In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 110
Online now 346 Record: 2683 (6/1/2013)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
BU makes the list, but attrition of 9 players over 4 years has BU at 85.
List does not even take into account redshirts. So Bama signed 101 in 4 years but they even had to attrit more than that since they are a school that redshirts.
Texas has just a few more than Baylor and A&M has more as well.
The coaching changes at Baylor and A&M would have some to do with it.
This is something the NCAA ought to pay far more attention to than the color of uniforms. Oversigning is clearly not in keeping with the spirit (or the letter?) of the scholarship limitation rules. The biggest losers are the kids who get "cut." It's fairly likely that a good percentage of those kids who benefit from signing with, attending and playing for schools that have scholarship available for four or five years.
Why is it that, no matter the arena, our society seems so focused on wiggling it's way around the rules these days?
i agree that the NCAA should pay more attention to it. On the other hand, it's necessary in many cases, to sign more than you think you're going to have room for. you're always going to have natural attrition (in addition to graduating/drafted players), and you need to account for that. i've got no problem with oversigning by a couple of guys, to make sure you have a "full" roster, but doing what 'Bama does is pretty terrible.
why not make a rule where you can only "sign" a certain # of players (3-5) more than the # leaving b/c of exhausted eligibility or the draft. if you have 15 SRs leaving, and 2 guys drafted early, and you can sign 3 more than that number, then you can sign a total of 20 players (15SRs + 2 draftees + 3 Bonus = 20). maybe increase the "Bonus" # to 5-7 for a HC's first recruiting class.
whatever rule(s) you throw out there though, someone's gonna find a way to skirt the edges of it.
Why not obey the rule in place? If everyone plays by the same rule, it will have the same effect on everyone. I'd suggest maybe not recruiting kids who aren't prepared for college is a good idea . . . period.
And, of course, if you recruit kids who can't and don't make it, that's your problem and your fault. And it was your choice.
that is just entirely too simplistic, and a horrible way to look at it.
kids decide they don't want to be at a certain school for a hundred different reasons, and not just athletes. how many people did you know, while you were at Baylor, that left to go somewhere else for whatever reason. off the top of my head, i could name about a dozen, and that's w/out even thinking.
just b/c an athlete transfers doesnt mean they "didnt make it", or that they weren't prepared for college. students get homesick, feel they'd have a better chance to play elsewhere, have issues with a coach or coaches, etc. hell, they could graduate early (prior to eligibiility being up), and decide they want to play somewhere else.
Also, all of these schools ARE following the rule in place, by making sure their rosters are at 85 by the time fall workouts begin. also, the rule, the way you're looking at it, will not "have the same effect on everyone" b/c kids transferring will not be a net zero for all schools. some will transfer down a level. some schools will have more transferring out, and some will have more transferring in.
you comment as if dealing with people is this exact science, and it's anything but...especially 18-20 year old peoples.
And that's how we find ourselves wiggling our way out of obeying rules. Great example.
The simple cure to this is attaching the 4-5 year scholarship (4 to play 5) to the student WHETHER THEY ARE ON THE TEAM OR NOT.
This 1) allows the player the choice to stay or not based on what they want to do and 2) motivates the team to do the most to help the student to play and/or pass quickly. They are signing the PERSON, not the position or spot they take up.
There would be a medical exemption, of course. If a doctor says your career is over, then your spot should open up.
This post was edited by BrooksBearLives 14 months ago
you make a comment implying that i've said something that helps prove your point, but provide nothing to back it up.
what i'm saying is the NCAA should take the scholarship "limit" thing more seriously, but they should also allow programs to account for human nature.
you, on the other hand, seem to think that coaches and players should be infallible, and be expected to get it right every time.
Nope, I'm simply saying the coaches can choose whether to oversign or not, but they should be willing to pay the price if their gambles don't pay off.
it's not "oversigning" if it's just replacing natural attrition.
it's oversigning when you've got 10-12 scholarship players, who you still need to push out the door, once natural attrition takes place.
if you're an employer, would you not allow a department to backfill a position, when someone you previously hired left the company? "I'm sorry Mr/Mrs Manager, your gamble didn't pay off on that person, so you're just gonna have to live with being short staffed. that's just the price you have to be willing to pay..."
So Skyler Scott, Willie Jefferson, Tevin Elliott, and others should continue to count against us?
That would really suck for Baylor if they did since it would mean guys like Oakman, Osei, Goodson, Lache, X Howard, possibly wouldn't have had spots to take...
At the end of the day if everyone is at 85 scholarship players on the roster then I am mostly cool with however they get there... Some kids flunk out, some can't cut it at a certain level and need to transfer, some have legal issues, some don't get along with the coaching staff or culture of school, life is full of twists and turns and things happen that are out of the coaching staff and programs control and they shouldn't be penalized for that.
But like Ryan said, what Bama does is taking it to the extremes...
"Limit" means limit.
I don't find that hard to understand.
and "limit" in this case means maximum of 85 on scholarship once Fall workouts start. i don't find that hard to understand.
Mrs. Dirtbag's philosophy of life is, "Never disobey the rules .. . . unless the rules get in your way to success"
OR IN OTHER WORDS (coach speak) .... Don't EVER cheat! . . . (unless you have to!)
The minute you buy into D1 athletics (and I'm a big fan), you and the NCAA are already in the gray area of ethics because money and power for institutions is involved, and just a fine line away from unethical, and when you live in the arena of unethical, you're always just a fine line away from IMMORAL.
Ask Portly. He learned that principle from reading Reinhold Niebhur 40 years ago in ethics class. But then again, what does some German sociologist know about D1 athletics.
whatever that's supposed to mean...
there is all sorts of grey area, in everything, and of course D1 Athletics operates largely inside of it. the issue with this scholarship limit is that there is far too much grey area when the only true rule is that teams have to make sure they don't have any more than 85 players on scholarship, once Fall workouts start. technically, you can sign as many players as you want, every year, just make sure your roster #s are right that first day of practice. this allows for overuse of greyshirting, medical hardships, cutting players, and cutting players without really cutting them (friendly reminder that a transfer may be in their best interest). I want my coach to do whatever he can, within the rules, to make his team the best, but I also dont want him hanging 10 or so kids, every year, out to dry.
the current scholarship limit rule is too easy to manipulate, and i'm sure there are plenty of adjustments that could be made, which better protect the players, but also allows for programs to make sure they're maximizing their scholarship players on the roster.
The key is 4 year scholarships. That at least helps.
Alabama has them per their message boards, but medicals are counted in 4 year scholarships.
i agree that would help. You would almost have to have a greater penalty for players who want to transfer to another D1 team then. if the school is going to commit to a player for 4 years, then the players need to be less likely to bolt at the first sign of adversity also.
Reinhold Niebuhr? He wrote that Serenity Prayer, which is a good prayer to live by. German? I think he was an American with a German name. But I'm not sure I remember.
I can't change the NCAA, and if somehow I could, and could muster the courage to change it, I doubt I'd have the wisdom to know the difference, except by God's grace. Iconoclast is right, of course, that we live in a sinful world (not just our society, though).
So, why not simplify the rules? Simple, logical rules are harder to break. Oversigning is not allowed. Each school gets 25 scholarships/year in football, and can't have more than 115 players on scholarship at a time. That allows a reasonable number of redshirts, but you absolutely cannot sign more than 25/year. That is reasonable, good for the kids, forbids excess.
Tell me again how signing 22 this year and putting us at 85 is oversigning?
BU signed 94 over a 4 year period vs the 85 allowed on campus.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports