Saban has roughly 8 scholarship seniors and he announced this week that 3 Juniors are leaving early for the NFL. That is roughly 11 scholarship openings. Let's be generous and say there are 15 openings. His class right now has 22 verbal commitments plus two players that accepted a grey shirt offer from last year and are expected to enroll this year. That makes 24 total scholarship commitments this year and only 15 at most openings. There was no room to back count players to last year's class so everyone is going to count towards this year.

But Nick Saban is not finished recruiting yet. National Signing Day has not arrived and Nick Saban is still pursuing recruits such as #1 ranked DE Clowney.

Defenders of Saban's recruiting practices and even Saban himself will probably tell you that they have a plan and that everything is on the up and up with the NCAA. What they won't tell you is that his plan is to exploit every known loophole in the NCAA rule book for recruiting. Players will be moved to medical hardships, transferred, or asked to greyshirt in order to make room to get down to 85, room he didn't have when he accepted their signed letter of intent.

There is something drastically wrong when a coach like Jim Tressel has 1 greyshirt and maybe 2 medical hardships in 10 years at Ohio State and Nick Saban has 12 medical hardships in 4 years and is looking at giving out 10 greyshirt offers this year. It's a problem and it's real. And LSU is no different - it's not just Alabama.

Elite programs from the SEC & B10

2006-10 recruit signees

#05 OSU - 20, 15, 20, 25, 19 = 099, 19.8 avg, 79.2 every 4 yrs, -5.8
#07 Wis - 23, 18, 24, 21, 26 = 112, 22.4 avg, 89.6 every 4 yrs, +4.6
#14 MSU - 25, 21, 21, 21, 21 = 109, 21.8 avg, 87.2 every 4 yrs, +2.2
N-R PSU - 24, 21, 14, 27, 20 = 106, 21.2 avg, 84.8 every 4 yrs, -0.2
N-R Mic - 20, 20, 25, 22, 27 = 114, 22.8 avg, 91.2 every 4 yrs, +6.6

B10 - 21.6 avg per class, 86.4 every 4 yrs, +01.4 above 85
SEC - 26.0 avg per class, 104. every 4 yrs, +19.0 above 85

#01 AUB - 25, 30, 18, 27, 32 = 132, 26.4 avg, 105.6 evry 4 yrs, +20.6
#08 LSU - 25, 25, 26, 24, 28 = 128, 25.6 avg, 102.4 evry 4 yrs, +17.4
#10 ALA - 23, 24, 32, 27, 29 = 135, 27.0 avg, 108.0 evry 4 yrs, +23.0
#12 ARK - 26, 27, 25, 31, 26 = 135, 27.0 avg, 108.0 evry 4 yrs, +23.0
N-R FLA - 27, 27, 22, 16, 28 = 120, 24.0 avg, 096.0 evry 4 yrs, +11.0

Meanwhile, let's look at a talented program which has struggled to keep up:

6-7 UGA - 27, 23, 23, 20, 19 = 112, 22.4 avg, 89.6 every 4 yrs, +4.6

Their un-SEC-like restraint on oversigning matches their totals from the 03-07 span as well (see previous post, +4.6).

edit: added MSU, the avg was 21.5 per, now it is 21.6 per class.

se-alum;635817 wrote:I've said it before, it's a huge advantage. When you can sign what equals out to be an extra recruiting class every 4 years, you're obviously going to end up w/ very talented teams. Also, I believe Florida's numbers are up a bit because of all the early entrants to the pros, I don't think they really take part in the oversigning process. I think UGA, FLA, Tennessee, and Vandy are the four SEC schools w/ rules against oversigning.

OneBuckeye;635849 wrote:Acutally Georgia is one of the more minor offenders in the SEC.

se-alum;635858 wrote:That's what I'm saying....Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Vandy don't take advantage of oversigning like the rest of the SEC.

elbuckeye28;635882 wrote:I have seen those that are proponents of oversigning say "students on academic scholarships are subject to having their scholarships revoked." While this is true, many academic scholarships have requirements and standards set in place that a student is aware of ahead of time. If they do not adhere to these requirements then their scholarships will be revoked. I think that this is drastically different from what is happening at these schools because a player can adhere to all requirements but still have his scholarship revoked because a need opens up at another position or his position is just stacked.
For example, a player can get a scholarship, work hard and contribute to the betterment of the team, get good grades, stay out of trouble, and overall contribute to the community yet have his scholarship revoked because the best recruits at his position are signed later. I would completely understand this practice being used if players are out of shape, not taking academics seriously, or getting in trouble off of the field. Then that individual would not have lived up to the expectations required of all student athletes and had not lived up to his end of the bargain.

thedynasty1998;635900 wrote:
An athletic scholarship is a ONE YEAR commitment by the University. Until that verbiage changes, this practice will continue.

It's really hard to blame anyone other than the NCAA.

thedynasty1998;635900 wrote:One could say that the athletic requirements are to be a contributor (obviously left up open for interpretation).

An athletic scholarship is a ONE YEAR commitment by the University. Until that verbiage changes, this practice will continue.

It's really hard to blame anyone other than the NCAA.

ytownfootball;635919 wrote:If that were true, then why are athletes required (and denied btw) to ask for a release? Ex. the kid from Penn State?

ytownfootball;635919 wrote:If that were true, then why are athletes required (and denied btw) to ask for a release? Ex. the kid from Penn State?

ytownfootball;635942 wrote:I'm unaware of any one year contract that is one year for one party and four years for the other.

thedynasty1998;635861 wrote:You can't really fault Saban and the others for doing it if the NCAA allows it. Sure, some might say it's shady and irresponsible, but guess what, this is big boy college football. It's all about winning. Until the NCAA changes the language in a scholarship offer, coaches will continue this practice.

elbuckeye28;635949 wrote:Here is the first result from a google search on the matter. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/sports/ncaafootball/26ncaa.html

ytownfootball;635963 wrote:I understand that, but you're missing my point. If a contract is up for review annually, and a player decides that the university isn't "meeting his needs" should he not be able to not return if he doesn't want too? A one year contract would mean that each party has options on renewal, yet Jo Pa was able to veto a kids request?

elbuckeye28;635972 wrote:O I thought you were saying that thedynasty was wrong, not that the system is flawed. In that case, I agree 100%. If a university can revoke a scholarship after a season, then a player should also be able to be released from his scholarship without approval as well.

wildcats20;635973 wrote:I disagree. You would see kids going to 4 schools in 4 years if this were the case. They would have to tweak the "sit out a year" rule too. Basically if you change the rule to allow players to get out of their scholarship after each year, you can not punish them by making them then sit out a year. IMO.

elbuckeye28;635990 wrote:I think they could easily keep the rule that a player has to sit out a year if they decide to transfer.

wildcats20;635991 wrote:So you penalize a kid for something that is "legal"?

elbuckeye28;635994 wrote:I don't see how sitting out a year has to been considered a penalty. If a player truly wants to transfer and would be much happier at another school, then it wouldn't be a penalty. It would just deter athletes from transferring multiple times.