Oversigning

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Oversigning
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Dec 20, 2010 1:12 PM
The scholarship is for a reason - contributing to the team. Being good enough and being available are both part of that - if you aren't those things, there's no reason to renew the scholarship. If you have an academic scholly and don't make the grade, you don't get the money back...it is no different.
Dec 20, 2010 1:12pm
dazedconfused's avatar

dazedconfused

Senior Member

2,662 posts
Dec 20, 2010 1:35 PM
i used to do this all the time on the video game lol
Dec 20, 2010 1:35pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Dec 20, 2010 1:35 PM
I really don't have as big of a problem with it as most on here do. Big time college football is a business and coaches are judged year by year. They have to do whatever it takes to win as many games as possible, and this increases their chances. The NCAA doesn't seem to mind it since they haven't stepped in. The sooner everyone realizes that college football is closer to being a professional entity than about education the better off we will all be.

Plus, it's about scholarships. The student-athlete can still enroll in said school even if they don't have a scholarship. Aren't these student-athletes supposed to pick a school based as much on academics as athletics?

And players are allowed to renege on their verbals, but the coach isn't? I know, I know, the coaches are the adults, but it's a two way street.
Dec 20, 2010 1:35pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 20, 2010 1:36 PM
"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"

And perspective works its way up. If an AD or college President (like Gordon Gee) sign off on this, it should be on them. Tell Mr. Bow-tie to give up his millions that he's extracted. If he doesn't like it, he can join the rat trace.
Dec 20, 2010 1:36pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Dec 20, 2010 1:46 PM
thedynasty1998;608220 wrote:Big time college football is a business and coaches are judged year by year. They have to do whatever it takes to win as many games as possible, and this increases their chances.

I do agree with that, but if it is a business shouldn't the athletes be getting paid?
Dec 20, 2010 1:46pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Dec 20, 2010 1:52 PM
FatHobbit;608227 wrote:I do agree with that, but if it is a business shouldn't the athletes be getting paid?

See the Whitlock thread. Should Pryor be paid? I think so. But there is no system possible to make it fair, so it won't happen.

And to more directly answer your question, yes, they are being paid. They are paid in tuition, room, board, books and a stipend.
Dec 20, 2010 1:52pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Dec 20, 2010 2:04 PM
NNN;607866 wrote: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.
The Big Ten seems to have a handle on strictly regulating oversigning, doesn't seem to be a big headache for them.
Dec 20, 2010 2:04pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Dec 20, 2010 2:40 PM
Sorry enigmaax, but you're wrong in this case.

What is happening with these kids is NOT that they aren't upholding their part of the scholarship bargain -- they are simply being replaced because someone faster, stronger or with more promise comes along and there's no room for the guy who's doing everything that's asked of him and contributing to the best of his ability.

With an academic scholarship you don't see kids simply being replaced by smarter kids, even though the first kid is meeting the basics for keeping his scholarship, now do you?

Not the same thing at all.
Dec 20, 2010 2:40pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 20, 2010 2:55 PM
Writerbuckeye;608271 wrote: With an academic scholarship you don't see kids simply being replaced by smarter kids, even though the first kid is meeting the basics for keeping his scholarship, now do you?

How do you measure the basics needed in football to deserve to keep a scholarship? In academics it is usually based upon GPA and earning so many credits. I think the oversigning is wrong in most cases, but I am not sure how you determine when a player truly doesn't deserve to keep his scholarship.
Dec 20, 2010 2:55pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 20, 2010 3:27 PM
Al Bundy;608285 wrote:How do you measure the basics needed in football to deserve to keep a scholarship?

The exact same way, as the purpose is supposed to be the same.
Dec 20, 2010 3:27pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 20, 2010 3:33 PM
queencitybuckeye;608311 wrote:The exact same way, as the purpose is supposed to be the same.

If a cornerback maintains a 2.5, but balloons up to 350 pounds, I would have a hard time saying he still deserves a football scholarship.
Dec 20, 2010 3:33pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 20, 2010 3:53 PM
Al Bundy;608321 wrote:If a cornerback maintains a 2.5, but balloons up to 350 pounds, I would have a hard time saying he still deserves a football scholarship.

Pretty limited sample size on this, I would guess.
Dec 20, 2010 3:53pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 20, 2010 4:02 PM
queencitybuckeye;608340 wrote:Pretty limited sample size on this, I would guess.

I am just using it as an example of someone who doesn't live up to his end of the football scholarship. Should an athlete be guaranteed 4 years of free education if he was a good athlete in high school but doesn't live up to his end of the bargain in college?
Dec 20, 2010 4:02pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Dec 20, 2010 4:27 PM
I don't have a problem with oversigning at all. I agree with enigmaax on this one.

Don't wanna get cut? Work your ass off and prove you deserve to be there. Or don't go to that school. It's honestly that simple.
Dec 20, 2010 4:27pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Dec 20, 2010 5:04 PM
thedynasty1998;608231 wrote:And to more directly answer your question, yes, they are being paid. They are paid in tuition, room, board, books and a stipend.

Football and basketball players are surely worth more to the schools than athletes in other sports.
Dec 20, 2010 5:04pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Dec 20, 2010 6:04 PM
I don't think the athletes should be paid. Colleges OFFER to give them an education, in return, the athlete competes on the field. Nobody is forcing athletes to go to college. They can do whatever they want until they are eligible for the draft. Just so happens, college is the best OFFER out there.
Dec 20, 2010 6:04pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 20, 2010 7:10 PM
Al Bundy;608346 wrote:I am just using it as an example of someone who doesn't live up to his end of the football scholarship. Should an athlete be guaranteed 4 years of free education if he was a good athlete in high school but doesn't live up to his end of the bargain in college?

As I would define "living up to his end of the bargain" as doing the work required to be the best contributor to the team as possible, it seems to me the answer is without question "yes".
Dec 20, 2010 7:10pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Dec 20, 2010 7:39 PM
Writerbuckeye;608271 wrote:Sorry enigmaax, but you're wrong in this case.

What is happening with these kids is NOT that they aren't upholding their part of the scholarship bargain -- they are simply being replaced because someone faster, stronger or with more promise comes along and there's no room for the guy who's doing everything that's asked of him and contributing to the best of his ability.

With an academic scholarship you don't see kids simply being replaced by smarter kids, even though the first kid is meeting the basics for keeping his scholarship, now do you?

Not the same thing at all.
Well, clearly I'm not wrong...yet...because it isn't illegal. And I don't buy that showing up is fulfilling your end of the bargain. Sports are competitive. There are a limited number of spots on a team, which also makes getting a spot on the team competitive. And whether you like it or not, the fact is that a lot of other people have something riding on any individual's performance. There are very few things in life, especially when it comes to getting a shit ton of free money, where the rules are that you're going to get paid whether or not you perform - and in most of those cases, the standards are set by someone else.

Again, a scholarship is a one year deal. You might not like it, but what part of that isn't understood. Just because you may intend to do something for longer doesn't mean you are being promised a longer deal.
queencitybuckeye;608490 wrote:As I would define "living up to his end of the bargain" as doing the work required to be the best contributor to the team as possible, it seems to me the answer is without question "yes".
The best contributor as possible? Well, if someone contributes more...or is better...are you being the best contributor possible? But whatever, even if we accept your weak ass expectation, how about when the contract is up? You've evenly traded exactly what both sides signed up for - one year. There was no guarantee of two or four or anything else. So you did your job, the coach did his, and now it is time to go in a different direction. What is wrong about that?
Dec 20, 2010 7:39pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 20, 2010 7:44 PM
enigmaax;608518 wrote:There was no guarantee of two or four or anything else. So you did your job, the coach did his, and now it is time to go in a different direction. What is wrong about that?

I've been in the room when D1 athletes were being recruited, and this statement is 100% factually incorrect. These kids ARE promised a college education, not 25% of one.
Dec 20, 2010 7:44pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Dec 20, 2010 7:46 PM
queencitybuckeye;608522 wrote:I've been in the room when D1 athletes were being recruited, and this statement is 100% factually incorrect. These kids ARE promised a college education, not 25% of one.

Really? That is what the contract says?

And perhaps I should ask...is that promised with a "all you have to do is show up"?
Dec 20, 2010 7:46pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 20, 2010 7:47 PM
enigmaax;608523 wrote:Really? That is what the contract says?

No, that is what the coach says.
Dec 20, 2010 7:47pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 20, 2010 7:57 PM
enigmaax;608523 wrote: And perhaps I should ask...is that promised with a "all you have to do is show up"?

If your quote is meant to imply that I said something remotely close to that, your comprehension of the language is even worse that your clumsy, plodding writing of it.
Dec 20, 2010 7:57pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Dec 20, 2010 7:58 PM
queencitybuckeye;608526 wrote:No, that is what the coach says.

And the kid certainly has that opportunity. There's still a context to that statement. And there's still the little matter of the binding agreement doesn't promise that.

Look, everyone wants to think they are going to succeed. The coach likely wouldn't be sitting there talking turkey if he didn't think it was going to work out from the beginning. But sometimes things don't go the way you want them to. And sometimes, you just aren't as good as you and others thought. And in those cases, you don't really deserve any more.
Dec 20, 2010 7:58pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 20, 2010 8:01 PM
enigmaax;608539 wrote:And the kid certainly has that opportunity.

Not that opportunity. That promise. Are you really going to say that because the "contract" is for one year, it's OK for a coach to tell baldfaced lies to a kid and his parents?
Dec 20, 2010 8:01pm