Story right now on Outside the Lines. This really is a sickening procedure. I don't know how anyone could do that to a young kid. It should be illegal in all conferences.

Here's a link to the preview:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5926193

I am watching it also.

The one about The U dropping one of their DE's who started for 17 games in order to create room for Henderson this summer. The player started receiving calls from D2 coaches before Miami even told him.

LSU dropping players via letters in the mail.

This has been going on in a lot of conference but really blantant in the SEC for years now.

devil1197;605813 wrote:I am watching it also.

The one about The U dropping one of their DE's who started for 17 games in order to create room for Henderson this summer. The player started receiving calls from D2 players before Miami even told him.

LSU dropping players via letters in the mail.

Randy Shannon was an asshole, I'm so glad he's gone.

I saw the tail end of it. Surprise surprise, the SEC averaged like 130+ signees when the max is 85 and the Big 10 had 86.

I didn't see the whole thing but weren't they saying that you'd sign however many but then cut what you needed to get down to the 85?

I am stunned that the SEC is the main culprit. LSU by mail. Wow, man up.

Definitely a very unscrupulous thing to do. I wouldn't do it if I were a coach, but I can understand why you would. If it gives you an advantage, and it's legal, then it would be very hard not to partake. Especially with all the money on the line.

But at the end of the day, if the kid is playing well and trying hard, then he has nothing to worry about. A small part of sees no problem with cutting bait on a kid who has no business on the roster/team

jordo212000;606800 wrote:. A small part of sees no problem with cutting bait on a kid who has no business on the roster/team

I too have that same small part of me. Part of me blames the coaches/system, but part of me also blames the player, because the players who agree to be part of the oversigning know the risks associated with signing with that school and therefore shouldn't feel completely helpless if they get cut.

Big Ten is @ 86 because their are strict league rules against doing so.

I could never do this to a kid, ever. If I promised a kid a scholly, something inside me is going to make me have to give it to him for four years, regardless of what type of player he turns out to be. Its just not right.

oversigning is by far the dirtiest thing about the SEC. Its a horrible practice that is ultimately classless.

Here's the full video from this morning:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5935634

lhslep134;606957 wrote:I too have that same small part of me. Part of me blames the coaches/system, but part of me also blames the player, because the players who agree to be part of the oversigning know the risks associated with signing with that school and therefore shouldn't feel completely helpless if they get cut.

Also, you have to remember, we on Ohio Chatter know of the schools who are doing the majority of the oversigning... so you know these kids know too (or at least should). There should be an assumption of risk on the kids part. If they go to a Big 10 school or elsewhere they don't have to worry. But if you go down to the SEC that is very much a reality that you could get cut for sucking.

darbypitcher22;607085 wrote:Big Ten is @ 86 because their are strict league rules against doing so.

I could never do this to a kid, ever. If I promised a kid a scholly, something inside me is going to make me have to give it to him for four years, regardless of what type of player he turns out to be. Its just not right.

And, I'm glad they do.

jordo212000;607225 wrote: But if you go down to the SEC that is very much a reality that you could get cut for sucking.

...or sustaining injury, that to me is even worse.

ytownfootball;607354 wrote:...or sustaining injury, that to me is even worse.

To me that is the biggest thing. It's one thing to cut a player who never turned out to be good. However, if you are cutting someone who got injured and not fullfilling the scholarship that is just low.

The biggest myth about the entire thing is that scholarships are guaranteed.

A scholarship is a ONE YEAR CONTRACT.

Both sides agree to a contract when they initially sign. Every year, it's renewed. Both sides, once again, agree to it on a yearly basis.

College athletics, especially football, is a BIG BUSINESS. That is the #1 basis of all these decisions.

I agree that in many cases, it's VERY deceitful to the kid. However, please come talk to me when we see the OTL special on kids transferring and leaving schools in scramble mode.

Azubuike24;607763 wrote:The biggest myth about the entire thing is that scholarships are guaranteed.

A scholarship is a ONE YEAR CONTRACT.

Both sides agree to a contract when they initially sign. Every year, it's renewed. Both sides, once again, agree to it on a yearly basis.

College athletics, especially football, is a BIG BUSINESS. That is the #1 basis of all these decisions.

I agree that in many cases, it's VERY deceitful to the kid. However, please come talk to me when we see the OTL special on kids transferring and leaving schools in scramble mode.

Biiig difference, the players are penalized by leaving a scholly, talk to me when there are ramifications to the university when a scholly gets pulled by them.

ytownfootball;607768 wrote:Biiig difference, the players are penalized by leaving a scholly, talk to me when there are ramifications to the university when a scholly gets pulled by them.

It depends where the kids transfer to. If they transfer to lower division, there is no penalty.

Al Bundy;607780 wrote:It depends where the kids transfer to. If they transfer to lower division, there is no penalty.

Yes but that is a penalty nonetheless. Not being able to go D1 is a penalty in my book.

There is no penalty for the yanking school, I think that's BS and goes against (as weak as it is) the NCAA intended adherence to their mission statement.

A university should not be able to offer more schollies than what they have. Period. There should also be no reason other than legal troubles, grades or similar aspects that should warrant a player losing his scholarship. If a university feels their not getting what they "contracted" for, tough shit, do some better homework the next time around. If the University pulls a scholly for BS reasons, then they should lose on for the following season, bottom line.

The problem with the NCAA outlawing the practice is that it would become another huge issue over enforcement and loopholes, just as everything does. Let's say that a scholarship is changed to become a four-year commitment, and after signing on at Big State U, the kid becomes thoroughly disinterested in actually holding up his end of the bargain. He doesn't do offseason workouts, he shows up only for what's mandatory and does the minimum, and serves as a negative force on the team. The school and the coach would have no choice but to accept this and keep him around, tying up a spot for someone who wants to play (like a walk-on who's worked his ass off) at the expense of someone who adds nothing.

Or let's say that only certain conditions can result in a scholarship being revoked, like being convicted of certain criminal offenses or missing X number of team functions. Then you start getting into issues related to employment law; a kid who's a major problem can have his scholarship yanked for missing a practice, but his family's lawyer will be filing suit over the fact that another kid didn't get his yanked for missing a practice.

Personally, I think oversigning is unethical and can't imagine engaging in it. But I don't think there's a good way to mandate and enforce anything without there being an absolutely massive number of headaches related to it. But I think it's generally a positive to have a little bit of wiggle room for a variety of reasons, with one of the side effects being that clowns like Bobby Petrino and Rick Neuheisel can play fast and loose with the most basic of ethics.

ytownfootball;607768 wrote:Biiig difference, the players are penalized by leaving a scholly, talk to me when there are ramifications to the university when a scholly gets pulled by them.

There are ramifications. As I said, college football (and college basketball) are BIG BUSINESS for schools.

Player A signs, they utilize his talents and it pays off for the school. At the same time, they are paying for his education, meals, living expenses, etc...

Player A decides he wants to go to play professional ball. Player A decides he's homesick and wants to leave. Player A decides he doesn't like the coach or his role and leaves. Player A decides he wants to go elsewhere. All of these reasons could have numerous trickle down effects. Perhaps the school didn't sign another player because of their expectations of this player or they had to alter plans because of the player deciding to leave. How is that a penalty?

This is especially true in basketball. One or two players bolting can drastically effect the outcome of a single season or multiple seasons. Who "pays the price" there? Sure, the kid might have to sit out a year, but he's free to pursue another school, opt to play for money or even decide he wants to finish the school year and NOT play. What does the school do? How can you measure the impact of that departure?

I'm not defending the practice. At all. I'm just playing devil's advocate. A scholarship is a one-year, renewable contract. It's not a guarantee of ANYTHING for either side. Every year and in every sport, we see this contract get broken at any time for any reason by both sides and it's just part of the process. The reason the perception is negative because the norm is that a scholarship is for 4 years of eligibility. In reality, it might be the expectation, but it's NOT the rule.

A prime example is a guy like Stan Heath when he coached at Arkansas. He had almost an entire roster of players defect from the school and others put their eligibility in jeopardy, and he was eventually fired. Now, most people will put blame on him saying that he A) didn't handle the situation right and was the reason guys left of B) he didn't adequately prepare for this scenario and replace the players. While those may be partly true, but where is the OTL special for a coach who operated under this assumption of a contract by his players only to see many of them renege?

Bottom line, there are some heartbreaking stories where someone gets the shaft from a school or a school gets shafted by a player's decision, but it works both ways and that's why we all have to keep it in perspective that a scholarship is nothing more than a one-year contract. Nothing else at all is guaranteed, and when money is involved (from all sides) there is going to be this stuff going on.

To the avid football fan, this doesn't come as a surprise. Everyone knows the SEC has been doing this for years (i.e., getting away with murder).

Scarlet_Buckeye;608150 wrote:To the avid football fan, this doesn't come as a surprise. Everyone knows the SEC has been doing this for years (i.e., getting away with murder).

It's not murder. At some point you've got to blame the kid and his family for accepting the risk of being one of the ones left in the cold.

This is a terrible practice and universities should be ashamed that they are doing it.

Bravo to the Big ten for not allowing its schools to do this. That said. If the big ten did allow it, Some of its schools would do it. I truthfully don't think that OSU would, but I bet Ron Zook would