enigmaax;637405 wrote:The coach wouldn't be there is he didn't think a kid has potential. I think you over do this "lying" thing. It is up to each kid to account for his own performance. There is NO guarantee of success in life. It says a lot about the kid who expects that success is going to be handed to him on a silver platter, and then when it doesn't, blames the coach for lying to him about his potential. At the time, the coach likely thought the player could achieve. But it is up to the player to fulfill that.

So, a kid could sign w/ Alabama, come in and bust his ass for 3 years, but just doesn't have the skill to be a big time college football player the coach thought he would be. At that time, it's cool for the coach to just let them go or try to force them into a MHW?? That's bullshit, and unethical.

se-alum;637657 wrote:So, a kid could sign w/ Alabama, come in and bust his ass for 3 years, but just doesn't have the skill to be a big time college football player the coach thought he would be. At that time, it's cool for the coach to just let them go or try to force them into a MHW?? That's bullshit, and unethical.

Yes. Not good enough means not good enough. Sad fact of life that we aren't always as good as we'd like to be. It is an athletic scholarship based on being good at athletics, not based on trying. We've been through this before - effort does not equal success.

But....when this conversation starts, the people who already hate guys like Nick Saban automatically act as though the hardest working kid on the team is always the one being left out. Neither of us know who has been affected by this (personally) and just because a few kids happen to get some TV time to bitch about it doesn't mean that there weren't other underlying issues. For all you know, some of those guys could've received favors with the MHW.

enigmaax;637690 wrote:Yes. Not good enough means not good enough. Sad fact of life that we aren't always as good as we'd like to be. It is an athletic scholarship based on being good at athletics, not based on trying. We've been through this before - effort does not equal success.

But....when this conversation starts, the people who already hate guys like Nick Saban automatically act as though the hardest working kid on the team is always the one being left out. Neither of us know who has been affected by this (personally) and just because a few kids happen to get some TV time to bitch about it doesn't mean that there weren't other underlying issues. For all you know, some of those guys could've received favors with the MHW.

We're just on separate ends of the morality spectrum.

se-alum;637696 wrote:We're just on separate ends of the morality spectrum.

Yes, you are definitely the moral police in your own mind.

I am not sure what bothers me more, the fact that the practice occurs or the fact there are people who actually feel compelled to defend it.

Yes. Not good enough means not good enough. Sad fact of life that we aren't always as good as we'd like to be. It is an athletic scholarship based on being good at athletics, not based on trying. We've been through this before - effort does not equal success.

Maybe I'm too old school, but I was raised that a handshake and your word meant something. That playing for coach that recruited you meant more than a one year contract, expressed or not. The odds are pretty damn good that after all the stroking that was done to lure the kid into signing the last thing known to the kid and his parents is that they're entering into a one year contract that is based on their performance etc. Is there a written document that says so? I've never seen one or heard one mentioned, even if there was this could be attributed to fine print. Something that has bitten everyone of us here in the ass at least once, the difference is it probably didn't happen to you at 18 and it most assuredly didn't alter your life to the extent this does. Pretty tough fucking lesson to learn at the hands of an institution of "higher learning" don't you think? Particularly one that ascribes to the mission statement of the NCAA..

Our Mission
Core Ideology

The NCAA's core ideology consists of two notions: core purpose - the organization's reason for being - and core values - essential and enduring principles that guide an organization.
Core Purpose

Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.
Core Values

The Association - through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff - shares a belief in and commitment to:

* The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.
* The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.
* The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.
* The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.
* An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.
* Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.
* Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels.

The NCAA has proven to be a paper tiger, but their mission is admirable. It's not exactly in keeping with integrity to pull little Johnny's athletic scholarship they're so desperately attempting to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount. Call me nostalgic, but that sounds a bit like bullshit.

The bigger picture remains though. That the longer this practice is allowed to continue, the more and more it takes on aspects of the pro game. Sorry, but Saturday football is different from Sunday football. Both have their merits but need separation from each other. I don't care how isolated the incidents, who looks the fool for being lied to enough times, or how well defined the rules parameters are and how they're being adhered to, this practice is bad, bad bad, for college football. Period.

ytownfootball;637739 wrote:I am not sure what bothers me more, the fact that the practice occurs or the fact there are people who actually feel compelled to defend it.

Maybe I'm too old school, but I was raised that a handshake and your word meant something. That playing for coach that recruited you meant more than a one year contract, expressed or not. The odds are pretty damn good that after all the stroking that was done to lure the kid into signing the last thing known to the kid and his parents is that they're entering into a one year contract that is based on their performance etc. Is there a written document that says so? I've never seen one or heard one mentioned, even if there was this could be attributed to fine print. Something that has bitten everyone of us here in the ass at least once, the difference is it probably didn't happen to you at 18 and it most assuredly didn't alter your life to the extent this does. Pretty tough fucking lesson to learn at the hands of an institution of "higher learning" don't you think? Particularly one that ascribes to the mission statement of the NCAA..

The NCAA has proven to be a paper tiger, but their mission is admirable. It's not exactly in keeping with integrity to pull little Johnny's athletic scholarship they're so desperately attempting to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount. Call me nostalgic, but that sounds a bit like bullshit.

The bigger picture remains though. That the longer this practice is allowed to continue, the more and more it takes on aspects of the pro game. Sorry, but Saturday football is different from Sunday football. Both have their merits but need separation from each other. I don't care how isolated the incidents, who looks the fool for being lied to enough times, or how well defined the rules parameters are and how they're being adhered to, this practice is bad, bad bad, for college football. Period.

You know, I don't even disagree with a lot of what you say. The only thing for me is, you assume that every kid who ever wasn't good enough was lied to because the coach HAD to have given him that scholarship with some overblown picture of his future. You also act like every kid who was ever cut was cut to make room for the next big thing, couldn't possibly have done anything besides bust his ass and fulfill his end, and is some walking symbol of how southerners only win because they cheat. That is the leap I'm not willing to take. Sheer numbers don't automatically mean it is all predicated on a lack of ethics. You've seen a couple interviews where a kid tells his side and feels like he got a raw deal....but that doesn't make it truth. Did you believe Maurice Clarett? There are just some people who don't cut it and then blame someone else for it. Since this practice has been going on for years, why is it just recently such a hot topic?

When you see one kid from, say Alabama on TV talking about his situation...do you KNOW how Nick Saban recruited him? Do you think that Saban had in his mind all along that this kid isn't good enough, but he'd sign him anyway knowing he'll just get rid of him in three years when he proves he isn't good enough. That's the difference. It isn't a lie if you believe it yourself. You guys don't like the SEC, don't like that they win, don't like the coaches, don't like that they do things a little differently, so you slap some holier-than-thou generalization on every little blurb you see.

I don't assume much other than the sales pitch that goes along with recruiting, and that, honestly has no foundation in the south more than it does in the north, east or west. Like I said I don't care how isolated the "big woe is me" stories of getting cut for the next big guy are, there shouldn't be any. I feel the number of spots is the number of spots. Period. So a couple guys change their mind, get home sick and miss mommy, to fricken bad, at least the playing field is even for all. Perhaps recruiters/evaluators might be forced to perform their jobs a little better in determining talent instead of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. What's wrong with competing on a level playing field? Why troll with a net when you can prove your angling skills? Is the south afraid they're not able to compete in talent evaluation?

I'm actually fairly indifferent on the SEC subject, I don't like oversigning, but other than that I don't have any disdain for them. The holier than thou generalization would only bother me if there was some truth to the matter, which for some, it does, and it is painfully obvious. Unfortunately for those, if the shoe fits, wear it.

enigmaax;637730 wrote:Yes, you are definitely the moral police in your own mind.

Far from it. I just can't imagine being a head coach at a major university, sitting in the living room of a recruit and his parents, promising them that if their son signs with me he will be afforded the opportunity to play football and receive a college education, then 2 years later trying to force him off the team w/ a MHW or just cutting him completely. It boggles my mind that anyone could defend such an action.

Azubuike24;637401 wrote:He didn't boot them. He just told them "you won't play under me because I didn't recruit you." 2 of the 3 left on their own after that.

