The Blue Board

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.

By the way, I'd like to point out that Tamu hasn't signed anyone in the class of 13 yet.

You're using numbers that don't reflect the new rule. Over signing.com's last class is 2010. Again. You rarely see 30+ classes anymore EVERY YEAR for teams.

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.

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.

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.

No. The trend is nowhere near the same. There is rarely back-to-back class sizes for one team let alone multiple teams like there used to be. I'm sorry, Notre Dame could only sign 16 kids in some classes. That doesn't mean every other school has to too.

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.

So basically a Try-out?

If you are not good enough or get hurt you do not get a schollie?

247 Sports