kp, I don't know if you would say I'm trying to help but I'm sure not trying to hurt. So I guess that means I am trying to help. One of my pet peeves is people trying to make a case with only part of the story, that is what this writer did. If BT really said he didn't care about that information then he isn't interested in the truth. That doesn't sound like him to me, but he does sometimes stake out a position and nothing changes his mind. Regardless you point about it not being illegal is also valid. If it's so terrible then the NCAA needs to act, if they don't then they are condoning the actions and because one group or another does not agree doesn't mean squat. I am referring to the taking of scholarships. If it was up to me it wouldn't be legal except in specific circumstances. However I also believe in understanding the rules and living by them. If the Big 10 takes a different route that's their choice, we don't belong to the Big 10 and personally I don't want to.
I think there is a legit concern with oversigning and whether or not it provides some competitive advantage. It certainly is mainly concentrated in the SEC, not sure exactly why that is, but it has been for quite awhile. That something is not 'illegal' doesn't necessarily make it right. I do think the NCAA needs to address this issue. I do think the whole thing gets a little sticky when you consider some kids are not qualified on Nat'l Signing Day. I'm not eager to throw those kids under the bus, and not sure exactly how to address the problem. The whole deal that you can sign 100 kids over 4 years but never have more than 85 on scholarship makes things a little dicey. I don't think we'll ever see the scholarship limit increased, and I'm not really sure what to do about the "annual' renewal of the scholarship vs a 4 year ride. I would like to see all the Div 1 schools under the same rules, while right now the SEC has a different set of rules than most of the other conferences.
Bill, I tried to explain all of this to BT in the "Oversigning" thread earlier and he told me he had made up his mind. I'll let him address that if he wants to. Terry, All Div 1 schools are under the same NCAA rules. Lord knows Alabama certainly does not get any sort of a pass from the NCAA. Each conference has some leeway to make their rules more stringent if they want to. Any competitive advantage is conceded not taken. For example if the Little Mid Upper Schuylkill Valley League decides that they are only going to take class valedictorians does that mean that everyone else has some kind of unfair advantage if they don't follow suit? If so Vanderbilt has a legitimate complaint. We all fall under the NCAA rules.
I don't disagree with your point, so I guess what I am for is more stringent across the board rules that would prevent what I see as taking advantage of the rules. Again I want to say that I am not saying what the SEC is doing is illegal, clearly it is not. But I do think it's a situation that needs to be addressed.
Terry, I agree that some of the recruiting rules need to be fixed. However the not being able to sign over 100 in a four year period is not necessarily one of them. Not unless you somehow take into account drop outs, transfers and for sure players leaving early for the NFL. I think there is abuse but care needs to be taken to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And one sided articles that only show the number of players signed without any other information are not the answer. I also don't want my conference modeling after another conference. I don't see any conference out there that I feel is superior to the SEC and we have progressive leadership that are addressing out problems as they need to be addressed.
kp, BT can make up his mind that is his right and I do respect his opinions. However that does not mean he has the answers and unless he can address the issues different than he has made up his mind then I guess us SEC folks will just have to muddle along the best we can.
In the last ten years Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, NW, Purdue, Mich, Sparty, Ohio State and Penn State have all won or shared Big 10 titles....I was wrong about Purdue in an earlier post... If there was a playoff game, who would be realistic winners other than PSU, Mich and ourselves? Wisky for sure, Iowa has had great teams and won BCS bowl games, D'Antonio has Sparty in the mix for sure as well....as for the others, I couldn't in good faith say that Illinois, Purdue and NW won't compete for a title in the future, esp given the fact that they have won one in the recent past. In my view, it's much easier for the "powers that be" to keep the 2nd tier down with the ability to oversign....they can stockpile talent that would otherwise have gone to other schools using your favorite junior colleges to sign and place, keeping talent off the roster of a competitor. Many of these kids could and would start immediately.....oversigning concentrates talent making fewer quality athletes available to the others....both during the process and after. Bill, the site www.oversigning.comtracks available roster spots in terms of 1) # scholarship athletes currently on the roster, 2) departing seniors and other early departures i.e., transfers, medical hardships, NFL, etc whjich yields the available schollies or "budget" and then compares that to the number of verbals. I believe they do take into account the roster/schollie variiables you question.... Bill and KP, I understand the arguments about borderline players, transfers, etc but I believe that every school has to face and address those same issues. Those problems are not unique to schools that engage in oversigning but it does give those that engage in oversigning mulligans and therefore an advantage that other schools don't have.....so yes, based upon the information that has become available to date, my mind is made up and until such time as new information or a more compelling argument can be made in its favor, I believe it to be in the best interest of college football if the practice is stopped. No, it is not illegal and those that take advantage of oversigning are well within their rights to do so.....as I've said before, it is subject to abuse, it can be contrary to the interests of student-athlete, it provides a meaningful competitive advantage and can result in some "shady practices" (KP's term) that give the game a "black-eye". The NCAA needs to adopt a uniform standard regulating the practice....just my opinion. If it differs from yours, so be it.....
GB, Thanks for including Michigan in the list of B10 teams that have a legitimate shot at playing for a national championship but did you want to put a time frame on this statement? I turn 56 in May. If someone said that will have a legitimate shot before I become eligible for social sucurity, I would think the statement overly optimistic. Signed, Morose in Milwaukee
Things run in cycles Bobda. Michigan has been in their down cycle but I think bottom has been struck and the bounce is on the way. You'll need defensive players with more talent to do it though I think.
I don't disagree with anything said above, except to add that the meaningful competitive advantage is willingly conceded by any conference that wants to make more restrictive rules than the NCAA's rules. Let's watch the show today. Hat's on the table, last minute switches of longstanding verbal agreements, 15 minutes in the limelight stuff...sometimes it is hard to determine what is contrary to the interests of the student athlete.
Agreed KP, let's watch the show today...it only comes around once a year. And yes, I do agree that "sometimes it is hard to determine what is contrary to the interests of the student-athlete" but it is also true and you must agree, that sometimes it is quite obvious.....let's enjoy the day. Your Tide look to have quite a day and I think in spite of the gnashing of teeth due to the real or imagined loss of the next greatest college football player to ever don a uni on the part of many of my fellow Buckeye fans, I think we'll do just fine.....