you but this is the system you are advocating: don’t sign the questionable guys and let them keep their options open.
    • Now to the shot of the week: Bryce Sherman. A walk-on who did not have his scholarship renewed. First, how about some basic research before you throw any article up here that you think supports your cause. He is a WALK-ON who was awarded a 1-year scholarship for his hard work last pre-season; he is not a scholarship player coming out of high school who fully expects (and should) a 4-5 year ride. Spurrier has never been shown to be a coach who yanks scholarships from high school kids he recruited. Yes, he has had 36 players by my count leave the program at SC before their eligibility was up. Of those, 7 were medical hardships (which at basically one a year doesn’t seem out-of-whack for a sport like football), many were well-documented drug, grade and other off the field issues, and the remainder were with players who inevitably transferred down or quit football altogether. More importantly, so now the coaches, if they have extra scholarships because of attrition and want to reward a walk-on with a scholarship, now have to guarantee that scholarship for the remainder of that student’s eligibility? Seriously?? Sorry, that is a stupid standard and will lead to coaches forfeiting scholarships each year rather than giving a free year to a walk-on. On the walk-on front, Spurrier has awarded at least 22 scholarships in his first 6 years at SC to walk-ons. These were 1-year deals which in several cases were extended for 2+ years when he had availability.
    • Finally, the 2 medicals. One is a OL that is going on his 5th year in school and has never even lettered due to various injuries (and if you knew anything about our program, our weak link the last 4-5 years has been the offensive line so we will take a look at anyone who can help there). The other is a LB with at least 3 years in the program who the coaching staff consistently mentioned as gifted every preseason with hopes he could contribute, only to have him sidelined with injuries.

    In closing, I have posted before (but will note again): I am not part of the coaching staff at SC so I am not 100% sure they are above board in their treatment of all student athletes on the football team. However, there appears to be ample evidence that supports the basic story about Spurrier as a coach: he is a straight-shooter who will give you his opinion and depending upon whether you like him or not dictates whether you feel he is an arrogant SOB or amusing/interesting. He does this when speaking about games, teams and players. On the latter, this extends to player’s abilities. He is not one for pulling punches about where you stand on the depth chart and is famous for it with regards to QBs. This will inevitably lead to players leaving once they know where they stand. At their base, ALL transfers are forced out regardless of school and situation. Yes, it is reprehensible if a coach directly tells a player to transfer (or uses actions to do so) but even a player who chooses to leave because he is #4 on the depth chart is technically being forced to leave by the coaching staff (lack of playing time is the #1 reason any kid quits a team or sport, from Pee Wee up though college). Inevitably, if the player leaves your school, the coaching staff did nothing wrong; but if he leaves my school, my coach is a scumbag. Oh, and by the way, the guy who leaves almost without exception feels he wasn’t treated fairly by the coaching staff (some are just more vocal than others).

    Spurrier has never had a program hit with any NCAA violations (the closest he has come is that we had a knucklehead on this year’s team who was a friend of the UNC players and went to the party in Miami; Spurrier kicked him off the team when he found out despite the fact he was our starting tight end and 2nd or third leading receiver from the previous year). At least at SC, he has been quick to dismiss players from our program that run afoul of drug/legal issues, regardless of their ability to help the team. On the issue of recruiting, the M.O. on Spurrier is that he actually doesn’t try “hard enough” on the recruiting trail (i.e. he would rather be playing golf than recruiting 24/7) and as a consequence, we are constantly having our backyard picked by Alabama, Tennessee, UGA, Florida and FSU. Specifically on the issue of “oversigning”, I look at the history of grayshirts, scholarships awarded to walk-ons and the context of academic causalities that never enroll and believe that Spurrier appears not to be the offender you think/hope he is.

  10. luke
    July 19th, 2011 – 06:52

    You are not sure an LOI is a public document? It is by its nature. And yes, it does tell you financial aid items, and the length of such.

    If it is submitted to say, the B1G or SEC offices, i am okay with that. But i see no reason for that not to become public knowledge when the LOI is a public document.

    Luke – What are you basing the fact they are public documents on. that you see someone signing a document on tv? That you know they turned one in?

    No I am not absolutely sure they are private, I make an effort to not running around saying something is true unless I know it to be so, which is counter intuitive to this sight I know. But I would imagine they are private. Why? Because they do contain some personal elements that SA’s/parents may not want public like legal signatures, phone numbers and the SA’s clearing house ID. And that ID is used to access personal information. The more I think about it, I am pretty damn sure it is a private document, because if it is not then CCA is opening themselves up to litigation.

    And I have seen NLI’s and they absolutely DO NOT contain any financial information or specifics as to terms of scholarships. They are standardized documents and it would be impossible to have specifics in them. It is also against there regulations for a school alter the document. In fact if I remember correctly and they have not changed, NLI specifies that you must also sign a financial aid document as well (and I am certain that you do that, just not as certain that statement is in the NLI). Scholarship specifics absolutely should not be public. Again there is too much information in scholarship documentation such as SSN’s, and depending on the institution it may contain income information as well.

    • Gary,

      You would imagine they are private? Based on what information? The NLI’s main purpose is to prevent other schools from actively recruiting the student. SO HOW CAN IT BE A PRIVATE DOCUMENT? How can anyone reasonably expect it to be private when its sole purpose is to announce publicly to all other institutions to stop recruiting that student? Hell, even the schools announce publicly on signing day that students have signed an NLI.

      Thats just common sense.

      Yes, the student still has to sign a financial aid document. But the school also is bound by the NLI to support the student for one year. Yes, you are correct that not every single financial detail is in the document. But that’s because the NLI is a general document, not meant to hash out specifics.

      • Luke,
        You are very wrong about the main purpose of the NLI. It may be a public document, but your arguments don’t give any credence to your claim.

        I don’t understand you. You try so hard, but it feels like your arguments are immature and incomplete. Your comments border upon trollish and inciting, but I get the feeling that you really mean what you say… even when it is ridiculous and terribly wrong.

        • If you spend a lot of time by saying “your arguments are stupid, immature, etc” then I can’t really argue that point. That is your opinion. But i’d rather debate probabilities and incentives than to sit here and waste my time with name calling.

          I think it is a very simple point: A student and school both announce publicly when a student signs an NLI with the school. The school promises to provide a scholarship for a year, and the student promises to attend that school (barring eligibility, etc)

          • I can’t be the only person that sees your evolving arguments as ridiculous. After one portion of the argument gets shot down… you evolve so that you can still argue the same position in opposition to newly encountered facts.

            For instance, you implied that grayshirt status should be public because it is not harmful for it to be public. When you were confronted with a real world example, your previous argument went away.

            Let’s be clear… I have never said that your arguments are stupid. Those are your words. And I have not called you any names… I am not judging you; I am judging your ill-formed, non-logical arguments.

      • Based on what information? Common sense. There are plenty of contracts that are know to exist with out the contents being made public. NFL player contracts for example. Employment contracts too. And private contracts are announced all the time, but their contents are not made public.

        I went to the CCA site to find out and as it turns out even blank NLI are not open to the public. NLI signings are announced and placed on file for member institutions to verify if they are not sure. But that does not mean they see them, only that they do exist.

        So maybe I am wrong, but I did say “I think”, ” I imagine,” “don’t know.” You however stated categorically they are public record, so prove it. Show us. Put up or shut up. If they are public record then you should have no problem finding one that was released by an official source other than an athlete posting his own. After all thousands are signed every year. If if you cannot find an actual NLI then at least a credible source (and I don’t mean blogs) that states they are public record.

        On your last paragraph, thanks for making my argument. You argue that grey shirting should be public, and you brought up NLI (LOI as you call it) and tied it to that argument. I stated that a NLI would not tell you the specifics of the financial terms and conditions so it would not help in disclosing grey shirts, because that information is not contained in the document. As you correctly pointed out “the NLI is a general document, not meant to hash out specifics,” which is exactly why I said the “LOI has nothing to do with grey shirt.”

        While I am still not sure a NLI is public or private (as I have said all along) I can categorically say that a NLI contains NO information as to the terms and conditions of financial aid beyond the fact that the SA must sign a financial aid document and the the financial aid must be for one year. I have seen them and am 100% sure of that fact.

        • Some quotes from the NLI website:
          At the time I sign this NLI, I must receive a written offer of athletics financial aid for the entire 2011-12 academic year from the institution named in this document.

          That means that the financial aid portion is a separate document. Not part of the LOI, as you claim.

          another quote:
          When you sign the National Letter of Intent you agree to attend for one academic year the institution listed on the Letter in exchange for that institution awarding athletics financial aid for one academic year.

          Seems pretty simple, right? You are agreeing for a time frame to go to a school.

          another quote:
          No. Once you sign a National Letter of Intent, all other participating conferences and institutions are obligated to cease recruiting you. Accordingly, you have an obligation to notify any recruiter from a National Letter of Intent institution of the fact you have signed a National Letter of Intent.

          SO you do have to let any other school know that you have signed an LOI! You can’t keep it hidden.

          So to recap: the NLI states that you must receive financial aid for at least 1 year (not the amount, which is generic), and the financial aid is part of a different document. I am not saying the greyshirt is currently tied to a LOI, but that it should be to help the student out with his choices. Did you try to argue against a position that wasn’t really mine again?

          • To quote Gary, “Put up or shut up.” You haven’t provided any proof that an NLI is public. Something is not public because the public is aware of the existence of something. For instance, I have a bank account… many people KNOW that I have a bank account, but they don’t get to see my bank account. The bank account is NOT PUBLIC.

            Since your latest argument hinges on the idea of a public NLI, I think that you should have to prove it… even though the remainder of the argument is ridiculous.

          • Are you kidding me!?! I will say this as calmly as possible. READ the post before you comment.

            Luke said:
            “That means that the financial aid portion is a separate document. Not part of the LOI, as you claim.”

            I have NEVER claimed financial info is part of the NLI(LOI), in fact I have just the opposite.

            Here are 4 quotes from me, from 4 different post in this thread.

            “A separate document altogether, award of grant and aid, which is also required to be signed when the LOI is.”

            “The award is a separate document.”

            “NLI specifies that you must also sign a financial aid document as well”

            “NLI contains NO information as to the terms and conditions of financial aid beyond the fact that the SA must sign a financial aid document and the the financial aid must be for one year.”

            Try reading what I write.
            Luke said:

            “When you sign the National Letter of Intent you agree to attend for one academic year the institution listed on the Letter in exchange for that institution awarding athletics financial aid for one academic year.

            Seems pretty simple, right? You are agreeing for a time frame to go to a school.”

            I am not sure what that one has to do with anything but I said the aid was for one year – see the last of my 4 quotes above in this post. But it does not state when the term starts and is superseded by NCAA rule “ Exceptions” gives an exception to the one year rule. So I stick to my original point NLI doesn’t tell you anything about when a SA will enroll or if they are grey shirted.

            Luke said:
            Accordingly, you have an obligation to notify any recruiter from a National Letter of Intent institution of the fact you have signed a National Letter of Intent.

            SO you do have to let any other school know that you have signed an LOI! You can’t keep it hidden.

            Gary said:

            NLI signings are announced and placed on file for member institutions to verify if they are not sure.

            Luke, there is a MAJOR difference between something not being public and keeping it “hidden.” As I pointed member institutions can verify through CCA that an SA has signed a NLI. Verify means to substantiate a claim – i.e. the member institution believes there is an NLI because they saw the SA sign it on TV, read it in a paper, the SA told them, or they found out by some other means.

            Besides I have never categorically claimed that it is a private document, only that I imagine it would be based on its content. You are the one that categorically claims to know it is a public document. And so you don’t think I am putting words in your mouth here are a couple of your quotes “An LOI is a public thing” and “the LOI is a public document.”

            Luke said:

            So to recap: the NLI states that you must receive financial aid for at least 1 year (not the amount, which is generic), and the financial aid is part of a different document.

            Yep, and I said that from the beginning, and now pulled several quotes of me saying that from this thread.
            Luke said:

            I am not saying the greyshirt is currently tied to a LOI, but that it should be to help the student out with his choices. Did you try to argue against a position that wasn’t really mine again?

            Nope I did not try to argue a position that is not yours, you own this one. You were the first commenter to bring up LOI and did so in the grey shirt argument with Charlie9.

            Luke:Thats not a good reason. What is wrong with announcing greyshirts? What is so bad about sharing that information?Just because the owners may not want to share it is not a good enough reason.

            Charlie9: Wrong. You’re not entitled to that info.

            Luke: Any reason why? Is it harmful to the SA?

            Charlie9: How much money do you make? How much money do you have in your bank account? Why shouldn’t you tell me? Would it harm you?

            Luke: Completely different scenario. Apples to oranges. ******Is the LOI private?****** Still waiting for that response…

            You used LOI in your argument with Catch5 as well. Do I need to cut and paste that one for you too?

            And if you were not linking making grey shirting public with the LOI, then why bring it up to begin with, no one else had at that point? Were you just trying to confuse the point?

            And lastly, I think you do not understand what a public document means. SO here is a definition for you.
            A public document is a document accessible to scrutiny by the public.

            Scrutiny means close examination.

            A good example is court settlements that is sealed. The fact that a court settlement between two parties exist is part of the court record and therefore public even though the settlement is sealed. (i.e. everyone is aware the settlement exist.) But the content and details of the settlement are sealed and therefore not public record. IN short everyone knows there is a settlement but the settlement is not a public document and therefore not accessible to public scrutiny. Which is what I believe is most likely the same case with NLI, unless your have found something that proves different.

            I apologize if it sounds like I am talking down to you, but vesper is correct, we have wasted too much time on this point as it is. And you keep harping on the LOI being public, which we admitted we were not sure of, and regardless, either way it has not impact on grey shirting since it contains nothing to tell us when a SA will enroll. And to make matters worse you cannot even keep straight who said what. It is frustrating, but then again perhaps that is your goal to begin with, who knows.

  11. You guys have gotten way off on a tangent about whether or not NLIs are public documents. The central question is whether or not greyshirts should be publicised on NSD. In my opinion, if the student-athlete wants to publicise it, then he’s free to tell every recruiting service and newspaper reporter that he wants to. If he doesn’t want to publicise it, then that’s fine too and there’s really no reason for the university to go against his wishes and announce to the world that he is enrolling in January instead of August.

    I know luke will ask why a student athlete wouldn’t want that information publicised. While greyshirting isn’t a horrible thing, it’s nothing to brag about either. Maybe the student athlete doesn’t want to spend his senior year explaining to all his friends what a greyshirt is and why he is greyshirting. Maybe he thinks it will take away from his status as big man on campus. Maybe he doesn’t mind friends and family knowing but just doesn’t think it’s really anybody else’s business.

    This is another case of Ohio State supporters – like Josh and luke – wanting everyone to do things just like the Buckeyes. In their minds, there’s only one right way and that is THE Ohio State way. If Cardale Jones decides to tell a reporter that he is greyshiring, then every greyshirt across the country must do it that way because it is THE Ohio State way. Sorry, I don’t see it that way.

    • I agree with you 100%. In fact the basis of the argument with Luke is that regardless of the NLI public status it does not tell if a SA is a grey shirt.

      And I agree, if a SA wants to make that fact public, more power to him. But wannabe compliance experts do not have a “right” to those documents.

    • Agreed… as I have stated before, I believe that the information should be public if the owners of the information want it to be public.

    • I know i read this a while back, but here it is again:


      So its not just B1G fans, etc, saying this. The NLI program isn’t really big in to greyshirting either. I think there should be a method or way for the NLI program to announce that, or maybe offer a different scholarship.

      This isn’t doing things like the buckeyes. This is doing things in a way that prevents/minimizes the fraud and abuse in a system.

      I mean after all, its about protecting the SA’s from being exploited. How is it unreasonable to ask a school to offer a kid a scholarship in the spring and have that same scholarship available in the fall? The B1G has been doing it for over 40 years.

      But if you’re more concerned with the School than the student athlete.

      • There’s some common ground between the two sides in this arguement. I think we all agree on the following:

        -It is wrong for a coach to lie to or mislead a recruit
        -It is wrong for a coach to force a greyshirt on a signee when it was not discussed/agreed upon prior to signing the NLI
        -Greyshrting is fine as long as both parties agree to it

        I would be perfectly fine with a separate NLI for greyshirts as long as it contains a provision which allows the SA to move up his enrollment to the fall if conditions allow.

        As for your praise of the Big Ten, it sure sounded to me like James Jackson thought he was promised a scholarship for the upcoming fall. Not so much.

        • Very well said and I agree on all counts.

          I would do two things different.
          1. Make the Grey shirt clause an addendum to the NLI reduce confusion of two nearly identical documents.
          2. Require addendum for an equal or greater number of recruits as the number over 85. For example if you had 68 on scholarship as of NSD and have 22 recruits – that would equal 90 or 5 over. So at least 5 athletes would be required to sign a grey shirt addendum.

          • Exactly! You do that, and the main issue with oversigning is resolved. Yes, kids can still be “cut” or people can accuse every transfer of being a cut, but as we’ve found out this summer, cuts happen at schools that don’t oversign too. Josh and Luke will continue to fight it though, because they don’t like the competitave advantage a team gets by keeping their roster full of scholarship players when their teams resort to handing out -ships to walk-ons.

Leave a comment

No trackbacks yet.