In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
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.
Edit: NOT AN OVER-SIGNING THREAD
After USC, Alabama has been my favorite team to watch. I have known the roster pretty well the past couple of seasons, but never had the scholarship players down, like I do with USC. So, last night I was bored and tried to figure it out. Here are some questions for some Bama fans:
1. Assuming Fluker, Lacy and Milliner are the only juniors to leave early for the draft, that means Bama will be returning 71 scholarship players? (Listed below)
2. You guys can bring in 27 this year? (25 + 2 open spots from Hill & Dixon not qualifying last year)
3. Do you plan on bringing in 27 this year?
4. Assuming you bring in 27, that would put you guys at 98 scholarship players, which is obviously too many. So, which 13 current players do you think will not be with the team next season?
71 scholarship players (check for accuracy):
This post was edited by Adamson651 18 months ago
Only had 83 on scholly this season and two were senior walk on's which are gone. Will return 70 possibly less, however there are numerous rJr's that have already graduated, so some of those will move on.
Plus, we aren't taking 27. I've heard anywhere between 23-25 at most.
Edit: Mandell isn't on a football scholly.
This post was edited by Macdaddy7930 18 months ago
So whether you are at 71 or 70 returning, that puts you right now at 5/6 players oversigned with your 20 current recruits, and looking to add 3-5 more to this total.
This is why having the SEC implement a limit of 25 per year (plus back counting early enrollees) does not stop oversigning like I have seen some people argue. Bringing in 25 a year for four years will have a team oversign by 15 without even considering redshirts.
I don't understand why the NCAA regulates some things so closely but is so loose with these scholarships and recruiting that conferences have had to enact their own regulations.
Personally, I think people exaggerate a bit how many kids are getting "cut" by these traditional oversigning teams. Most of these players are probably told straight up that they aren't going to see playing time due to being recruited over, and they mutually agree to transfer. This is still a huge advantage for such teams though!
If you can recruit your full 25+ each year, then you are free to take chances on athletes who are unlikely to qualify but have great ability. If they don't qualify, then you have a stocked enough roster that it doesn't kill you.
Recruiting is so inexact, that it is hugely beneficial to recruit as many highly regarded players as possible, have them battle it out in practice for a year or two to see who pans out, then sit down with those who aren't going to see the field and have them transfer out for playing time elsewhere so that you can pull in a new class of 23-25 even though you should only have room for a class of 15.
BAND and WAGON
I stand corrected on my number. Talked to someone who know's and apparently we had less than 81 on scholly. Everyone on here and all recruiting sites guess at the number, but only the coaches know how many we truly have each year.
I find it hilarious that fans from other schools, all out of conference, complain about Bama's scholarship management, but doesn't seem to affect recruits wanting to come play for Saban.
"Favorite to watch" does not equal cheer for, but great contribution to the thread anyway...
I didn't start this thread to complain about Bama's scholarship management. I was just under the impression guys like Orr, Ming, Bonds, etc. were walk-ons, but then I saw them on prior year commit lists (I didn't think walk-ons were included), so I was hoping a Bama fan could let me know if any of the guys listed are in fact walk-ons. I like to make depth charts for all teams, but only include scholarship players. I'm not worried at all about Bama "over-signing." Hell, USC will have to ask some players to transfer, since they plan on bringing in a full class.
Lulz call it w/e you want..
Alright, I'll call it you suck at reading comprehension.
Take up a new hobby because you will never find out for sure exactly who is and who is not on scholarship at Bama.
obviously we are playing by the rules or we would be on probation like usc and ohio state!
For all the complaints about roster management.... There have been very few complaints from actual former Crimson Tide players. I believe the WSJ did an article and they found one recruit that received a medical hardship that disagreed with the decision. Many of the players that are claimed to be "managed" off the roster for poor performance are just the opposite. They were very good performers that broke certain rules and were kicked off the team (just like any other team). Many of these "managed" players went to juco and signed with other teams and became starters (so it wasn't a talent issue).
Some of the players that left the team that were clearly very talented were (just off the top of my head):
Darrin Sentimore (played as a true freshman)
Rod Woodson (ditto)
Duron Carter (Cris's son)
Brandon Moore (Played as a true freshman)
Prince Hall (All SEC LB that couldn't stay out of the dog house)
(and many more but I don't have a list to refer to)
We have also had several recruits that failed to qualify (but signed a LOI).
We had one recruit that died before he ever played a down.
We have had more 3 year players than any other team in the country (until LSU this year :))
Several recruits left on their own because of lack of playing time (Philip Sims, Star Jackson, Punter left to play baseball...)
Saban plays by the same NCAA rules as everyone else. All of these oversigning threads are just about a bunch of whiney losers looking for an excuse as to why their team isn't winning.
This post was edited by BamaBear56 18 months ago
I was under the impression that all of our guys were under scholly and was told that wasn't necessarily true. I know we will have transfers, but to what extent I don't know. We have several rJR that have already graduated, so alot of those guys tend to move on if they aren't in the two-deep. Really no point in keeping a 5th year senior on scholarship if he isn't in school and won't make an impact on the field.
It seems you didn't read my post. I didn't say Alabama breaks any rules. I questioned why recruiting rules differ by conference when it is the lifeblood of college football. The NCAA wastes their time on stupid things while letting conferences decide how to handle recruiting numbers.
And most of my post was explaining that allowing high profile teams to bring in a full class every year and then simply talk to the players who haven't panned out and mutually agree for them to transfer, thereby opening up 23-25 slots instead of 15-17, is a huge advantage! These transfers allow a team to "try out" an extra 10 or 20 players for a couple of years to see if they develop well, and if they don't they just have them transfer out for playing time elsewhere and try again.
Heck, I would argue that my team, Ohio State, will be doing this to an extent this year! We currently have room for 1 or so more players, but we are projecting to pick up from 2-4 more because players will be transferring out because they don't see the field. This is an advantage for elite teams who have 100 recruits who would jump at the chance to get the chance to play for them. Alabama just happens to have done this extremely effectively for the last 4 or 5 years, which is why they have signed 20-30 more recruits in that time than many other elite schools.
I think the NCAA (or more likely the new governing body of the super-conferences in the future when they abandon the NCAA) needs to simply have a hard limit each year for how many scholarships can be given out (say 22 or so), with no roster cap. That way teams are not rewarded for players transferring out of their program. They should be responsible for keeping the recruits they sign, and if they can't then that is on them. Likewise, teams that have players go pro after 3 years won't be rewarded for that either. That might help non-elite schools have a bit more even field than they have right now.
It's not a reward, some kids don't like the school, some have family hardships and some just end up not fitting the system. It's like saying a NFL team has to keep a player on the roster just because they signed him, but the player can be traded or cut. Sometimes it's just in the kid's or the school's best interest to just part ways. It's the system all teams recruit, practice and play under. If you believe what you do, it would be same as buying something from a store but not being able to return it if it is defective or you don't like it. Many coaches in the NCAA have figured out how to use the system to their advantage and none better than CNS at this point.
There were 9 seniors that signed scholarships out of HS or JUCO.
There were more actually on scholarship. 2 were awarded to walk-ons this year that are never counted in that number.
We know 3 Jrs are leaving, although that number expects to go up to at least 4, possibly even 5. That 15-16 scholarships right there. There's one sign and place that is committed so, assuming we do go to 25, it is actually 24.
There are about 5 or 6 4th year guys that will not be back for their 5th year I would imagine as well. Some will make a big deal about that, but some schools award the 5th year at the end already...and in most cases the 5th year isn't awarded (Notre Dame and Stanford are 2 that do that). They avoid the scrutiny by doing it that way, but it's the same thing.
So actually, you have 20-22 spots depending on this or that at the moment.
Personally, I don't care how it works out, but there it is. Football players shouldn't be babied because they were once good.
you mean students?
lol at you comparing CFB recruiting to a sales transaction or to a legal contract with a professional player, well actually I am beginning to see the similarities
google it if you want a definition.
Not really. Most students are either paying their own way or their parents are. Scholarship athletes don't belong in the same category, IMO.
But that's exactly it. College players can't be traded or cut, yet teams that do this are managing their rosters while other teams have far, far fewer transfers and medical redshirts. All teams need to be on the same recruiting playing field. One team should not be able to sign 130 kids in a period in which others sign 100. Either all teams need to manage their rosters in such a way or no teams should.
The NCAA has their rules, which apply to all the football programs. Bama and the rest of the SEC abide by their rules. It's not the SEC's or any other Conference's fault that the Big 10 amended, or added their own stipulations, by enforcing a hard cap on their teams. If you want to blame anyone, blame your conference commish.
Your conference tried to play the "four year scholarship" game, in an attempt to persuade recruits to come to the Big 10. Problem is, if they were true "four years scholarships", then attrition would be very minimal. That's very much not the case.
Never claimed to be an expert, but all the info I provided was correct when it pertains to kids that signed and who is no longer with the program. However after talking to someone close to the program, the actual scholarship numbers aren't correct because of "sign and place", kids with grade issues, transfers etc.
And LULZ at ButtAssassin calling Bama and their staff out for "telling the truth". How many players has Kiffin lied to in the last month about scholarships and enrollment? Massington, Larue, and Fitts come to mind.
Now go look up some worthless stats to make an excuse why the PAC 12 was 4-4 in bowl games.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports