Writerbuckeye wrote: Have an example of the oversigning by Alabama. From 2007 to 2010, Saban signed 113 recruits (remember, there is an 85 scholarship limit). That's just recruits, and doesn't take into account how many players were on the Alabama team at any given point when those players were signed.

Even if you assume he started at zero (he obviously didn't) in 2007, that still means Saban essentially signed an extra recruiting class of 28 kids over that four year period -- and then culled out those kids who weren't as good before granting actual scholarships, and keeping his total at 85 as NCAA regs require.

Is it any wonder SEC teams have had a distinct advantage on the playing field over the last 5 years or so? When you consistently sign extra recruits and then run off current scholarship players who aren't as good, you basically eliminate the margin of error that every other conference has to factor in when signing their classes to stay within 85 scholarships.

This is a good point.

You might want to add, however, that academically outside of Florida and Vanderbilt the conference is a joke. Thus, they can sign kids that the Big 10 simply can't due to grades.

The SEC, if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'!

Writerbuckeye wrote: Have an example of the oversigning by Alabama. From 2007 to 2010, Saban signed 113 recruits (remember, there is an 85 scholarship limit). That's just recruits, and doesn't take into account how many players were on the Alabama team at any given point when those players were signed.

Even if you assume he started at zero (he obviously didn't) in 2007, that still means Saban essentially signed an extra recruiting class of 28 kids over that four year period -- and then culled out those kids who weren't as good before granting actual scholarships, and keeping his total at 85 as NCAA regs require.

Is it any wonder SEC teams have had a distinct advantage on the playing field over the last 5 years or so? When you consistently sign extra recruits and then run off current scholarship players who aren't as good, you basically eliminate the margin of error that every other conference has to factor in when signing their classes to stay within 85 scholarships.

So wait, you mean he made people earn their scholarships each year instead of giving away free rides to dead weight?

No maax, he took players that would have otherwise gone to schools that would have given them an education in return for their playing football.

Now you have x amount of players off scholarships that would still be on schollies at other institutions were a rule in place that prevents over loading. What do they do? Transfer and sit out a year? Go DII, DIII?

It's a bad practice, on more than one level.

ytownfootball wrote: No maax, he took players that would have otherwise gone to schools that would have given them an education in return for their playing football.

Now you have x amount of players off scholarships that would still be on schollies at other institutions were a rule in place that prevents over loading. What do they do? Transfer and sit out a year? Go DII, DII?

It's a bad practice, on more than one level.

This. Unfortunately because schollys are one year renewable, this can happen

enigmaax wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Have an example of the oversigning by Alabama. From 2007 to 2010, Saban signed 113 recruits (remember, there is an 85 scholarship limit). That's just recruits, and doesn't take into account how many players were on the Alabama team at any given point when those players were signed.

Even if you assume he started at zero (he obviously didn't) in 2007, that still means Saban essentially signed an extra recruiting class of 28 kids over that four year period -- and then culled out those kids who weren't as good before granting actual scholarships, and keeping his total at 85 as NCAA regs require.

Is it any wonder SEC teams have had a distinct advantage on the playing field over the last 5 years or so? When you consistently sign extra recruits and then run off current scholarship players who aren't as good, you basically eliminate the margin of error that every other conference has to factor in when signing their classes to stay within 85 scholarships.

So wait, you mean he made people earn their scholarships each year instead of giving away free rides to dead weight?

So is this college football with scholarships or the pros, where you have to literally earn your keep each year?

Oh wait, it's the SEC...

ytown, writer - Scholarships aren't a four year deal, right? If the scenario you are describing is that he, say, has 20 scholarships for THIS year and he offers 25 then before those 25 get to play he takes five away, I see your point. But if he has 20 open and can sign 25 players and he thinks the extra five may be better than five who had scholarships LAST year, so he does not renew those, I don't see what the problem is.

I understand the NCAA may have a bad transfer rule, but you are saying that regardless of how good, bad, or otherwise a player is, the kid should get the four year free ride because he got a one year scholarship to begin with. Sorry, I'm all for earning a spot and year to year circumstances are different. A scholarship is not a right and its a competitive world, yes, even college. If you don't cut it academically, you can lose your scholly money so why would an athletic scholarship be any different?

enigmaax wrote: ytown, writer - Scholarships aren't a four year deal, right? If the scenario you are describing is that he, say, has 20 scholarships for THIS year and he offers 25 then before those 25 get to play he takes five away, I see your point. But if he has 20 open and can sign 25 players and he thinks the extra five may be better than five who had scholarships LAST year, so he does not renew those, I don't see what the problem is.

