Good read. www.oversigning.com

The quickest and easiest to understand example of a team going over their recruiting budget is Alabama's 2010 class of 29. With 66 returning players on scholarship and 29 players signed, Alabama has a total of 95 players to deal with. They managed to back count 11 to the previous year (which is hard to believe because of the large number they have had over the previous three years 25, 32, and 27 - hard to imagine there is room to back count that many), putting them at 77 with 18 remaining LOI's signed.

Alabama could take the entire class of 29 if they weren't up against the 85 limit, but if everyone they signed this year qualifies they will be over by 10 (77+18=95). Obviously, Alabama probably should have signed 19 players this year, not 29. They will have between now and August to determine which 10 players will not be with the team. Important: Alabama has not done anything illegal in terms of NCAA violations, but in looking at the chart below it is obvious to see that many schools around the country do not operate this way. Many of them know what their target number is going in and do not go over.

On the flip side, an example of staying within their recruiting budget would be Notre Dame's 2010 class. Going into recruiting this year Notre Dame had 60 returning players on scholarship and they signed 23. This puts them at 83 scholarship players, which is under the limit of 85. No one from Notre Dame's roster will have to be cut in order to make room; but on the other hand, if Notre Dame has some unforeseen attrition between now and August they will just be out of luck so to speak.

The jist of the article is that what happens to thoe 10 kids that Alabama signed or that are on Alabama's roster already that are going to get cut? Are they legit or not? Who knows... but that is a lot of attrition from now until August.

Not sure why this needed another thread since there's a lot of dialogue on the SEC recruiting thread that exists, but:

"Alabama has not done anything illegal in terms of NCAA violations"

That is really the end of the story. If your coach chooses not to use all of his scholarships, that is his problem (ND example). So some schools have contingencies, sounds kind of smart don't you think? Airlines overbook. Hotels overbook. It makes sense to maximize your potential.

^But kids get their schollarships taken away that are already on the team and had a scholarship is that right?

this is how it is done in division III lacrosse

recruit all the best players you can, lie to them and tell them they will play, and then take the best 12-14 out of the 30 you recruit from that class and say sorry your SOL

i know, this isnt on the same level as Div I big time football but still

same thing goes for DIV III football as well...mount union does this every year..and look what it has gotten them...

it works for the team, sucks for the kids who pick a school solely for athletics..then get cut

not a fan of it IMO

I personally have no problem with it at this high of a level. You get the best players possible and if someone doesn't produce, then goodbye.

Unless the NCAA decides to make scholarships a 4 year commitment, then there's nothing you can do.

I do understand both sides of it, but it is what it is. You want to keep your scholarship, perform to the level that is expected of you.

Thats the risk you take when going to play for a scum bag like Saban. You never know if your scholarship will be renewed for the following year. The 10 people to many does that included any players that left early? Also the players that do not get their scholarship renewed and go to another school do they have to sit out a year?

enigmaax wrote: Airlines overbook. Hotels overbook. It makes sense to maximize your potential.

We're talking about 18 year old kids just starting out in life, not big business.

The SEC is unscrupulous. Period.

On a side note though, this "article" isn't very detailed and leaves a lot of things un-addressed.

Sorry enigmaax, we're not going to see eye to eye on this one.

Read the bama link at www.oversigning.com it will explain it, kind of. There are a couple of kids that got them yanked last year and this year they need to figure out 9 spots.

UA5straightin2008 wrote: this is how it is done in division III lacrosse

recruit all the best players you can, lie to them and tell them they will play, and then take the best 12-14 out of the 30 you recruit from that class and say sorry your SOL

i know, this isnt on the same level as Div I big time football but still

same thing goes for DIV III football as well...mount union does this every year..and look what it has gotten them...

it works for the team, sucks for the kids who pick a school solely for athletics..then get cut

not a fan of it IMO

The difference with Div III is there is no scholarships. I know there is financial aid but not a full ride where everything is free. But then again that is the risk of the players going to a school that recruits to many. If you don't want this to happen go to a school that does not over recruit.

Lets just put it this way. Tyler Moeller remains on schollarship even though he may never play again , there was a big time LB recruit that got the USC last year and found out he had a heart condition and couldn't play football at all, but USC left him on FB schollarship and he will take up a spot for four years. Most schools will honor your schollarship all 4 years whether you produce or not.

