NCAA Football 2011...Can you feel it?

[HuskerOmaha]

[spl_nut]

Sure can! DUCKS!

[tthurman]

Wonder who will be the SEC's next victim :whistle:

[HuskerOmaha]

Wonder who will be the SEC's next victim :whistle:

Probably more college football athletes! Heyohhhh

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=593...goryid=3286128

[tthurman]

Wow :saywhat:

What an incredibly ****ty way to treat these young men.

The NCAA should step in and set a reasonable limit like the Big10 has since they obviously can't police themselves.

[bmf795]

Probably more college football athletes! Heyohhhh

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=593...goryid=3286128

It's a big boys game. If a recruit is worried about a coach overrecruiting, the recruit shouldn't go there. Not everyone does it and the student athlete should do their due diligence just like the school should.

[Kevin_Wadsworth]

Intresting to see someone (ESPN) actually make note of the oversigning business. It's not new, but it's been ignored for a long time.

There are a lot of factors that can increase scholarships (transfers, injuries, leaving early for NFL), but compare these figures for the recent bowl game. The numbers are signed letters of intent received over the past 4 years. In the SESC, Georgia chooses not to oversign, and you can see where that has gotten them competitively.

Northwestern - 74
TCU - 76
Ohio State - 79
Penn State - 82
Georgia - 86
Iowa - 88
Wisconsin - 89
Michigan - 93
Illinois - 93
USF - 93
Florida State - 96
Tennessee - 97
Oregon - 100
Baylor - 103
LSU - 105
South Carolina - 106
Arkanasas - 109
Mississippi State - 113
Alabama - 113
Auburn - 119

[woofersus]

It's a big boys game. If a recruit is worried about a coach overrecruiting, the recruit shouldn't go there. Not everyone does it and the student athlete should do their due diligence just like the school should.

I disagree. While information about this has been available for those who look, the vast majority of high school seniors don't know about the nasty underside of the college football business, and with the exception of the few highly ranked recruits who could go anywhere these kids aren't usually in a great position of power. National Letters of Intent are binding for prospects but not for schools. Students can be "grey-shirted" which means basically no scholarship and no athletics for their first year without being released from their agreement. Also, if you aren't a top recruit and you don't sign by national signing day, all the slots may be filled and you'll be left out in the cold so they can't exactly wait and see how many the school will sign. Also, some kids who can't afford a college education on their own can't afford to fly across the country to see their family and vice versa. A lot of recruits - even highly sought after ones - stay in their home region. I just think the burden of responsibility should be on recruiters, coaches, and AD's telling the truth to prospective recruits rather than an 18 year old kid researching a school's signing history and tracking the outcomes for all of those players over the years to maybe catch the college doing something shady. It's a business for the schools, but the recruits can't make it a business untill if/when they make it to the pros.

Besides that, the video showed that many being affected are upper-classmen who get bumped for recruits the school values more. (including a 17 game starter for Miami who started getting calls from division II schools before he even knew there was a problem with his status at Miami) If we're going to get all indignant about college athletes wanting to make a buck off their status while playing college football on the basis that they are getting a valuable college education, then lets get just as indignant about schools yanking that college education out from under them whenever it suits them. Schools make a lot of money off their athletes. (at least in Mens football) I understand the need to keep the student-athletes "amateur" but there's definitely a bit of an inequity there for all but a very few who will make it big in a couple of years.

I think there should be signing limits for schools. I also think that if they sign somebody, they should have to pay for at least one year of school whether it ends up being an athletic scholarship or not and if they oversign and can't consider them an "athletic scholarship" those students should be allowed to go elsewhere without NCAA penalty if they want. Grey-shirted students should also have their tuition paid whether they are participating with athletics or not for that semester rather than allowing the school to hedge at the student's expense. Finally, I think that once the student has played more than one year with the school, the school should have to provide 4 years of scholarship for that student even if they get "bumped" or otherwise don't make the team for any reason that is not eligibility or discipline related. (I understand NCAA scholarship rules would have to be changed to allow for a transition of scholarships from "athletic" to "non-athletic")

[bmf795]

I disagree. While information about this has been available for those who look, the vast majority of high school seniors don't know about the nasty underside of the college football business, and with the exception of the few highly ranked recruits who could go anywhere these kids aren't usually in a great position of power. National Letters of Intent are binding for prospects but not for schools. Students can be "grey-shirted" which means basically no scholarship and no athletics for their first year without being released from their agreement. Also, if you aren't a top recruit and you don't sign by national signing day, all the slots may be filled and you'll be left out in the cold so they can't exactly wait and see how many the school will sign. Also, some kids who can't afford a college education on their own can't afford to fly across the country to see their family and vice versa. A lot of recruits - even highly sought after ones - stay in their home region. I just think the burden of responsibility should be on recruiters, coaches, and AD's telling the truth to prospective recruits rather than an 18 year old kid researching a school's signing history and tracking the outcomes for all of those players over the years to maybe catch the college doing something shady. It's a business for the schools, but the recruits can't make it a business untill if/when they make it to the pros.

Besides that, the video showed that many being affected are upper-classmen who get bumped for recruits the school values more. (including a 17 game starter for Miami who started getting calls from division II schools before he even knew there was a problem with his status at Miami) If we're going to get all indignant about college athletes wanting to make a buck off their status while playing college football on the basis that they are getting a valuable college education, then lets get just as indignant about schools yanking that college education out from under them whenever it suits them. Schools make a lot of money off their athletes. (at least in Mens football) I understand the need to keep the student-athletes "amateur" but there's definitely a bit of an inequity there for all but a very few who will make it big in a couple of years.

I think there should be signing limits for schools. I also think that if they sign somebody, they should have to pay for at least one year of school whether it ends up being an athletic scholarship or not and if they oversign and can't consider them an "athletic scholarship" those students should be allowed to go elsewhere without NCAA penalty if they want. Grey-shirted students should also have their tuition paid whether they are participating with athletics or not for that semester rather than allowing the school to hedge at the student's expense. Finally, I think that once the student has played more than one year with the school, the school should have to provide 4 years of scholarship for that student even if they get "bumped" or otherwise don't make the team for any reason that is not eligibility or discipline related. (I understand NCAA scholarship rules would have to be changed to allow for a transition of scholarships from "athletic" to "non-athletic")

I agree that there should be limits on how many recruits a school can sign but my post wasn't intended for Joe Scholarship. He isn't a player effected by this in the first place. It was intended for the recruits that will sign with the schools that are known for this practice. The schools that have issues with oversigning are few in comparison to the amount of schools with scholarships to offer. If a recruit is worried about loosing his place at a program, don't sign with coaches like Houston Nutt.

Please don't be naive in thinking that these are just uninformed high school seniors. The players that are being effected are highly ranked players at large institutions. They spend alot of their time researching these schools even to the point that many of them hire consultants to work on this decision. Also please keep in mind, that a full ride to college is not a 4/5 yr deal like most would think. It is essentially a 1 year contract that is generally extended. I know from past experience that players cringe at schools when a new coach comes in while they are still in school. New coaches generally want their recruits in the lineup.

I disagree that a school should be on the hook for a 4 yr scholly regardless of what happens to the student. If a recruit comes into the school and keeps his nose clean but is a total bust, he isn't necessarily deserving of the scholly. In one case, I could live with that scenario though. It would be that if the full ride is awarded(in your scenario) then the player is not allowed to request a transfer or leave early. The mass majority of all scholarship players do not ever lose their ride though. I think player singled out in the video is a case of that, one being singled out.

I respect your opinion. It is definitely a two way street IMO.

[HuskerOmaha]

Intresting to see someone (ESPN) actually make note of the oversigning business. It's not new, but it's been ignored for a long time.

There are a lot of factors that can increase scholarships (transfers, injuries, leaving early for NFL), but compare these figures for the recent bowl game. The numbers are signed letters of intent received over the past 4 years. In the SESC, Georgia chooses not to oversign, and you can see where that has gotten them competitively.

Northwestern - 74
TCU - 76
Ohio State - 79
Penn State - 82
Georgia - 86
Iowa - 88
Wisconsin - 89
Michigan - 93
Illinois - 93
USF - 93
Florida State - 96
Tennessee - 97
Oregon - 100
Baylor - 103
LSU - 105
South Carolina - 106
Arkanasas - 109
Mississippi State - 113
Alabama - 113
Auburn - 119

I agree that there should be limits on how many recruits a school can sign but my post wasn't intended for Joe Scholarship. He isn't a player effected by this in the first place. It was intended for the recruits that will sign with the schools that are known for this practice. The schools that have issues with oversigning are few in comparison to the amount of schools with scholarships to offer. If a recruit is worried about loosing his place at a program, don't sign with coaches like Houston Nutt.

Please don't be naive in thinking that these are just uninformed high school seniors. The players that are being effected are highly ranked players at large institutions. They spend alot of their time researching these schools even to the point that many of them hire consultants to work on this decision. Also please keep in mind, that a full ride to college is not a 4/5 yr deal like most would think. It is essentially a 1 year contract that is generally extended. I know from past experience that players cringe at schools when a new coach comes in while they are still in school. New coaches generally want their recruits in the lineup.

I disagree that a school should be on the hook for a 4 yr scholly regardless of what happens to the student. If a recruit comes into the school and keeps his nose clean but is a total bust, he isn't necessarily deserving of the scholly. In one case, I could live with that scenario though. It would be that if the full ride is awarded(in your scenario) then the player is not allowed to request a transfer or leave early. The mass majority of all scholarship players do not ever lose their ride though. I think player singled out in the video is a case of that, one being singled out.

I respect your opinion. It is definitely a two way street IMO.

I agree it is a bit of a 2-way street but even with a few defections and non-qualifiers, isn't 34 over the limit in 4 years a bit much?

[bmf795]

I agree it is a bit of a 2-way street but even with a few defections and non-qualifiers, isn't 34 over the limit in 4 years a bit much?

Yes it is a lot. If I was going to try to defend Nutt I would mention that he doesn't care anything about academics and probably has no idea of how the players stand in the classroom when he is signing them.

The worst offenders of this are SEC schools. The three worst all have hired new coaches in the last 4 years. That probably has something to do with the high numbers. We all know that the SEC will do everything to look the other way when it comes to rules and regulations. I am actually surprised that they even made a rule regarding this issue.

These issues are one of the reasons why I am proud to be a Hokie. Our AD runs a fiscally sound program and Beamer is a man of his word. I would love to have a couple of national championships sitting around but if a program has to do borderline things to get the edge(and I believe they do) to push them over the top, I would rather never win a national championship and still have my honor. The teams that are guilty of over signing have never been examples of honorable institutions when it comes to following the rules.

[HuskerOmaha]

As of today South Carolina and Arkansas both have 30 commits.

Way to ruin kids futures, SEC and the NCAA are corrupt.

Playoffs please!


One of those schools will be +14 in schollies...