Azubuike24 wrote: 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.

Yes, they are 1-year renewable contracts (for the schools, at least)
Yes, the NCAA allows it
Yes, coaches can do it at their discretion..at any time
Yes, it happens

Just because you can do it....doesn't mean you should do it.

IMO....if a kid accepts the offer in good faith, does everything asked of him in being a student / athlete, that scholarship should be renewed.

OneBuckeye wrote: ^ 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.

I agree and I understand where you are differentiating between academic and athletic scholarships. My point, and your point also, is that the original evaluation of a player's talent as a football player is an educated guess. The fact that the kid got a scholarship opportunity to begin with was the coach's decision. You are saying that even though the coach has to make that decision based on a little bit of information and a hunch to begin with that he should be locked into the decision after being able to more effectively evaluate the real talent/contributions.
All of these things are exactly the reason that the offers are for one year and not four or five or whatever. It is not unethical to play within the rules of the system when the rules were designed specifically for that reason.

Oversigning reminds me of days of unlimited signing, coaches would sign kids just so a rival school could not have them. If they do not play against you ,they can`t beat you

wkfan wrote: IMO....if a kid accepts the offer in good faith, does everything asked of him in being a student / athlete, that scholarship should be renewed.

The "good faith" is directly ignoring the nature of the agreement. Good faith is a fabricated belief based on the kid's own assumption that he will be good enough to have the one year deal renewed.

Your other operative phrase is "everything asked of him". You are defining that basically as "showing up" when it comes to the athletic side. The coach isn't looking for a warm body. The "everything" a coach is asking for is to potentially have a role in games. If you aren't going to do that, why waste both people's time and the school/state's money?

I see your point, but we will just have to agree to disagree. Most football players would not be in college if it wasn't for football. That is the main reason why I think they should be 4 years mandatory. If you take a kids scholarship away after 1 2 or 3 years you leave them high and dry. You just wasted a good chunk of time in their life and they will most likely not get their degree or will transfer somewhere else and start over.

woody wrote: Oversigning reminds me of days of unlimited signing, coaches would sign kids just so a rival school could not have them. If they do not play against you ,they can`t beat you

That could be a good point. Now, for all of the fans who are against this and who celebrate the successes and traditions of the name schools, how did those schools operate in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s to build that name? Is all of that tradition steeped in unethical behavior because the big schools refused to let the little guys have a cut of the talent?

OneBuckeye wrote: I see your point, but we will just have to agree to disagree. Most football players would not be in college if it wasn't for football. That is the main reason why I think they should be 4 years mandatory. If you take a kids scholarship away after 1 2 or 3 years you leave them high and dry. You just wasted a good chunk of time in their life and they will most likely not get their degree or will transfer somewhere else and start over.

Yes, we will disagree. But I can acknowledge your consistency. We both seem to think it has to work both ways - however it works.

That is why the NCAA put a limit on signing, but when you oversign we are back to the same as before the rule , so it is illegal. How do school get around the 25 signing limit peryear.

The SEC is a corrupt conference and fans of that conference should be ashamed for ruining kids lives just to win football games. Yet, you have the SEC apologists standing up for an unethical(but its legal LOL!) practice, what a shame.

But then again, it is the SEC, quite possibly the worst academic conference in NCAA history(oh wait, it is!), so maybe they're doing their kids a favor. LOL

If you're a student athlete who could possibly be one of the 10 that's cut, then it's simple, attend another school. If you're good enough to earn a scholly from Alabama, I'm sure you're gonna have other offers as well.

I don't blame Alabama at all, it was those kid's choice to sign there despite knowing they could get cut.

One question - didn't Alabama have a bunch of scholarships taken away within the last few years? In Saban's case, did he have 85 on scholarship when he started?

I still would be interested in seeing who is dropped as a result of this (assuming all of the numbers are accurate). Alabama wasn't in great shape talent wise when Saban showed up, so I wonder if most of the scholarships not being renewed are from the old regime. Even though I don't have a problem with it either way, I would say that I see more of a purpose if a coach is trying to get all of his own recruits onto a roster as opposed to a scenario where this year he takes X number of guys and then the next year he takes 3 or 4 of those away just to replace an old freshman with a new freshman.

