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.
We play under the same dictatorship you do. Maybe your conference needs a managerial consultant?
I understand that. And in the past year or so, both the NCAA and the SEC enacted rules that were supposed to stop that. But those rules seem to have changed nothing. Either the rules were well intentioned but poorly crafted (i.e. they are easy to get around) or they were a PR stunt and were not expected to change anything. Because best I can tell, nothing has changed. Teams can sign the same number they could before the new rules were adopted.
Guessing they have kids that aren't solid commits, that are a longshot to qualify, that are offered greyshirt status, etc. It ain't wrong if you tell em up front.
But, again, that's not the point. The point is the new rules haven't changed anything. If they have, what is it?
No. With the new rule we aren't allowed to sign 25 plus for a given class. What TeX am is doing is not that. They have open spots on the previous years class to use.... Back counting.
This post was edited by coolstorybro 16 months ago
10 Major Poll National Titles (CFB record)
35 Bowl Wins (CFB record)
72 Wins over last 6 years (CFB record)
Reposting this for you. It's a few posts back:
The rule has never realy been how many LOI's can be signed in Feb, it's how many you can bring in in the fall. The SEC changed the rule so that you can only accept 25 LOI's in Feb, so that you didn't keep getting Ole Miss w/ 38 dumbass commits to see which 25 qualified.
So...Feb LOI max - 25. Period.
January enrollees can back count to last year, IF and only IF, you didn't bring in 25 scholarship players in the previous class. January comes before February, and LOI's are not necessary for enrolled students.
But those are holes you can drive a truck through (which is exactly what A&M is doing). If EEs don't count against the signing limits, nothing has changed.
The question is why everyone doesn't do it? It's not against the rules. It offers more players scholarships and a chance to play. You think keeping players on scholarship that don't perform is helping them in life? Academic scholarships can be taken away if you don't make the grades but that's no big deal. You girls just care about athletic scholarships. Nothing in this world should be given without earning it. This thread is just the next of 4960372 threads on what's wrong with this generation of people.
I think what Woodson is trying to say is why change the rule and talk about it with the press etc when the new rule doesn't change anything.
That's a philosophical debate. Without getting into it fully, many people believe the rules allow kids to be too easily kicked off a team when their only crime is that the coaches do not feel they are good enough football players. And many of those kids lose their only real chance at a college degree as a result. But putting that aside, why have signing limits at all? Why did the NCAA and SEC go to the trouble to enact new signing rules if they don't change anything? Was it just a PR move?
This post was edited by MrWoodson 16 months ago
Sure it has. Look at it this way:
Say Ole Miss (sorry rebs..er..bears or whatever) takes 38 LOI's. And instead of 24-25 qualifying, 29 qualify. They can't take 29 in the fall, so 4 kids that have already lined up roommates and have moving plans get screwed. This is unacceptable. In the past, there were always caveats (and we used them too), in that a couple of guys knew going in that they may have to wait until January to enroll (i.e., greyshirt). These are usually kids that really want to be at the school, and probably are willing to walk on over a lesser scholarship elsewhere. Sometimes this isnt the case, but still, they know about the possibility. So, say we'd sign 28, 2 didn't qualify, 1 greyshirt, problem solved. Kid still gets to go to Bama, just has to wait 1 extra semester....and he knew it in advance.
Under the new rules, Ole Miss or Bama can only sign 25. So if they all qualify, they all have a spot. Period.
Let's say 3 of the 25 don't qualify. You can bring in 3 early enrollees the next class to make up for last year's losses. Obviously, they can't be hurt by it, because if they're enrolled, they already qualified. Come February, we can still only sign 25. So under NCAA rule of 25 scholarship limit, there is no chance that a kid can qualify and get unexpectedly left out because a school oversigned and somebody watched baby Einstein and passed remedial summer algebra.
Let's say Tamu suffered through a class because of a coaching change and a bad season. So they only brought in 17 players or whatever. Let's also say they're at 79 scholarship players w/ 22 graduating and 4 early NFL entries. They can bring in 32 kids during this academic year as long as 7 enroll early. (I just made up the numbers, but it makes the point)
I know you see this as a huge competitive advantage, and I suppose it can be if your conference doesn't practice it. However, there is nothing at all wrong with it as long as kids aren't getting abused to make it work. It's just good management within the rules.
Apparently, you do. See Texas A&M. Something tells me that four years from now, looking backward, there isn't going to be a significant difference in the average number of players signed by most teams. The new rules will have minimal effect.
