Maybe the recuits should form a union like the NFL, then if they got cut they could go to another school without setting out a year. I do not think oversiging is right, my problem is having to sit out a year. If you get fired from a job you don`t have to set out year till you find another one.

The most interesting thing about this topic is..........that no Big 10 homer has brought up this topic before. You guys are years behind in bringing up this argument.

......slippin

woody wrote: Maybe the recuits should form a union like the NFL, then if they got cut they could go to another school without setting out a year. I do not think oversiging is right, my problem is having to sit out a year. If you get fired from a job you don`t have to set out year till you find another one.

They can transfer to a lower division without sitting out a year.

shouldn`t a coach that gets cut (fired) set out a year or go to lower division. A coach can get a school in trouble & just move on,lets face it without these kids coaches do not have a job & us fans have no one to root for.

cats gone wild wrote: The most interesting thing about this topic is..........that no Big 10 homer has brought up this topic before. You guys are years behind in bringing up this argument.

......slippin

Actually, you brought up the topic of "The SEC is the greatest conference in the universe when it comes to recruiting", and that led to a discussion on shady recruiting tactics, which led to someone creating a new thread.

woody wrote: shouldn`t a coach that gets cut (fired) set out a year or go to lower division. A coach can get a school in trouble & just move on,lets face it without these kids coaches do not have a job & us fans have no one to root for.

If a coach gets a school on probation, I think there should be a suspension put on the coach.

I am by no means an SEC fan (I respect what they have done the last 15 years, but I am not a fan). However, I don't see anything wrong with not renewing a scholarship if a kid hasn't performed. Depending upon the school, most athletes are being paid about $40,000 for playing football. Very few 18 year olds can get jobs that pay that much. If the kid doesn't meet his end of the deal, why reward him? How many of you out there would keep your jobs for 4 years if you weren't performing?

SEC teams do what the NCAA allows them to do. The SEC has imposed a 28 signee max so they've taken a bigger step than the NCAA to police themselves, or so I thought. I'm not sure how Alabama, LSU, Auburn etc. are able to sign more than 28 this year.

Until the NCAA says no more than 85 scholarhips to be offered/accounted for, there's nothing anyone can say to make me think it's dirty. Unfair, but totally within the rules. BTW even if NCAA said something like what I've suggested, some teams would cut players in December to make room for freshmen.

Scarlet_Buckeye wrote: 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.

Maybe the kids (or their parents) should think about that when they choose where they are going to go to school. (I'm not blaming the kids, just saying maybe they should pick a non SEC school and then they won't have to worry about it.)

Does anyone here think that Miles, Saban, Spurrier or Meyer really explain this process/common SEC practice to the kids or is it a come to play for me for four years speech?

What 18 year old kid will envision themselves ever getting cut....this isn't on the kids...its on the adults charged with supervising their education. There is no way this can be spun in anyway but shady, dirty, and unethical. Maybe ESPN should do something on this practice expsosing it. Of course that would harm the SEC...and being that ESPN is financially attached to the SEC..that won't happen.

Did find some more information on the practice and how it works out. A couple of points that address the complaints:

"pulling" scholarships from others - It seems this is a very rare instance. In most cases, it sorts itself out through natural attrition - primarily from previous players years not returning and new recruits not qualifying.

a kid had one expectation and then got the boot instead - A few coaches are quoted in the article of the emphasis on being honest about the process and the plan for the individual. Any talk that coaches flat out lie and then screw kids is pure hatred-driven speculation and as Larry Blakeney alludes to in the article, if a coach was busted one time for that publically it would kill his rep and chance at recruits later on - basically, it isn't worth the risk to try and lie. It seems that the oddity that comes up from time-to-time is either a part-time initial enrollment or a delayed enrollment. In either case, the student is being protected in that he will still be able to play ball at the university.

In the linked article, Saban's oversigning from last year and how Alabama was able to meet the NCAA parameters for both total scholarships and scholarships for one year is detailed. I really don't see where anyone who "did everything he was asked" was treated inappropriately.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/02/24/oversigning/1.html

enigmaax wrote: Did find some more information on the practice and how it works out. A couple of points that address the complaints:

"pulling" scholarships from others - It seems this is a very rare instance. In most cases, it sorts itself out through natural attrition - primarily from previous players years not returning and new recruits not qualifying.

a kid had one expectation and then got the boot instead - A few coaches are quoted in the article of the emphasis on being honest about the process and the plan for the individual. Any talk that coaches flat out lie and then screw kids is pure hatred-driven speculation and as Larry Blakeney alludes to in the article, if a coach was busted one time for that publically it would kill his rep and chance at recruits later on - basically, it isn't worth the risk to try and lie. It seems that the oddity that comes up from time-to-time is either a part-time initial enrollment or a delayed enrollment. In either case, the student is being protected in that he will still be able to play ball at the university.

In the linked article, Saban's oversigning from last year and how Alabama was able to meet the NCAA parameters for both total scholarships and scholarships for one year is detailed. I really don't see where anyone who "did everything he was asked" was treated inappropriately.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/02/24/oversigning/1.html

we'll be having none of that here. the SEC is the worst and everything they succeed at is because of eggregious rules violations. saban coerced those kids into dealing drugs and robbing people. then forced the others to hurt themselves and recieve medical hardships.

I know, I know. Someone is obviously slacking in the SEC though because Larry Blakeney at Troy is running circles around them all. I've come to a couple more realizations:

1. Either Troy DOES deserve that automatic berth in a fictional playoff or the SEC needs to send Arkansas packing and snap up these Trojans.
2. Larry Blakeney is clearly the devil.
3. Being the devil, Larry Blakeney belongs at the helm of an SEC school, which means someone better come calling (Georgia is in desperate need of a coach that fits the SEC mold) or the SEC needs to send Arkansas packing and snap up this villain's school.

enigmaax wrote: Did find some more information on the practice and how it works out. A couple of points that address the complaints:

"pulling" scholarships from others - It seems this is a very rare instance. In most cases, it sorts itself out through natural attrition - primarily from previous players years not returning and new recruits not qualifying.

a kid had one expectation and then got the boot instead - A few coaches are quoted in the article of the emphasis on being honest about the process and the plan for the individual. Any talk that coaches flat out lie and then screw kids is pure hatred-driven speculation and as Larry Blakeney alludes to in the article, if a coach was busted one time for that publically it would kill his rep and chance at recruits later on - basically, it isn't worth the risk to try and lie. It seems that the oddity that comes up from time-to-time is either a part-time initial enrollment or a delayed enrollment. In either case, the student is being protected in that he will still be able to play ball at the university.

In the linked article, Saban's oversigning from last year and how Alabama was able to meet the NCAA parameters for both total scholarships and scholarships for one year is detailed. I really don't see where anyone who "did everything he was asked" was treated inappropriately.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/02/24/oversigning/1.html

You could be correct in your assessment, but it just seems odd that 9 out of the top 10 "offenders" are SEC schools. As was previously stated the practice is not illegal,just a little dirty. This would serve to improve a teams depth more than anything else. What I don't understand is why a player who was not a lock to play would even consider these schools. With players leaving early for the NFL and transferring out maybe the NCAA should say you can sign 95 players in any 4 year period, if you have more leave than that tough shit.

031sdp - Well, they aren't offending, but I get what you are saying. Interestingly, I came across an article from 2002 in which the Big Ten "legalized" the practice of oversigning.

You're right, the SEC is just better at taking advantage of the rules or lack of rules than anyone else is. It;s a NCAA problem not a SEC problem.

I think that everybody tries to find ways to stretch the regulations. I speed everyday but in 48 years of driving I've had two speeding tickets. Welcome to big-time college football recruiting.

I'm going to admit that I only read the first few posts, so if my question has already been answered, I apologize.

I want to know how Alabama is able to promise more scholarships than they have available. My understanding was that a letter of intent was a binding contract. You come play football for us, we'll give you a scholarship. That's why recruits who have signed a letter of intent or who are playing under scholarship have to be released by the school. I would think that if a school is only allowed to have 85 scholarship players a year, then they shouldn't be allowed to offer 10 more scholarships than they have available. The ten players that get cut and lose their scholarships next year (to keep Alabama under the limit) are screwed because there is no guarantee that they will ever be given there scholarship back, and they will have to pay for their first year of school. I don't understand why any player would want to sign under these conditions of uncertainty, or why any player would want to walk on with a less than 0% chance of them ever earning a scholarship.

Just to set the record straight: Long ago when teams could sign as many kids as they wanted to a scholarship just to keep them from an opponent -- THE KID WAS ON SCHOLARSHIP AND GOT TO STAY ON SCHOLARSHIP.

Totally different scenario than what's happening here.

Those kids still got their education paid for.

krambman wrote: I'm going to admit that I only read the first few posts, so if my question has already been answered, I apologize.

I want to know how Alabama is able to promise more scholarships than they have available. My understanding was that a letter of intent was a binding contract. You come play football for us, we'll give you a scholarship. That's why recruits who have signed a letter of intent or who are playing under scholarship have to be released by the school. I would think that if a school is only allowed to have 85 scholarship players a year, then they shouldn't be allowed to offer 10 more scholarships than they have available. The ten players that get cut and lose their scholarships next year (to keep Alabama under the limit) are screwed because there is no guarantee that they will ever be given there scholarship back, and they will have to pay for their first year of school. I don't understand why any player would want to sign under these conditions of uncertainty, or why any player would want to walk on with a less than 0% chance of them ever earning a scholarship.

See the link below for an explanation of Alabama's situation last year (no this season). Part of it is from losing existing players. Another part is those who do not end up qualifying. And a final piece is that some players are asked to delay their entry to school (sometimes by a semester) or to enroll part time initially and then pick up the full scholarship, which is applied to the next season. It seems that it is a rare case, if it happens at all, in which a scholarship is actually taken away from someone specifically to be given to someone else.

Though there is also a blurb about the language of the LOI "contract" that basically says it isn't binding on the school's part.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/wr...ing/1.html