I understand the NCAA may have a bad transfer rule, but you are saying that regardless of how good, bad, or otherwise a player is, the kid should get the four year free ride because he got a one year scholarship to begin with. Sorry, I'm all for earning a spot and year to year circumstances are different. A scholarship is not a right and its a competitive world, yes, even college. If you don't cut it academically, you can lose your scholly money so why would an athletic scholarship be any different?

There is an inherent agreement between the athlete and the university that a scholarship is awarded should both parties hold up their end of the deal. The student keeps their ride if they do their class work, stay above board on issues relating to NCAA violations, refrain from activity that would cause loss of scholarship ie, arrests and whatnot. What gives a university the right, when an athlete has done all those things above, to pull a scholarship, that amounts to a promise in the eyes of the student and his family, because Johnny Fivestar incoming freshman is going to be holding your scholly next year? I don't buy the "it's a dog eat dog world" argument. It's shitty.

Not only could the kid have been given the opportunity to attend another institution without fear of losing a scholarship to Fivestar, but (in this case the SEC) prevents that talent from becoming the opposition. Transfer rules aside, this is the beef I have. The kid and his family are getting a royal screw job, and the SEC is the purveyor of it.

I know you're a Florida fan and by default an SEC fan as well, but you can't tell me honestly that you can't see the lack of honor and respectability this pratice projects. Were it a loophole that every university was exploiting, perhaps it wouldn't be frowned upon quite as badly as it is, then again, were it as widespread as that, the NCAA would have already done something about it by now.

You're wasting your time talking about ethical behavior to someone who follows the SEC. The bottom line is winning -- and if you do something a little illegal or unethical, oh well. Just don't get caught if it's illegal.

ytown - I know where you are coming from, but the key part of the equation that you leave out is that it is an ATHLETIC scholarship. You listed several responsibilities that the student has, but the reward is also based on an assumed level of athletic productivity as well. If a coach realizes after a kid has been in the system for a year that the kid is not going to hold up to that athletic/performance standard, why should the kid continue to receive the same reward? Sorry, I just don't buy the showing up is good enough in any aspect of life.

A scholarship is a huge investment on the part of the school, the team, and the coach. Who would purposely continue to invest in something that has no return? Bad employees get fired. If the coach doesn't produce, his contract is out the window. Why should it be different when a kid is being given potentially tens of thousands of dollars to not contribute accordingly?

enigmaax wrote:

A scholarship is a huge investment on the part of the school, the team, and the coach. Who would purposely continue to invest in something that has no return? Bad employees get fired. If the coach doesn't produce, his contract is out the window. Why should it be different when a kid is being given potentially tens of thousands of dollars to not contribute accordingly?

How can you know what type of return you're going to get on a kid after one season of competition? Most high school kids are still growing and maturing at different rates. Whats to say the kid couldn't be a stud by his Sophmore, Junior season?

darbypitcher22 wrote: How can you know what type of return you're going to get on a kid after one season of competition? Most high school kids are still growing and maturing at different rates. Whats to say the kid couldn't be a stud by his Sophmore, Junior season?

Coaches get paid a lot of money to make those evaluations. Yes, I know that the coach recruits them in the first place, but the initial recruiting is a crapshoot in a lot of cases. Once you've had a kid in the program and you see him on a daily basis, I'm going to trust a coach to determine whether he fits.

I highly doubt that the choice to cut is some arbitrary reaction to the fact that they could sign more kids. The thing about this is that we don't know who ended up getting cut and why. The people who want to make the coach out to be the antichrist assume that all these kids are there working hard and doing everything they are supposed to do and are just getting screwed. I could just as easily assume that he's only cutting guys who have shown a piss poor work ethic and are just riding out the gift. None of us know what these decisions are really based on.

Here's the thing. Take the scholarship out of the equation and this is the exact thing that happens in DIII (I choose this as an example because the very topic has been discussed on the huddle previously) at every program in the country. The difference is that kids can transfer somewhere else immediately if it doesn't pan out (though I would guess that most just simply end up focusing on academics). So again, it isn't the practice itself, it is the NCAA rule that further wrenches the kids' options.

^^^^

this does happen @ DIII. I've experienced it happen to teammates and others. I know that there are going to be kids that don't work hard and this and that

I think your DIII argument is a little off, those kids only get money for good grades, so why wouldn`t they spend more time study then in the weight room. As for the DI & DII kids they have to balance both grades & football to stay in school.
I understand football is a business, but all through high school we try to teach kids to be honest & do the right things then their college coach says sorry son you are not good enough anymore see you later. that is not right.

^^^^

Uh, i've witnessed some true dumbasses get some pretty good aid packages at the DIII level and seen some other people get left out in the cold...