The Blue Board

Exactly.

SEC SEC SEC SEC

just curious...

old rule / new rule , what part of 25/85 baffles you ?

Please, explain how the new rules changed how many players a team can sign? If they actually changed something, you should be able to do that, right?

The way the SEC works the system they end up signing what amounts to 5 classes (approx 20 extra players) every 4 years and weed out the players that don't perform.

It is one of the 2 main reasons (the schedule being the other) for the SEC success this past decade. That's why it causes so much anger and denial from a lot of tBB. They defend this practice because they know they have to do it to win big.

To the OP, this subject is very taboo around here, which just shows how real the problem is.

The only players I'm aware of that we've ever just kicked off the team were disciplinary. Further, a lot of them were contributors. It's pretty rare to see one of our guys that didn't pan out leave unless there is a discipline problem or desire on the part of the kid to go somewhere he can start. We have a lot of guys in the system for 3-4 years that barely see the field. If we were just making room, wouldn't we just dump them?

We also get a lot of tranfers because guys want to come in and treat it like high school and, while they have the talent, they don't earn playing time. Brandon Moore at Texas and Darrington Sentimore at Tennessee are 2 examples of guys who were already contributors, but would have been starters with the right effort. Sentimore was an attitude problem, and wanted to leave anyway. Moore, I think, just wanted something other than Alabama, but I don't really know his story. We had a 5* Left Tackle that didn't pan out named Tyler Love. He gave up his last year of eligibility voluntarily to pursue med school or some such thing, and had lost the desire to play.

My point is, the program shouldn't suffer because of these types of attrition. So, when 8 guys leave and 20 graduate, why not sign 28 and back count 3? I'm pretty sure there are no meetings where Saban says, "You suck, but we appreciate your efforts anyway. I hear directional U needs a longsnapper...bye."

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.

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.

But, again, that's not the point. The point is the new rules haven't changed anything. If they have, what is it?

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.

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?