queencitybuckeye;608537 wrote: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.

Ooh, that's harsh. So my question is, when theses coaches you know make the promise, they specifically point out that their only expectation is that the athlete show up? There is a clear understanding by both parties that it is a participation award? It has nothing to do with the expectation that the player is at a certain talent level that resulted in the recruitment in the first place? I just find that whole assumption naive.

queencitybuckeye;608541 wrote: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?

What I don't believe is that any reasonable person can't understand the context of the conversation. I don't doubt there is an assumption of a four year commitment. But I also don't know what anyone would expect that means "regardless of my contribution".

So what coaches have you heard tell this lie? Every single coach? Any of the coaches associated with the original topic? And what were the circumstances under which the kids you know had their scholarships pulled? I'm interested to hear your inside knowledge.

enigmaax;608545 wrote:Ooh, that's harsh. So my question is, when theses coaches you know make the promise, they specifically point out that their only expectation is that the athlete show up? There is a clear understanding by both parties that it is a participation award? It has nothing to do with the expectation that the player is at a certain talent level that resulted in the recruitment in the first place? I just find that whole assumption naive.

Again, you're either being obtuse with the "show up" nonsense, or you have no idea what it takes to be a scholarship athlete. When I said "be the best contributor possible", I daresay there's a very good possibility that this involves multiple times the work that you or I put into however we got through college financially.

queencitybuckeye;608551 wrote:Again, you're either being obtuse with the "show up" nonsense, or you have no idea what it takes to be a scholarship athlete. When I said "be the best contributor possible", I daresay there's a very good possibility that this involves multiple times the work that you or I put into however we got through college financially.

Effort doesn't always equal success. The nature of sport is distinguishing between winning and losing and sometimes you can push yourself to the limit and still not be good enough.

enigmaax;608555 wrote:Effort doesn't always equal success. The nature of sport is distinguishing between winning and losing and sometimes you can push yourself to the limit and still not be good enough.

Fortunately, even with all of the problems with college sports, the majority of the coaches recognize that what you described is only a part of what the programs are about.

enigmaax;608555 wrote:Effort doesn't always equal success. The nature of sport is distinguishing between winning and losing and sometimes you can push yourself to the limit and still not be good enough.

No coach with any ethics would take a scholly away from a kid that is giving max effort, but just isn't good enough. How many players at OSU never see the field, yet they keep their scholly. If a kid is "just showing up", he's not holding up his end of the committment, and that is grounds for dismissal. That has nothing to do w/ oversigning. The kid from Miami had started 17 games the past 2 years, but had his scholly pulled for Seantrel Henderson, who had given absolutely nothing to the Miami program.

se-alum;608565 wrote:No coach with any ethics would take a scholly away from a kid that is giving max effort, but just isn't good enough.

But when Urban took a machete to the roster at BG, that would mean he had no eth...

Naw, that can't be.

lhslep134;608162 wrote: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.

How in the hell can it be the kids fault here?!

Scarlet_Buckeye;608573 wrote:How in the hell can it be the kids fault here?!

Because when you're an 18 yr. old kid being promised the world, it's really easy to turn a go the other way. /sarcasm

Honest questions. In the snipet I saw (didn't see the whole OTL), the Miami kid said he had to go talk to someone about getting financial aid and seemed to imply that he had the option of continuing to attend Miami on scholarship, he was just no longer going to be a part of the football team. If he was promised a college education and he's going to get a college education, what is the problem in that case? Also, wasn't he going into his fifth season? Does the sympathy extend to someone who doesn't complete his academic load in the normal time?

In all of the examples that are being criticized, how many of those students actually did not (or were not offered) scholarship money from a different source? I guess, from the few things I've read the kids are feeling burned about not getting to play anymore, which is a completely different topic from the promise to have college paid for.

From what I understood a lot of these kids aren't being cut because they aren't good players or working hard, they are cut because there is someone that is supposedly better coming in. In those cases it is absolutely ridiculous that coaches do this to those kids. I understand the example enigmaax is giving and under some of those circumstances I could maybe understand it. I just think these programs will do anything to win no matter who they lie to or screw over. Of course that's not always the case, and I'm sure a lot of them have legit reasons. I just didn't see any in what I watched of the story.

If a football team tried to take a player on scholarship and switch him to some sort of other aid, I would be amazed if that's not against NCAA rules. All that's doing is stashing a kid away who was a scholarship player. In the NCAA's eyes, I'm sure they would say the kid should still count against the 85 number. It's no different than someone who runs track joining the football team. If that happens, the kids scholarship counts toward football, not track.

I honestly don't understand how anyone who calls himself a moral individual can defend this practice. It hurts innocent kids all in the name of winning. I guess that's why the SEC (Surely Everyone Cheats) is the conference most involved in doing it. They have a long history of doing whatever it takes to win, whether it's ethical, moral or legal.

Just a heads up, in case nobody read the ozone article I posted. Arkansas had the advantage of signing 30 more players than OSU over the last 4 years. That's basically an extra recruiting class plus some. Huge advantage for schools to be able to sign that many players.

^^^^^

Doesn't suprise me one bit. If one is going to play by those rules in that league then everyone is going to do it

someone tell me more about the Big10 '86' rule. Is there a single year limit? They just have a total of 86 a year ?

When OTL averaged up the number of signees/recruits a year by conference, the Big Ten by roster standards and everything all together ended up at 86 players overall for the lague, just one over the limit of 85 allowed by NCAA rules. This is in part due to strict league rules against oversigning recruits.

