Al Bundy;639254 wrote: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.

Where does the responsibility of the coaches misjudging the kid's ability come into play? If I'm a good player and the coach of Alabama tells me I'm good enough to play there, how am I supposed to know I'm not? Who the hell is the "expert" here?

If the kid is getting into trouble, or not doing the work on or off the field, it's on him. That approximately a third to half the kids recruited by a major program never develop into a contributor is on the coaches, and should be a cost of doing business. As it's done at a whole lot of ethical (and winning) programs.

queencitybuckeye;639371 wrote:Where does the responsibility of the coaches misjudging the kid's ability come into play? If I'm a good player and the coach of Alabama tells me I'm good enough to play there, how the hell am I supposed to know I'm not. Who the hell is the "expert" here?

If the kid is getting into trouble, or not doing the work on or off the field, it's on him. That approximately a third to half the kids recruited by a major program never develop into a contributor is on the coaches, and should be a cost of doing business. As it's done at a whole lot of ethical (and winning) programs.

Some kids physically peak as an 18 year old. Some kids just aren't good enough. Anyone who plays sports long enough reaches a point where he just isn't good enough to compete. Why should the kid keep getting his contract renewed if he isn't doing his job? At my old job I used to have a yearly contract. If I didn't don my job, I wouldn't expect my boss to keep renewing my contract.

Al Bundy;639387 wrote:Some kids physically peak as an 18 year old. Some kids just aren't good enough. Anyone who plays sports long enough reaches a point where he just isn't good enough to compete. Why should the kid keep getting his contract renewed if he isn't doing his job? At my old job I used to have a yearly contract. If I didn't don my job, I wouldn't expect my boss to keep renewing my contract.

And the coach has no responsibility? Isn't he supposed to know who can play and who can't?

The analogy to your job situation is flawed as you're an experienced adult who presumably is entering into the agreement on a roughly level playing field.

queencitybuckeye;639398 wrote:And the coach has no responsibility? Isn't he supposed to know who can play and who can't?

The analogy to your job situation is flawed as you're an experienced adult who presumably is entering into the agreement on a roughly level playing field.

No one knows who is going to be good in 4 years in every case. Even the best talent evaluators in the NFL miss out on some prospets. You just can't judge what someone will or won't become in 4 years. As far as the job, I can go back to jobs I had when I was 18, and my employers wouldn't keep me around for 4 years if i wasn't doing a good job. These are adults who are being paid more than most entry level jobs. I don't think it is too much to ask them to live up to their end of the deal.

queencitybuckeye;639172 wrote:What "legal" and what's right are two different things.

What's "right" is different to many people.

If I'm a coach, especially at a big time job, I do what I can to maximize my talent, keep my job and keep that paycheck coming in. Coaching these days is very tough and competitive and anyone could be out of a job in the matter of a few years or less.

Therefore, as has been said MANY times. The responsibility is on the kids, their families, their educators and their support system. If someone like Nick Saban is "misleading" so many kids and leaving all these "victims" on the side of the road with nowhere to go, don't sign a ONE-YEAR contract to play for him.

Listen, I don't support coaches doing this, but it's legal and can be argued that every situation is different. There are as many situations or even more where a kid "lets down" the coach or the school with his behavior, academic performance or lack of effort as there are where the coach simply dismisses a kid who hasn't done anything wrong.

Al Bundy;639465 wrote:No one knows who is going to be good in 4 years in every case. Even the best talent evaluators in the NFL miss out on some prospets. You just can't judge what someone will or won't become in 4 years. As far as the job, I can go back to jobs I had when I was 18, and my employers wouldn't keep me around for 4 years if i wasn't doing a good job. These are adults who are being paid more than most entry level jobs. I don't think it is too much to ask them to live up to their end of the deal.

What about the coach's responsibility to develop the player's game? Why is it always the kid not "holding up their end" in your incredibly narrow view?

Azubuike24;639578 wrote:What's "right" is different to many people.

Perhaps, yet those who engage in this practice are nearly without exception coaches who are held in low regard ethically in other areas as well.

queencitybuckeye;639845 wrote:What about the coach's responsibility to develop the player's game? Why is it always the kid not "holding up their end" in your incredibly narrow view?

The coach gets to pick the kids that play for him. If the coach isn't doing a good job, it is up the to AD to make that change. I have seen several athletes over the years who haven't lived up to their end of the scholarship. I don't feel sorry for them if it isn't renewed. When you factor in tuition, room & board, access to any tutoring, and access to anything that you need medically, many students (depending upon the school) are being paid well over $50,000. There aren't too many other college students being paid that much. If someone is being paid $50,000/year and not doing a job, I don't have a problem with replacing them with someone who will do the job.

Al Bundy;639911 wrote: I don't have a problem with replacing them with someone who will do the job.

The only coaches that seem to share this view are widely regarded as the slime mold of the business. You really want to live on that island?