I'd buy the good faith argument if all SEC players stayed 4 years.

They don't.

In fact, I'd bet far more SEC players don't fulfill their 4 years of eligibility than the amount who are forced out on this scholarship crunch. Players go pro, players quit, players flunk out, players transfer, etc...

It works both ways. Each year, you maximize the talent on your team. The coaches can do it by exploiting this rule. The players can do it as well because they aren't committed to more than a year either.

I don't see the argument here, unless you are going to start ridiculing players for leaving for ANY REASON before their 4 years of eligibility are used up.

I guess Percy Harvin (or any player who goes pro) is as unethical as Nick Saban in this scenario. If you agree with that, I don't have a further argument.

Here is Alabama's link to its compliance mission statement. Some interesting information, a lot of it in fact.

Also some interesting links that don't work, namely compliance interpretations.

http://www.rolltide.com/sports/compliance/spec-rel/020209aaa.html

Contained is also the SEC compliance regs.

I don't imagine this would be of any benefit unless you actually make a comparison to the other conferences information as well. I'll stand pat on my assertion that it is nothing more than a legal, albeit sleazy play on the rules. We don't know what the reasons are why certain schollies are pulled, true, but there is ample room for yanking one in lieu of a more highly touted recruit entering the picture. That's most likey in direct contrast of the NCAA's mission statement and therefore worthy of having a second look.

I understand you SEC guys think "well, no rules were broken" but the fact that it occurs predominantly in the SEC is why people have a problem with it, rightly so imo.

ytownfootball wrote: Here is Alabama's link to its compliance mission statement. Some interesting information, a lot of it in fact.

Also some interesting links that don't work, namely compliance interpretations.

http://www.rolltide.com/sports/compliance/spec-rel/020209aaa.html

Contained is also the SEC compliance regs.

I don't imagine this would be of any benefit unless you actually make a comparison to the other conferences information as well. I'll stand pat on my assertion that it is nothing more than a legal, albeit sleazy play on the rules. We don't know what the reasons are why certain schollies are pulled, true, but there is ample room for yanking one in lieu of a more highly touted recruit entering the picture. That's most likey in direct contrast of the NCAA's mission statement and therefore worthy of having a second look.

If we picked through everything the NCAA has written in it's bylaws we would find so much hypocrisy it would be unbelievable. Definitely the biggest frustration with them. Many of their rules and decisions seem to be in contrast with what a lot of they should be trying to accomplish or what makes the most sense.

Azubuike24 wrote:
If we picked through everything the NCAA has written in it's bylaws we would find so much hypocrisy it would be unbelievable. Definitely the biggest frustration with them. Many of their rules and decisions seem to be in contrast with what a lot of they should be trying to accomplish or what makes the most sense.

Oh I agree with you on this point. Not a fan of hypocrisy on any level.

Doesn't defending the practice of oversigning seem a bit hypocritical given we all share the same thought that the NCAA's mission statement is at the very least a decent guideline to follow?

enigmaax wrote:
The "good faith" is directly ignoring the nature of the agreement. Good faith is a fabricated belief based on the kid's own assumption that he will be good enough to have the one year deal renewed.

Your other operative phrase is "everything asked of him". You are defining that basically as "showing up" when it comes to the athletic side. The coach isn't looking for a warm body. The "everything" a coach is asking for is to potentially have a role in games. If you aren't going to do that, why waste both people's time and the school/state's money?

How the hell do you know how I define "everything asked of him"? You are defining it as being a warm body....not me.

ytownfootball wrote: Oh I agree with you on this point. Not a fan of hypocrisy on any level.

Doesn't defending the practice of oversigning seem a bit hypocritical given we all share the same thought that the NCAA's mission statement is at the very least a decent guideline to follow?

I think defending it would be saying there is nothing wrong with it and that it's not a slippery slope of ethical behavior.

I'm just taking the opposite approach and stating that I wouldn't refrain from the practice when my job and ultimately, money and my family's future is on the line. Coaches are going to get hit hard by players choosing to not honor the scholarships, so their response is to over-recruit and make up for this. It's especially true in basketball.

Recruiting over wouldn't necessarily be as common if a coach knew that he could sign 20 players a year in football and that all 20 would be around for 4 years. He wouldn't really have to make up for those gaps in talent and depth by over-signing and weeding out the players who don't fit.

It might not be necessarily ethical, but when it comes to NCAA athletics, what is? It will take a lot of change to fix things completely...

enigmaax wrote:

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.

The PROBLEM with this theory is that you are pulling a scholarship away from a kid. Now the kid has to pay his way thru school. Why is this a problem? Because the kid could have gone to another school where they would not have yanked his scholarship and stayed there for four years getting an education. ENTER PROBLEM. Because of NCAA rules, if the kid decides to transfer to another D1 program he loses a year of eligibility thus being punished just because some cruddy coach decided Billy-Bob was better than Mox.

Scarlet - See, you are not "pulling" anything. You are not renewing the previous contract. The kid got what he was promised - school paid for one year. After that year, the situation is re-evaluated. Everyone knew that going in.

As far as the NCAA rule requiring the kid to sit, completely agree that is a problem. In fact, I'd say that is the biggest problem and that is what needs fixed.

That is true. Every athlete knows a scholarship is a year to year agreement when they sign a LOI. Just because it has been the norm that it will be automatically renewed doesn't mean it's a guarantee.

Enigmaax is correct.

wkfan wrote:

enigmaax wrote:
The "good faith" is directly ignoring the nature of the agreement. Good faith is a fabricated belief based on the kid's own assumption that he will be good enough to have the one year deal renewed.

Your other operative phrase is "everything asked of him". You are defining that basically as "showing up" when it comes to the athletic side. The coach isn't looking for a warm body. The "everything" a coach is asking for is to potentially have a role in games. If you aren't going to do that, why waste both people's time and the school/state's money?

How the hell do you know how I define "everything asked of him"? You are defining it as being a warm body....not me.

Pardon me if I misunderstood, but when you said the following I took it to mean that not being a good enough player wasn't a valid reason in your opinion. To me, that seems like a loose definition of "everything" when a coach could have the expectation that you "be a good player".

wkfan wrote: 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.

Let's say an 18 year old gets hired by a company out of high school for $40,000 or so. Is the company wrong for firing the kid after 1 year if he hasn't performed up to expectations? Should the company keep the kid for 4 or 5 years and invest a total of $160,000 or $200,000 in him?

Azubuike24 wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Oh I agree with you on this point. Not a fan of hypocrisy on any level.

Doesn't defending the practice of oversigning seem a bit hypocritical given we all share the same thought that the NCAA's mission statement is at the very least a decent guideline to follow?

I think defending it would be saying there is nothing wrong with it and that it's not a slippery slope of ethical behavior.

I'm just taking the opposite approach and stating that I wouldn't refrain from the practice when my job and ultimately, money and my family's future is on the line. Coaches are going to get hit hard by players choosing to not honor the scholarships, so their response is to over-recruit and make up for this. It's especially true in basketball.

Recruiting over wouldn't necessarily be as common if a coach knew that he could sign 20 players a year in football and that all 20 would be around for 4 years. He wouldn't really have to make up for those gaps in talent and depth by over-signing and weeding out the players who don't fit.

It might not be necessarily ethical, but when it comes to NCAA athletics, what is? It will take a lot of change to fix things completely...

Again, why is this practice so prevelent in the SEC and not other conferences? Are coaches in other conferences less likely to lose their jobs given the same set of circumstances and rules?

Maybe, just maybe, the SEC is the leader in this department for reasons other than what you're suggesting.

ytownfootball wrote: Maybe, just maybe, the SEC is the leader in this department for reasons other than what you're suggesting.

Alright, I'll just admit it. The SEC is the evil empire.

enigmaax wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Maybe, just maybe, the SEC is the leader in this department for reasons other than what you're suggesting.

Alright, I'll just admit it. The SEC is the evil empire.

Took you long enough...geesh