Except that if UGA had a class of 25 enroll last year, it can only bring in 25 this year. No exceptions to that.
By the way, I'd like to point out that Tamu hasn't signed anyone in the class of 13 yet.
Georgia is at 30 as well. The Sec has averaged about 2 classes over 30 per year since 2002.
Ok. If that's how the new rules work (and I will take your word for it, because I can't seem to find the exact language let alone a clear explanation anywhere), maybe they will have a small effect. But it's minor. It's not going to curb most of the abuses. Some coaches (see Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino) used to "cull" their rosters after spring ball to make room for incoming prospects. Now, apparently, coaches might need to do their culling prior to NSD, but as long as they can creatively eliminate the underperformers and sign a handfull of EEs every year, we will continue to see classes regularly in the 30-36 range. I think most people thought those days were over with the new rules.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by MrWoodson 16 months ago
2011 AU - 34 USCe - 37 Arky - 39
The next year in 2012 Arky takes 29
I'm no attorney and I didn't craft it, but that's the gist of it. I don't like the idea of culling either, but let's face it, SOME people deserve to be culled, and it's not about talent. If you look back at the Alabama players that got "culled", they pretty much did it to themselves. You can't blame a 4.0 honors student with acceptance to Vanderbilt medical or wherever for giving up his 3rd string left tackle job in his 5th year of eligibility.
I didn't like what we did to the kid, whatever his name was, that got the greyshirt at the last minute a year or 2 back. HOWEVER, he knew it was a possibility. I think the reason he was so upset was that he was watching other commitments and did the math, figured he was in, and then we signed an extra blue-chipper on signing day. I didn't like it, but I understand it. The RB from Georgia that we had with the knee injury, I understand why they recommended a greyshirt (he needed time to rehab), but I can understand why his feelings were so hurt. Mine would have been, too.
So, I'll make the case that we're clean, that we genuinely care about our players at all levels of the athletic department, but that tough business decisions are made that are going to hurt feelings. I think it's also important to continue to emphasize that ALL of the kids we've tried to greyshirt had a guaranteed sholarship to play football at Alabama. The ones that got mad just didn't want to wait until January.
When has a SEC team had back to back 30+ classes ?????
The point I am making is the trend is still the same as it was 3/5/7/10 years ago.
It would be a big disadvantage if that many left and we didn't replace them.
Also, I don't think we're at 85. I think there are a couple of the wealthier kids that pay their way to make room for scholarships...could be wrong, but it's happened before. Also, the past few years, almost every year, we've had room left over to give a sholarship to a walk-on in the fall.
I used to ask for names of players that were cut back during devidee's crusade against over signing, but not one person ever provided a single name of a player cut because of performance.
It just got old asking the same question over and over with the same lack of result .
Again, I'm not taking shots at any particular team. But Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino admitted to culling and I can't believe it doesn't happen a little bit by a lot of coaches. There is too much pressure to win and almost no one is going to turn away an extra couple of elite recruits every year if they can "creatively" find a way to squeeze them in.
I would totally change the rules. I would make it very simple. The rule would be that a team could add up to 23 new players to its roster every year and that's it. If a player leaves the team for any reason (injury, grades, criminal conduct, quits), the team cannot replace him. Basically, pick your 23 carefully because you don't get any "do overs". Of course, with redshirting, teams could theoretically have up to 115 scholarship players at a time. That is not likely to happen because everyone will have some attrition, but it would mean that the teams that recruit and manage their rosters the best would have an advantage over those that don't. It effectively flips the incentives around such that teams would be doing everything possible to keep kids academically eligible and on the team rather than culling them so they can squeeze in a few extra new recruits every year.
And it's incredibly simple. No keeping track of how many in each class or worrying about EEs and backdating. Every team can add up to 23 new players to its roster every year and that's it. Done.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MrWoodson 16 months ago
That's not so bad. If the team did a great job keeping people eligible, you could see rosters of 92 players, which suits me fine. I do think I would make walk-ons eligible to play and travel with the team, though. I mean, they are, but you know the travel rules and all that.
Let me just ask, though, if player development is off the charts and you get 5 early NFL guys every year, isn't it punitive to successful programs? I know some people are thinking "Exactly...gives everyone a shot because it makes things more cyclical." But I'm not a "give everybody a shot" type of guy. Participation trophies for 8 year olds piss me off, and I don't much care to be the guy that wins the PAC because 1/2 of USC and Oregon left early for the NFL.
Just like I wanted Fitz to play for you guys to open the season. I understood the suspension and agreed with it, but I wanted to beat you at your best.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports