Oversigning......

[rjd970]

Many academic scholarships are 4 year deals, but they require the student to keep a certain GPA, certain number of hours per semester, etc.

By the same exact logic that you just laid out, if a student fails to keep his grades up, then the school should still have to pay his way. The faculty should have done a better job vetting the student before offering the schollie.

Do you recognize how stupid that sounds? Why should athletic scholarships be any different?

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. Compare with me how much the average academic scholarship students generates for the university and how much the average football player generates and get back to me. The academic student is earning his scholarship, the university is getting a disproportionate deal with the athletic scholarship.

Everybody on the football side is earning professional money while using amateur athletes. The student athlete is the one getting screwed here. The sheer time put in outside of regular schoolwork, not to mention restrictions on summer job opportunities is more than enough to earn the scholarship. If the athlete doesn't work out, how is that his fault?

 

[bamawriter]

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. Compare with me how much the average academic scholarship students generates for the university and how much the average football player generates and get back to me. The academic student is earning his scholarship, the university is getting a disproportionate deal with the athletic scholarship.

Everybody on the football side is earning professional money while using amateur athletes. The student athlete is the one getting screwed here. The sheer time put in outside of regular schoolwork, not to mention restrictions on summer job opportunities is more than enough to earn the scholarship. If the athlete doesn't work out, how is that his fault?

For that logic to hold up, then you would have to support eliminating scholarships for all non-revenue sports, since they don't actually have a gap between school profits and player earnings. If anything, the school spends more money on that athlete's scholarship than it will ever make back on that athlete's on-field performance. That, or you'd have to be fine with oversigning in non-revenue sports, as the athlete isn't earning revenue for the school.

There is a decent argument for athletes getting paid, but it is completely separate from the argument over whether or not an athlete can lose his schollie. Especially since an athlete who gets cut likely didn't play much, and thus he did very little to earn his school any revenue.

There are a number of good arguments you could make against oversigning. The one you just went with isn't one of them.

 

[rjd970]

For that logic to hold up, then you would have to support eliminating scholarships for all non-revenue sports, since they don't actually have a gap between school profits and player earnings. If anything, the school spends more money on that athlete's scholarship than it will ever make back on that athlete's on-field performance. That, or you'd have to be fine with oversigning in non-revenue sports, as the athlete isn't earning revenue for the school.

There is a decent argument for athletes getting paid, but it is completely separate from the argument over whether or not an athlete can lose his schollie. Especially since an athlete who gets cut likely didn't play much, and thus he did very little to earn his school any revenue.

There are a number of good arguments you could make against oversigning. The one you just went with isn't one of them.

How so? The kid getting the academic scholarship is earning his scholarship but is not under the same rules as the athlete. An athlete can't get a job (or is restricted in options), and is more than likely putting in more hours than the academic scholarship. This is irregardless of how much the student athlete is playing or generating revenue. This is to say nothing of the fact that the coach of the athlete is getting paid 10 times the amount of the professor to make the call if the kid is worthy of a scholarship in the first place. If the athlete doesn't perform after putting in all the work required to stay on the team, it shouldn't be his fault.

The simple fact remains, we aren't comparing apples to apples here...no matter how much you guys want to do so.

 

[TitanHope]

Why should athletic scholarships be any different?

In academia, there's a known mark that is agreed on and known by both parties before hand. While the student has to make certain grades and other criteria to still qualify for his scholarship, and the scholarship will be pulled if he doesn't reach those objectives, the academic student and his family aren't fed misinformation in order for him to attend school there. He doesn't have advisors telling him how his professors need him and how they'll sculpt him into a successful student. The advisors don't make subjective decisions on the academic student's scholarship either.

The two are very different, and the way you are comparing them, the student on an academic scholarship's standard of making a certain grade is equal to a student on an athletic scholarship seeing playing time. One is in the student's control and the other is out of it. In actuality, the equal comparison to a starting athlete would be a student making a dean's list or some sort of accomplishment like that. That way they match up to their peers equally. A starting athlete or key contributor is seen as one of the top players on the team, due to the amount of playing time he's given. So a student must be seen as one of the top students in the entire school for the comparison to be valid.

Likewise, for the comparison for the academic guy to lose his scholarship due to poor grades, absences, etc., the athlete would have to violate his eligibility, whether because he didn't make the grades, violated an NCAA rule, or if he broke a team rule. An injury would not fall under any of those, since that's like an academic guy having an excused whatever.

In the end, if an academic student is making his grades, attending all his classes, and putting in the other work to sustain his scholarship, then he should keep his scholarship. If an athletic student is putting out his maximum effort, is attending all the practices/workouts/activities, and is putting in the other work that is required of him/keeping out of trouble, then he should not have his scholarship pulled either. A guy should never have his scholly revoked solely because he's 3rd on the depth chart and the coaches want to make room for their recruiting class, and doing so is indefensible, in my view.

And yes, if Dooley resorts to oversigning, I will think less of him and will criticize him. This is a black mark on teams, and if every team in the nation oversigned and then just trimmed the fat before the season like the pro teams are required to do, then the gap between the SEC and other conferences wouldn't be big at all. Until the SEC cracks down on this, I can't in good faith brag about SEC dominance knowing practically the entire SEC West oversigns.

 

[rjd970]

In academia, there's a known mark that is agreed on and known by both parties before hand. While the student has to make certain grades and other criteria to still qualify for his scholarship, and the scholarship will be pulled if he doesn't reach those objectives, the academic student and his family aren't fed misinformation in order for him to attend school there. He doesn't have advisors telling him how his professors need him and how they'll sculpt him into a successful student. The advisors don't make subjective decisions on the academic student's scholarship either.

The two are very different, and the way you are comparing them, the student on an academic scholarship's standard of making a certain grade is equal to a student on an athletic scholarship seeing playing time. One is in the student's control and the other is out of it. In actuality, the equal comparison to a starting athlete would be a student making a dean's list or some sort of accomplishment like that. That way they match up to their peers equally. A starting athlete or key contributor is seen as one of the top players on the team, due to the amount of playing time he's given. So a student must be seen as one of the top students in the entire school for the comparison to be valid.

Likewise, for the comparison for the academic guy to lose his scholarship due to poor grades, absences, etc., the athlete would have to violate his eligibility, whether because he didn't make the grades, violated an NCAA rule, or if he broke a team rule. An injury would not fall under any of those, since that's like an academic guy having an excused whatever.

In the end, if an academic student is making his grades, attending all his classes, and putting in the other work to sustain his scholarship, then he should keep his scholarship. If an athletic student is putting out his maximum effort, is attending all the practices/workouts/activities, and is putting in the other work that is required of him/keeping out of trouble, then he should not have his scholarship pulled either. A guy should never have his scholly revoked solely because he's 3rd on the depth chart and the coaches want to make room for their recruiting class, and doing so is indefensible, in my view.

And yes, if Dooley resorts to oversigning, I will think less of him and will criticize him. This is a black mark on teams, and if every team in the nation oversigned and then just trimmed the fat before the season like the pro teams are required to do, then the gap between the SEC and other conferences wouldn't be big at all. Until the SEC cracks down on this, I can't in good faith brag about SEC dominance knowing practically the entire SEC West oversigns.

Solid.

 

[vols-1]

How is this a similar situation?

Well players don't have to honor a 4 year commitment. They can leave at anytime for pros or another team or quit. Or they can even get a scholarship for a minor injury nowdays. Thats where the problem starts. If you want coaches to honor all four years then hold players feet to fire as well.

 

[Vercingetorix]

If your concern is truly about the players being students before athletes, then the medical scholarship shouldn't be an issue for you. Any player who accepts a medical schollie still gets all of the benefits of a full athletic scholarship, but they aren't on the team. So the player gets to be a student without the rigors and distractions of football. How can you have a problem with that?

He shouldn't have to take a medical and declare his football career over. I don't have a problem if Saban (or whoever) wants to cut a guy from the 85-man limit because he's unproductive, but he should get the choice of either A) finishing out the rest of his four years at Alabama (or wherever) for free on a "medical" scholarship, or B) being free to transfer anywhere else to play immediately. Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, anywhere that would take him.

Pulling a kid's scholarship because you fscked up when evaluating him -- which is what it comes down to -- sucks. The only fair way to handle it is to honor the academic part of the scholarship, or let him become a free agent and take his chances elsewhere. His choice.

 

[bamawriter]

He shouldn't have to take a medical and declare his football career over. I don't have a problem if Saban (or whoever) wants to cut a guy from the 85-man limit because he's unproductive, but he should get the choice of either A) finishing out the rest of his four years at Alabama (or wherever) for free on a "medical" scholarship, or B) being free to transfer anywhere else to play immediately. Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, anywhere that would take him.

A player is not required to accept a medical scholarship and can move on to another program. The fact that he can't play immediately is an NCAA mandate, and not a decision made by the coach.

That said, I would fully support new rules that would allow a player to play immediately at another DI-A school if they are cut from their current team. And I think the ability of the coach to restrict where the player can sign needs to go as well.

 

[Vercingetorix]

A player is not required to accept a medical scholarship and can move on to another program. The fact that he can't play immediately is an NCAA mandate, and not a decision made by the coach.

That said, I would fully support new rules that would allow a player to play immediately at another DI-A school if they are cut from their current team. And I think the ability of the coach to restrict where the player can sign needs to go as well.

Well, yes. I thought it was clear that I was advocating a rule change by the NCAA.

Basically, I'm in favor of two changes: 1) an athletic scholarship should be a four-year commitment by the school to the kid that he's going to get an education, regardless of what happens on the field (unless he is actually expelled from the school for behavioral or academic problems or something); and 2) increased transparency in the process, so that a coach actually has to acknowledge that he's cutting a kid. All of this BS about pressuring them to take a "medical" scholarship, or kicking them off for phantom rules violations, or maligning his work effort so that internet warriors feel like they have to shiat all over the kid's character to justify the roster spot opening up (cf. your comments about Star Jackson upthread) -- all of that is unhelpful and unfair to a kid that a coach threw his arm around and welcomed to the family a couple of years previously. The coach screwed up when he evaluated the player; he should have to stand up there like a man and just say that he's being cut because he didn't turn out and they're making room for someone else.

 

[bamawriter]

I apologize if my post on Star Jackson came off as an attack on his character. My intention was to state that he simply isn't that good.

I totally disagree with your take on 4 year scholarships. I have no problem with cutting dead weight, but even if you think that such activity is wrong, you need to see that a four year scholarship would limit the options of the athlete. Such a contracy would completely kill a player's ability to transfer, even more so than the pointless one year waiting rule.

Imagine a player signing that four year contract, taking a redshirt year, and then his coach gets fired. He signed the scholarship with the school, not the coach. The new coach brings a system that doesn't match his skill set. Now what?

 

[Vercingetorix]

I apologize if my post on Star Jackson came off as an attack on his character. My intention was to state that he simply isn't that good.

See, that's the problem with the current situation. A team can't openly kick a guy off the team because he turns out not to be any good. So it has to be because he's lazy, or he's chronically hurt, or he's a violator of some nebulous rules, or something. They have to crap on the kid to get rid of him, which means that fans follow suit. The fact is that Star Jackson should never have been offered by Bama in the first place. That's Saban's fault, not Jackson's. Yet somehow Jackson ends up being publicly branded as a loser.

I totally disagree with your take on 4 year scholarships. I have no problem with cutting dead weight, but even if you think that such activity is wrong, you need to see that a four year scholarship would limit the options of the athlete. Such a contracy would completely kill a player's ability to transfer, even more so than the pointless one year waiting rule.

Imagine a player signing that four year contract, taking a redshirt year, and then his coach gets fired. He signed the scholarship with the school, not the coach. The new coach brings a system that doesn't match his skill set. Now what?

No, my point is that he should get the choice. Coach comes to a kid and says, "Sorry guy, but you turned out to suck and we need your spot for a 17 year old that we hope we're right about this time." The kid should get the choice of either A) dropping off the football team and finishing out his four-year scholarship at the school (the equivalent of taking a medical), or B) being free to keep playing football at any other school that wants him. If he wants to finish college where he is, he should be able to do that. If he wants to go somewhere else, he should be able to do that too.

I'm pretty agnostic about the transfer rules regarding kids who leave of their volition. But the ones who are cut unwillingly ought to have the chance to be free to go where they want.

 

[tvolsfan]

Imagine a player signing that four year contract, taking a redshirt year, and then his coach gets fired. He signed the scholarship with the school, not the coach. The new coach brings a system that doesn't match his skill set. Now what?

He transfers like he would under normal circumstances? What's wrong with that?

I actually think kids should be able to transfer without having to sit out a year if there is a head coaching change or even a change in the position coach or coordinator on their side of the ball.

 

[bamawriter]

No, my point is that he should get the choice. Coach comes to a kid and says, "Sorry guy, but you turned out to suck and we need your spot for a 17 year old that we hope we're right about this time." The kid should get the choice of either A) dropping off the football team and finishing out his four-year scholarship at the school (the equivalent of taking a medical), or B) being free to keep playing football at any other school that wants him. If he wants to finish college where he is, he should be able to do that. If he wants to go somewhere else, he should be able to do that too.

I'm pretty agnostic about the transfer rules regarding kids who leave of their volition. But the ones who are cut unwillingly ought to have the chance to be free to go where they want.

I don't really disagree with any of this.

 

[bamawriter]

He transfers like he would under normal circumstances? What's wrong with that?

I actually think kids should be able to transfer when there is a head coaching change without sitting out a year.

Four year scholarships to negate cutting kids would necessitate a major overall in the transfer rules.

If the kid was allowed to simply walk at any time, then the coach could "convince" him to transfer because he won't get playing time. Voila, we're right back to where we are right now.

 

[tvolsfan]

Four year scholarships to negate cutting kids would necessitate a major overall in the transfer rules.

If the kid was allowed to simply walk at any time, then the coach could "convince" him to transfer because he won't get playing time. Voila, we're right back to where we are right now.

I don't understand what you're saying. How is that where we are now?

 

[bamawriter]

I don't understand what you're saying. How is that where we are now?

That's how most of this is done. The kid transfers to some 1AA program because he's not going to be getting playing time, thus freeing up another spot. You don't think Saban, Nutt, and Miles are recommending these transfers?

 

[tvolsfan]

That's how most of this is done. The kid transfers to some 1AA program because he's not going to be getting playing time, thus freeing up another spot. You don't think Saban, Nutt, and Miles are recommending these transfers?

What did that have to do with what I was arguing? I was basically supporting Vercingetorix's idea while saying that players should also have the option to transfer after certain coaching changes without penalty. Why is that the same?

 

[bamawriter]

What did that have to do with what I was arguing? I was basically supporting Vercingetorix's idea while saying that players should also have the option to transfer after certain coaching changes without penalty. Why is that the same?

Kid signs with the school, not the coach. For a coaching change to be an excused transfer, you'd have to allow the incoming coach to cut any players he doesn't want. The four year schollie locks both parties in.

 

[tvolsfan]

Kid signs with the school, not the coach. For a coaching change to be an excused transfer, you'd have to allow the incoming coach to cut any players he doesn't want.

Why would you have to do that?

 

[bamawriter]

Why would you have to do that?

I don't see why this is so hard to follow, but I'll break it down.

1. The kid signs with the school for a 4 year scholarship.
2. The school fire the head coach.
Now, number 3 can be one of two results:
3a. Both the kid and the coach are stuck with one another.
3b. The kid can choose to transfer, or the coach can choose to cut him.

It's completely unfair for a kid to have the opportunity to walk away, no restricitions, simply because the school he signed with changed staffs, while the new staff is stuck with wasting a schollie on a player they didn't recruit and who they will never play.

 

[tvolsfan]

It's completely unfair for a kid to have the opportunity to walk away, no restricitions, simply because the school he signed with changed staffs, while the new staff is stuck with wasting a schollie on a player they didn't recruit and who they will never play.

I strongly disagree with that. A coaching change could potentially have a far more negative effect on a particular player's career than the effect that having a bad player may have on a coaches career. That's why I feel like players should have the opportunity to transfer without penalty if their position coach/coordinator/head coach leaves. Especially if that coach was there when he was being recruited.

 

[bamawriter]

I disagree with that. A coaching change could potentially have a far more negative effect on a particular player's career than the effect that having a bad player may have on a coaches career. That's why I feel like players should have the opportunity to transfer without penalty if their position coach/oc/head coach leaves. Especially if it's the coach that recruited them.

Ask Rich Rodriguez what happens when you implement a spread offense with a team full of pro-style players.

 

[tvolsfan]

Ask Rich Rodriguez what happens when you implement a spread offense with a team full of pro-style players.

You produce the school's worst defense in history three years down the road? I actually don't think Rich Rod is a bad coach, but it's not like he did a great job with everything while he was there.

 

[bamawriter]

Definitely not going to disagree with that.

And I want to repeat that I'm all for reducing the restrictions on transfers. I just don't see a workable way that you can mandate four year scholarships, yet allow for those unrestricted transfers.

But, then again, oversigning isn't a problem for me. I wish that coaches could openly confess to cutting dead weight.

 

[vol66]

Honest question here...when is the deadline for renewing a players scholly?