Dealt with in the sense that they now allow less oversigning than before but still allow enough to represent a meaningful competitive advantage over those conferences/schools that prohibit the practice. Similar to the other recruiting related rules, it's an issue that the NCAA needs to address to ensure consistency across the board and with the outspoken leadership of those like UF Pres Machen I hopeful that it will happen sooner rather than later....
No BT, but dealt with in a reasonable manner. I agree that the NCAA needs to deal with it, but would bet that it would be closer to the SEC way than what I guess you are advocating. What is allowed is that if you didn't sign your full quota the year before and have early entries they can count back. To me that is reasonable if you are in a situation where your scholarship numbers are down. And I don't think President Machen disagrees with that approach.
Anyone besides me have trouble scrolling down to the latest post in this thread? It seems I have to stop and enjoy the scenery every time. Ralph's post is HOF material.
No, but notice how many people are posting who normally would be interested in the topic. For, example, George's post above probably should have been posted in the ND Recruiting topic, but who cares? :lol:
Bill, the SEC has reduced the amount by which a conference school can oversign, but that amount still provides the opportunity for a material competitive advantage. I agree that they have made it more difficult for those so inclined to use the more "troublesome" roster management techniques that Machen termed "morally reprehensible", but at the end of the day, they still benefit by having a larger universe of kids to evaluate and will have to use some creative means to manage their numbers. 25 schollies per year x 4 is 100 which is almost 20% more than the 85 allowed per NCAA regs providing more than ample room for non-qualifiers, etc. 28 x 4 is 112, a 12 % advantage. 12% may not seem like much but it is the approx difference in 40 yd dash times between an offensive lineman and a DB - it's a huge advantage. Over the last 4 years, Bama has signed 113, Auburn 119 and LSU 105. By comparison, UF has signed 93. My guess is that Machen was supportive of the "roster management" constraints but his actions from an administrative standpoint would seem to indicate he favors lower schollie numbers. By contrast ND has signed 82, M 93, Ohio State 78, Purdue 89, Texas 86, A&M 93. As a practical matter, those 3 schools have enjoyed the benefit of an additional recruiting class from which to form their team, an immense competitive advantage, and the on field results are consistent with material advantage. The NCAA clearly needs to take action. Perhaps they will conclude that the SEC's oversigning approach is the way to go, perhaps not, but in my view, it's unnecessary and has shown to lead to very unfortunate results.
Terry, you will have to excuse me if I tell you that I don't think you have a grasp on what the SEC did. Just by looking at Florida's numbers and comparing them with Ohio State and the others you listed shows the Gators are in line with the way you think things should work. However we have signed players back to previous years if we did not sign a full compliment. In my opinion what the SEC did was reasonable and also in my opinion the NCAA will not make things more restrictive than the SEC as far as over signing. If other conferences want to be more restrictive, then have at it. What I do agree with is making the scholarships multi year and not one year only.
Bill, 28 was the SEC max prior to this years reduction to 25. The coaches voted unanimously to keep the 28 number but the school presidents approved the lower number. I used it to show the magnitude of the advantages that had accrued to those schools in the conference that took it to the limit. Thank you Bill, I think I understand it just fine. The numbers I used were based upon the total signings - by year - reported by the individual schools as tracked by Rivals in their database. No matter what year they signed - or to which class they were applied - they still count against the 85 total institutional allowable numbers on hand at any one time. That is the relevant number and the limiting factor to which all schools have to "manage". In the past 4 years, some schools have signed 120 kids and manage their rosters to get to the mandated 85 and as such have a material advantage -v- others that have been forced or have chosen to sign far fewer. Reducing the number to 25 still enables oversigning - albeit less so than before - if you have less than 25 available scholarships. By allowing them to sign more, it provides an advantage over those schools/conferences that are playing by different rules. Kudos for the presidents for taking steps to constrain the more troublesome practices and capping the numbers, but it continues to allow oversigning and they will continue to be advantaged -v- those that cannot or do not - though less so now, than in years past.
Well BT by reading your other post I didn't think that you understood that the SEC had reduced their numbers to 25 because you used the number 28 in your calculation. It seemed to me that the little blurb you posted about 4 x 28 = 112 seemed to me like you were talking current. I am satisfied with what the SEC did, you aren't so ok. I guess we will have to let the Bg 10 live by Big 10 rules and the SEC by SEC rules. Under the now existing rules in both conferences I like ours better and you like yours better. So be it. I don't see any reason for the SEC to adopt Big 10 rules.
I'm not advocating for the SEC to adopt Big 10 rules, I'm advocating for the NCAA to abolish a practice that can and has led to very unfortunate situations for kids and level the competitive playing field. The SEC has chosen to keep the practice intact, albeit at a lower level. Kudos to them however every other conference in the country manages just fine with less....I expect the NCAA to want to limit a potentially harmful practice to the extent that they can and I suspect only the SEC in opposition..... Average Signing Class per conference: ACC 22.1 Big 10 22.2 PAC 10 23.1 Big East 24.1 Big 12 24.3 SEC 25.2 / 26.1 excl those opposed to the practice - UF, UGa, Vandy That's rich....Jim Tressel has more integrity in his little finger than Saban has in his entire being. You stay classy KP.... KP, do you ever wonder why Nick Saban never found any success in coaching until he landed in the SEC and immediately began inflating recruiting classes? Surely it's mere coincidence that his 5 years as head coach in the Big 10 his record barely above .500, a losing record in the NFL and he goes to the league of the oversigning gravy train and immediately finds success. I suppose it's possible that he just woke up that first day in Baton Rouge with an entirely new, different and superior skill set and was a superior coach, but I don't think so.....
BT this is the first year for the new rules in the SEC so those numbers are meaningless at this point. I am glad that the SEC tightened up the recruiting practices. However as we can see from this conversation there are those who will still find fault even though we are in the first year of our new rules. Since we seeming must have these conversations though and Tressel's name has been brought up, I'm afraid that there are an awful lot of people who don't agree with you assessment of him. But I wish him and you well.
None that knew him Bill....those that knew him best held him in the highest of regard. Tony Dungy knew him well and after JT's resignation said if his boys had the opportunity to go to Ohio State he would want them to play for Coach Tressel. I and an awful lot of people including those that knew him best would agree with Coach Dungy..... All that said, I suppose your comment can be applied to virtually every walking human being. Everybody has an opinion. However they are not all equally objective, well founded in fact or thought, but each is entitled to their own. Have a nice day