Emmett Brown wrote:

UA5straightin2008 wrote: this is how it is done in division III lacrosse

recruit all the best players you can, lie to them and tell them they will play, and then take the best 12-14 out of the 30 you recruit from that class and say sorry your SOL

i know, this isnt on the same level as Div I big time football but still

same thing goes for DIV III football as well...mount union does this every year..and look what it has gotten them...

it works for the team, sucks for the kids who pick a school solely for athletics..then get cut

not a fan of it IMO

The difference with Div III is there is no scholarships. I know there is finical aid but not a full ride where everything is free. But then again that is the risk of the players going to a school that recruits to many. If you don't want this to happen go to a school that does not over recruit.

true that, i know it wasnt a direct analogy, just saying it goes on there as well

fortunately, i was not a victim of this but a few of my friends were, and some places dont advertise that they over recruit

enigmaax wrote: Not sure why this needed another thread since there's a lot of dialogue on the SEC recruiting thread that exists, but:

"Alabama has not done anything illegal in terms of NCAA violations"

That is really the end of the story. If your coach chooses not to use all of his scholarships, that is his problem (ND example). So some schools have contingencies, sounds kind of smart don't you think? Airlines overbook. Hotels overbook. It makes sense to maximize your potential.

At any cost, apparently.

Why doesn't everyone do it if it's such a great idea?

ytownfootball wrote: We're talking about 18 year old kids just starting out in life, not big business.

The SEC is unscrupulous. Period.

On a side note though, this "article" isn't very detailed and leaves a lot of things un-addressed.

Sorry enigmaax, we're not going to see eye to eye on this one.

Yeah, I know. I respect your opinion and I understand it. But the inherent difference in our outlooks is that you don't see it as big business and I do. When a coach has $4 million on the line (isn't that Saban's salary?), I would expect him to do everything he can to be the best. He isn't the one who made scholarships one year agreements. He isn't the one who says a kid has to sit out a year if he transfers. He's just the one responsible for getting the best players on the team. I'd still be interested to see how those decisions are made or what the natural attrition is.

jhay78 wrote: At any cost, apparently.

Why doesn't everyone do it if it's such a great idea?

There are a lot of good ideas that not everyone does. It is legal. The guy everyone is riding about it just won the national title. Hm, what is the real problem?

enigmaax wrote: Yeah, I know. I respect your opinion and I understand it. But the inherent difference in our outlooks is that you don't see it as big business and I do. When a coach has $4 million on the line (isn't that Saban's salary?), I would expect him to do everything he can to be the best. He isn't the one who made scholarships one year agreements. He isn't the one who says a kid has to sit out a year if he transfers. He's just the one responsible for getting the best players on the team. I'd still be interested to see how those decisions are made or what the natural attrition is.

While it is true that Saban, or any other coach did not make these rules....don't you think that they should still do the right thing?

It is allowable to cut a kid from scholarship in order to bring in a better player...but is it the right thing to do? While I completely agree with you that a coach 'should do everything they can to be the best'....should that include legal, but slimy practices like this??

This is where you and I...and I suspect ytownfootball.....differ.

OneBuckeye wrote: Lets just put it this way. Tyler Moeller remains on schollarship even though he may never play again , there was a big time LB recruit that got the USC last year and found out he had a heart condition and couldn't play football at all, but USC left him on FB schollarship and he will take up a spot for four years. Most schools will honor your schollarship all 4 years whether you produce or not.

There is a big difference when you are talking about an injury. And again, just because most people do something, it doesn't mean doing something else is wrong.

wkfan wrote:

enigmaax wrote: Yeah, I know. I respect your opinion and I understand it. But the inherent difference in our outlooks is that you don't see it as big business and I do. When a coach has $4 million on the line (isn't that Saban's salary?), I would expect him to do everything he can to be the best. He isn't the one who made scholarships one year agreements. He isn't the one who says a kid has to sit out a year if he transfers. He's just the one responsible for getting the best players on the team. I'd still be interested to see how those decisions are made or what the natural attrition is.

While it is true that Saban, or any other coach did not make these rules....don't you think that they should still do the right thing?

It is allowable to cut a kid from scholarship in order to bring in a better player...but is it the right thing to do? While I completely agree with you that a coach 'should do everything they can to be the best'....should that include legal, but slimy practices like this??

This is where you and I...and I suspect ytownfootball.....differ.

Here's my question. Why does everyone assume that a scholarship should be renewed every year just because you get one the first year? A scholarship is EARNED. If you are no longer EARNING the scholarship, you are not entitled to it. I've said before, if you are on academic scholarship and you don't make the grades, it gets pulled. Are you going to argue that once a school says you can have the academic money that you are entitled to it for all four years, regardless of how you do? There is a purpose directly tied to the scholarship and if you aren't fulfilling that purpose adequately, you don't deserve it. The reason this makes people mad is because there is a designated replacement and when someone else does well their team might not.

enigmaax wrote:
Here's my question. Why does everyone assume that a scholarship should be renewed every year just because you get one the first year? A scholarship is EARNED. If you are no longer EARNING the scholarship, you are not entitled to it. I've said before, if you are on academic scholarship and you don't make the grades, it gets pulled. Are you going to argue that once a school says you can have the academic money that you are entitled to it for all four years, regardless of how you do? There is a purpose directly tied to the scholarship and if you aren't fulfilling that purpose adequately, you don't deserve it. The reason this makes people mad is because there is a designated replacement and when someone else does well their team might not.