The SEC on the other hand I believe averaged around 115 or 120 players if I remember correctly

Writerbuckeye;608598 wrote:If a football team tried to take a player on scholarship and switch him to some sort of other aid, I would be amazed if that's not against NCAA rules. All that's doing is stashing a kid away who was a scholarship player. In the NCAA's eyes, I'm sure they would say the kid should still count against the 85 number. It's no different than someone who runs track joining the football team. If that happens, the kids scholarship counts toward football, not track.

I honestly don't understand how anyone who calls himself a moral individual can defend this practice. It hurts innocent kids all in the name of winning. I guess that's why the SEC (Surely Everyone Cheats) is the conference most involved in doing it. They have a long history of doing whatever it takes to win, whether it's ethical, moral or legal.

The main thing I wondered in the posted clip was that the kid mentioned hardship. I can't imagine using a non-existent injury as a way out of a scholarship, but that is what it sounded like. Now, if a kid is no longer on the football team, I don't know what would be wrong with finding other money as long as he would otherwise be eligible for that money.

I still don't get the moral issue. You get a scholarship for a year and at the end of that year you may be given another one. In some cases, at the end of the year, someone isn't given another one.

The other thing is that we assume that when people are cut or the scholarship is taken away that it is all about the numbers. I remember reading the explanation for every Alabama player did not end up getting a scholarship as part of the numbers game. A few ended up not qualifying, a few ended up getting the medical scholarship (or whatever) because their playing days ended, a few were booted for discipline or academic issues, and a few ended up delaying entry. From what I recall (and I couldn't find the link real quick), it didn't seem like anyone actually had all their money pulled just to make room for someone else. I don't doubt that there are individual cases where this may happen, it just seems like there is more a calculated risk knowing that there is going to be natural attrition in more cases.

darbypitcher22;608642 wrote: The SEC on the other hand I believe averaged around 115 or 120 players if I remember correctly

SEC was highest at 103. Pretty close to the 25 per year limit. So when the Big10 has attrition (ex: Duron Carter) don't they give another scholly to the next guy? Does the Big10 avg. 4 less schollies a year on the team compared to the SEC because of attrition ? The SEC '28' rule will be a slight advantage over the Big10, but not other confs.

thanks for clearing that up, I couldn't rmember the exact number.

and you would assume that a scholly is automatically given to the next guy, and I'm sure in the Big Ten in most cases at all schools it is, but who knows, it could be held for the next recruiting class or a guy who is gray shirting....

It should be noted that not all SEC teams partake in oversigning. Georgia, Florida, Vandy, and I believe Tennessee do not oversign.

Speedofsand;608835 wrote:SEC was highest at 103. Pretty close to the 25 per year limit. So when the Big10 has attrition (ex: Duron Carter) don't they give another scholly to the next guy? Does the Big10 avg. 4 less schollies a year on the team compared to the SEC because of attrition ? The SEC '28' rule will be a slight advantage over the Big10, but not other confs.

The Big Ten doesn't oversign, knowing it will then "cull" out the players it doesn't want just before the NCAA deadline for getting down to the scholarship limit. By playing it conservative, there's more of a delay in filling open scholarships.

For instance, OSU routinely ends up giving one or two scholarships a year to walk ons (typically seniors) who have worked hard for four years, as a reward. Those scholarships come about because of a few (very few) transfers, medical hardships or disciplinary actions. Rather than let, say 5 scholarships simply go unused, Tressel will give out 2 or 3 -- but I don't know if OSU has ever been right at the limit. I think the coaching staff likes to have one spot or so on-hand in case of an unexpected transfer or late offer.

For those of you who haven't read through the oversigning.com site, please do so. It's really eye opening where schools like Alabama and LSU, in particular, are concerned. Apparently, Saban doesn't think twice about lying to kids when it comes to juggling his scholarships, and he's also make a mockery of the medical hardship scholarship rules. Most schools might have one medical hardship every other year, and Saban typically has 3 or more per year, so he can winnow down his roster in time to meet NCAA deadlines.

I hate it, but if it gives you a leg up, more power to you. it's not the SEC's fault the B10 doesn't do it, just like it's not the B10's fault that SEC teams do it. I say do whatever the NCAA will allow you to do.

I disagree. It's a morally reprehensible practice, and I am hoping the NCAA cracks down on it more than it has. It gives teams a distinct advantage in talent, but it does so because coaches basically lie to recruits and their families, who are either too naive or stupid to see what's happening.

Writerbuckeye;609117 wrote:I disagree. It's a morally reprehensible practice, and I am hoping the NCAA cracks down on it more than it has. It gives teams a distinct advantage in talent, but it does so because coaches basically lie to recruits and their families, who are either too naive or stupid to see what's happening.

i think you agree with me then. i said i hate it. but since it's allowed by the NCAA i have no problem with anyone doing it. And I'm just saying I can't fault them for doing it. I don't think Saban and Miles take pleasure in cutting 18 players every year so it's not as reprehensible as we're making it out to be, it's a cost of doing business, the kids understand that, the coaches understand it, and SEC fans understand it. It seems to be B10 fans that have a problem with it.

I don't agree. I believe in coaches and programs conducting themselves in an ethical and moral way, even if there is some loophole in the rules that allows them to get an advantage.

I don't believe in a win at all costs philosophy.

There is a right way to do things in this world, and I always hope I'm on that path -- and would hope others would also be.