The bottom line of this whole issue is this...

$$$$$ MONEY $$$$$

It's on the line, for MANY parties. The coaches, the alumni, the athletic department, the other people in athletic departments, the faculty, the students, the athletes, the family/friends of the athletes, etc...

Money is why many of these decisions are made. Money dominates college sports. Fundamentally, it wasn't designed or originated to be this way, but it is. There's no going back on that. This is one of MANY issues that pollutes college athletics. It's almost not worth the time anymore to debate these rules because there is always another thing we could try to fix as well.

queencitybuckeye;639845 wrote:What about the coach's responsibility to develop the player's game? Why is it always the kid not "holding up their end" in your incredibly narrow view?

The coach's job is to win. The coach has to develop enough players to win at whatever is acceptable to those paying his checks. Most of the guys that you're talking about have a pretty solid record of developing players, and in some cases sending players to the NFL. The fact that a few here and there don't cut it doesn't reflect on the coach's capability in that regard.

queencitybuckeye;639398 wrote:And the coach has no responsibility? Isn't he supposed to know who can play and who can't?

Again, thats a means to an end. Obviously a coach has to be able to get the right players, but whether you hit on every single recruit isn't the game or the measurement of success.

queencitybuckeye;639849 wrote:Perhaps, yet those who engage in this practice are nearly without exception coaches who are held in low regard ethically in other areas as well.

By who? You? And a couple guys who blog?

S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C! WOOOO

Azubuike24;639970 wrote:The bottom line of this whole issue is this...

$$$$$ MONEY $$$$$

It's on the line, for MANY parties. The coaches, the alumni, the athletic department, the other people in athletic departments, the faculty, the students, the athletes, the family/friends of the athletes, etc...

Money is why many of these decisions are made. Money dominates college sports. Fundamentally, it wasn't designed or originated to be this way, but it is. There's no going back on that. This is one of MANY issues that pollutes college athletics. It's almost not worth the time anymore to debate these rules because there is always another thing we could try to fix as well.

Is this post necessary? What isn't about money? Trying to justify an unethical practice with the whole "its about money" is asinine, but I wouldn't expect anything less from a fan of the SEC.

Sure, its "legal" but what is legal isn't always ethical. That's why I value the Big Ten and how they do things, we may not always win, but we do things the right way. (I'm not going to get in the SEC v Big Ten debate in this thread anyway, but even by doing the right thing the Big Ten is still the better conference. The SEC is still a few years away from even being on an equal footing).

Change the rule. Problem solved.

I'm sure a lot of SEC schools do this:

Read on ESPN Insider that South Carolina now has 30 commits and they have 3 players (Clowney included) that they are likely to get. Of course oversigning wasn't discussed in the article but rather Steve Spurrier will have to do some "creative maneuvering".

mucalum49;648679 wrote:Read on ESPN Insider that South Carolina now has 30 commits and they have 3 players (Clowney included) that they are likely to get. Of course oversigning wasn't discussed in the article but rather Steve Spurrier will have to do some "creative maneuvering".

S-E-C S-E-C S-E-C S-E-C S-E-C S-E-C S-E-C S-E-C

Where is the bashing for Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan St. and Wisconsin for oversigning?



Granted the numbers don't compare, anything over 85 is oversigning.

From this article
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Recurring-Offseason-Themes-Oversigning-s-season?urn=ncaaf-309785#remaining-content

link is "signed at least 100 players".

sportswizuhrd;654149 wrote:Where is the bashing for Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan St. and Wisconsin for oversigning?



Granted the numbers don't compare, anything over 85 is oversigning.

From this article
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Recurring-Offseason-Themes-Oversigning-s-season?urn=ncaaf-309785#remaining-content

link is "signed at least 100 players".

The numbers are overwhelmingly staggering for the SEC. The B10 is around upper 80s. The SEC is around 105. GTFO

Do transfers count as signees? For example, Michigan has 93 from 07-10. Would Ryan Mallett count as one of those 93 despite leaving the program? Sorry if this has been asked already. I just skimmed through the thread and didn't see it.

I assume this takes into account the signees per recruting class, so if a school has transfers or medical hardship waivers, those players still count as signees. That is why Michigans numbers are high, alot of kids left when RR was hired.

why is OSU 6 under the limit ? Seems like everyone should be at or slightly over 85, because of transfers, medical hardship, and those booted for grades and trouble.

I can only speak for Michigan, but out of the 93 they lost Demar Dorsey who was denied admission, and they've had Steven Threet, Ryan Mallett, and Jason Forcier all transfer in that time. Mario Manningham and Adrian Arrington left early for NFL. I'm sure there are a few more I can't recall off the top of my head.

Speedofsand;654409 wrote:why is OSU 6 under the limit ? Seems like everyone should be at or slightly over 85, because of transfers, medical hardship, and those booted for grades and trouble.

Not sure but it might have to do with guys staying 5 and 6 years. Also, you don't have to completely fill your class, maybe Tressel was a player or two short one or two years.

I believe Tress also usually gives a scholly or two to a walk-on.