Good question....and good analogy.

My take on it is that, unlike academics where the student has most of the control over the outcome of their efforts (grades), the athlete can be held back by many more things outside of his control.

To keep an academic scholarship, you have to have a GPS above a certainpoint. Said GPA is much more directly proportional to the individual student in terms of study time, quality of work, etc. In other words, it is a much more objective reflection of the students 'work'.

In athletics, it can be much more subjective....a coach decides who plays, what position and how much, not the athlete. True, the athlete decides how much time and effort he puts into the weight room, film preparation, etc (although there are rules governing that as well)...there is an subjective component to who plays and how much. If you have ever coached....each and every coach has a different viewpoint on a players worth and contribution to the team...which is different than a student who takes a subjective test.

While I completely agree that a coach can pull a scholarship, I think that should be reserved for 'conduct detrimental to the team' infractions, not attending class, being arrested, etc....not for the kid who is caught behind a more talented player, who is asked to change positions, etc.

I can even see this possibly happening once in a while....but to sign 10 more players than there are spots available is waaaaaaaaay over the line.

Just my $.02....

wkfan - Good point as to the subjectivity. Coaches and players have to deal with that every day, though obviously pulling a scholarship likely has a larger life impact than "just" playing time. I still fall back on the fact that a coach is a personnel guy who has to make business-type decisions and if you are willing to pay him millions of dollars a year, his judgment on personnel has to be trusted. It is unfortunate for those whose football careers don't work out, but just like a lot of things in life that are competitive (jobs) it isn't "unfair" or "unethical" to have someone who is better than you beat you out.

OneBuckeye wrote: Lets just put it this way. Tyler Moeller remains on schollarship even though he may never play again , there was a big time LB recruit that got the USC last year and found out he had a heart condition and couldn't play football at all, but USC left him on FB schollarship and he will take up a spot for four years. Most schools will honor your schollarship all 4 years whether you produce or not.

Those medical cases do NOT count against the 85 limit. Teams get a waiver for them.

The real argument against oversigning and simply cutting kids is that it's not ethical behavior.

No, there's nothing illegal going on -- but how ethical is it to simply yank a kid's scholarship because a coach subjectively decides he's of no value to the team?

Then again, it's the SEC and ethics don't matter, apparently.

Writerbuckeye wrote: No, there's nothing illegal going on -- but how ethical is it to simply yank a kid's scholarship because a coach subjectively decides he's of no value to the team?

I'm still waiting on the explanation for why it is assumed that the one year deal should automatically be a four year deal. It isn't taking something that the kid already has, it is a non-renewal of something that expired.

I think wkfan answered that well enough. The only thing I would add is academic students are offered on proven success and grades and there are much better ways to test kids academically to know whether they can succeed or not before they get their scholarship. Athletically it is all about potential and coaching has as much to do with harnessing the potential as the kid it self does. Also Altheticly (sp?) kids have much more pressure and more responsibility being a student athlete than just a student. JMO.

OneBuckeye wrote: I think wkfan answered that well enough. The only thing I would add is academic students are offered on proven success and grades and there are much better ways to test kids academically to know whether they can succeed or not before they get their scholarship. Athletically it is all about potential and coaching has as much to do with harnessing the potential as the kid it self does. Also Altheticly (sp?) kids have much more pressure and more responsibility being a student athlete than just a student. JMO.

But the athletic scholarship is awarded based on that same subjectivity to begin with. The system says, here coaches, give a certain number of scholarships based on YOUR opinion of a player's athletic skills. But you are saying once a decision is made (again, for something designated as a ONE YEAR DEAL), that it is unethical for the coach to exercise his own judgment again when the next round comes up. You either trust those decisions or you don't and if you don't want that subjectivity to be a factor then start outlining a way players can be assigned to schools. Things change from year to year all around this situation, so locking a coach into the same thing doesn't make much sense.

Is it wrong for kids to turn pro early? If you are assuming that the scholarship is a four year commitment, it has to work both ways, right?

^ I agree it should go both ways, kids should stay four years, but I am saying the coach's grade or opinion on a high school player is less accurate than the ACT or SAT for grading their potential to continue earing their schollarship. The athlete performing well enough to earn the schollarship the next year is more in the coaches hands than the athlete. Where in the classroom i feel it is more in the hands of the student.

A scholarship is a 1-year contract. It can be pulled at any time. The school has no obligation to honor is for more than 1-year. That is the NCAA rule. Why is it a big deal if coaches take advantage of it? Don't like it, the NCAA should change it.

We discussed this on the basketball forum all off-season and some during the season. It happens. Everywhere. Players are not retained and scholarships are pulled. It has happened to kids at every major school.