There is a difference. Only one, to my knowledge, was "not asked" to come back.

http://kentucky.scout.com/2/871715.html
http://kentucky.scout.com/2/871738.html

Sounds like they got booted.

se-alum;637883 wrote:Far from it. I just can't imagine being a head coach at a major university, sitting in the living room of a recruit and his parents, promising them that if their son signs with me he will be afforded the opportunity to play football and receive a college education, then 2 years later trying to force him off the team w/ a MHW or just cutting him completely. It boggles my mind that anyone could defend such an action.

I'm with you on this.

There's a morality to this that gets ignored, purposefully, by SEC homers who only care about winning.

The fact that some SEC schools choose not to engage in it (Georgia for example) at least shows me some in the conference have a moral compass that's set correctly.

Matt Pilgrim? Tough to count him considering he's been enrolled at 4 schools, arrested a few times and charged with rape just this past summer. He booted himself, or at least cost himself the chance.

A.J. Stewart? Suspended twice by Billy Gillispie and also sat out games for academic reasons. Another guy who would've probably never been here if the disaster of a coach previous hadn't been in-charge.

Michael Porter? A Tubby Smith signee, who Gillispie stuck with and who was awful in his two years under Clyde. He left on his own, citing that he had a child on the way and he was graduating. Again, he was probably told he would never see the floor (because he was horrible) and left.

Kevin Galloway is the only guy who got a raw deal, IMO. He came from USC, already sat out a year and then enrolled at a JUCO. He was going to be a 5th year Junior. Again, he would NOT have played over Liggins, Miller, Dodson, Bledsoe or Wall, but he could have at least stayed around. However, he was told he wouldn't play.

I guess the point is, should a coach be accountable, especially when he comes in to improve things after rough times, to adhere to all of the signees the previous coach had? I'd be willing to bet that most kids if you told them they would not play, would end up finding another situation. Calipari had enough talent around and coming in that he could, with much certainty, tell these guys they would NOT play.

I probably wouldn't participate in oversigning, but I really don't have an issue with it when teams do. First off, it's not against the rules. There is nothing saying they can't... it helps them get a competitive advantage, thus why wouldn't they do it? The ball is in the NCAAs court on this one. Hard to believe a kid must seek a release before he can transfer, but a coach can cut bait anytime he wants after the season is over.

But the main reason I don't have a problem with it, is that this is no different than a academic scholarship. If I don't perform up to the same standards that are expected of me/ not to the same standards I set in high school... then my scholarship is going to get yanked. There is a certain "survival of the fittest" aspect in play here, and I will never have a problem with that. If you want to keep your scholly play well, show up to practice, and beat out guys gunning for your job. Simple as that

jordo212000;638926 wrote:
But the main reason I don't have a problem with it, is that this is no different than a academic scholarship. If I don't perform up to the same standards that are expected of me/ not to the same standards I set in high school... then my scholarship is going to get yanked. There is a certain "survival of the fittest" aspect in play here, and I will never have a problem with that. If you want to keep your scholly play well, show up to practice, and beat out guys gunning for your job. Simple as that

It's totally different. To be the same, the some of the academic scholarships would have to be yanked before the student ever saw a classroom.

It's a slimy practice done by slimy people (ever notice that the coaches from a particular league are some of the smarmiest men one would ever come across?).

queencitybuckeye;638935 wrote:It's totally different. To be the same, the some of the academic scholarships would have to be yanked before the student ever saw a classroom.

Once they get the athletic scholly, then they at least get the one year, correct? (Meaning that they can't be shown the door until after the coming season's bowl games)

ytown, I notice you posted the NCAA's mission and core ideology. The NCAA dumps all over that thing. The organization is a walking contradiction. I know we go round and round about a playoff all the time, but to me this "mission" of theirs should not allow something like the BCS to exist. The BCS by its nature breaks a couple of those ideologies every single season

queencitybuckeye;638935 wrote:It's totally different. To be the same, the some of the academic scholarships would have to be yanked before the student ever saw a classroom.

It's a slimy practice done by slimy people (ever notice that the coaches from a particular league are some of the smarmiest men one would ever come across?).

Also, with an academic scholarship, you know the terms when you get the scholly. An athletic scholly is at the discretion of the coach from year to year.

se-alum;638961 wrote:Also, with an academic scholarship, you know the terms when you get the scholly. An athletic scholly is at the discretion of the coach from year to year.

eh I'd disagree. You pretty much know the terms. Play well, practice hard, and make yourself indispensable. If you are "good" then you aren't going to get cut. Simple as that.

jordo212000;638965 wrote:eh I'd disagree. You pretty much know the terms. Play well, practice hard, and make yourself indispensable. If you are "good" then you aren't going to get cut. Simple as that.

I'm sure the kid in Miami knew he would be cut after starting 19 games the previous 2 seasons before he was let go for a freshman.

se-alum;638979 wrote:I'm sure the kid in Miami knew he would be cut after starting 19 games the previous 2 seasons before he was let go for a freshman.

Reports were that he was dismissed for academic reasons. He said that isn't the reason. So you choose to believe him because you can bring it up in this conversation. But you really have no idea that his dismissal has anything to do with oversigning.

I think the point that is pertinent to bring up, as always...a scholarship is a 1-year contract. That means the coach and/or school has all of the discretion in these cases.

jordo212000;638946 wrote:ytown, I notice you posted the NCAA's mission and core ideology. The NCAA dumps all over that thing. The organization is a walking contradiction. I know we go round and round about a playoff all the time, but to me this "mission" of theirs should not allow something like the BCS to exist. The BCS by its nature breaks a couple of those ideologies every single season

Agreed. My use of the statement was to more or less illustrate those contradictions. I have little respect for the NCAA. Their rules and punishments are fine as stated, but are rarely if ever imposed/adjudicated on a consistent basis. Turrible.

jordo212000;638965 wrote:eh I'd disagree. You pretty much know the terms. Play well, practice hard, and make yourself indispensable. If you are "good" then you aren't going to get cut. Simple as that.

"good"--what does that equal? What are the criteria to be considered "good" and whose the judge? A 2.8 gpa?

Does "good" at Alabama = "good" at Wake Forest?
Does "good" at LSU = "good" at Nevada?
Does "good" at Ohio State = "good" at Temple?

You realize of course, you wouldn't need to answer that if you could only sign as many players as scholarships you have.

enigmaax;638995 wrote:Reports were that he was dismissed for academic reasons. He said that isn't the reason. So you choose to believe him because you can bring it up in this conversation. But you really have no idea that his dismissal has anything to do with oversigning.

Link to that report?? If it were for academic reasons he couldn't keep his scholarship, but they wanted him to take a MHW, which allows him to keep the scholly but not play football?

Azubuike24;639019 wrote:I think the point that is pertinent to bring up, as always...a scholarship is a 1-year contract. That means the coach and/or school has all of the discretion in these cases.

What "legal" and what's right are two different things.

ytownfootball;639071 wrote: "good"--what does that equal? What are the criteria to be considered "good" and whose the judge? A 2.8 gpa?

Does "good" at Alabama = "good" at Wake Forest?
Does "good" at LSU = "good" at Nevada?
Does "good" at Ohio State = "good" at Temple?

You realize of course, you wouldn't need to answer that if you could only sign as many players as scholarships you have.

I just don't get why this is important. There is no nice, easy cookie cutter for success in any facet of life. If you're playing at Alabama, "good" means whatever the coach who is evaluating you says. It is his program. There are tons and tons of cliche talks about how sports prepare people for life, but for some reason you want this one little piece of it to be completely contrary to how life really works? Sometimes you aren't good enough in the eyes of the person paying your checks....or the person coaching your team.

enigmaax;639235 wrote:I just don't get why this is important. There is no nice, easy cookie cutter for success in any facet of life. If you're playing at Alabama, "good" means whatever the coach who is evaluating you says. It is his program. There are tons and tons of cliche talks about how sports prepare people for life, but for some reason you want this one little piece of it to be completely contrary to how life really works? Sometimes you aren't good enough in the eyes of the person paying your checks....or the person coaching your team.

It says more about the juice box society we are in today. Little Johnny hasn't done what he needed to do to satisfy his end of the contract, but let's give him hundreds of thousands of dollars anyway.