Oversigning Recruits

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
All I can tell you is our coach says he doesn't do it, none of the kids who've transferred have ever claimed he did, and if he were using medical hardships on kids who weren't really suffering career-ending injuries, you'd think at least one of them would be able to get cleared to play somewhere else, yet they can't. All of the articles and accusations are based on statistics - Bama and Saban have more transfers and medical hardships than average. No concrete actual examples though.

OK hold on a second. Read this article, and then let's circle back to Saban "only giving medicals to kids with career ending injuries." Just so we're all on the same page here... the moment you actually accept a medical scholarship then you get to finish out school at the school you currently attend and forfeit your ability to ever play sports again. So by default any kid who accepts a medical scholarship can't play for another school by design of the NCAA rule. The reason this is the case is so that people can't keep a "reserve" roster on medical. So I'm really confused by what you're even getting at when you say: "if he were using medical hardships on kids who weren't really suffering career-ending injuries, you'd think at least one of them would be able to get cleared to play somewhere else." Them playing anywhere else after accepting a medical is literally impossible under any circumstance by NCAA rules.

Has Saban ever nudged a player to leave? Possibly. Nudging or being totally frank with a player and letting him know you don't see much chance of him ever seeing significant playing time is a long way from pulling a scholarship though, and I don't know of a single case where he's done that. He says he never has, and none of the players who've left have claimed he has. "Scholarship not renewed" covers a lot of things. Few schools disclose the exact reasons a player is kicked off a team. That's for legal reasons and to protect the player's privacy. It usually means the player broke team rules, had a discipline or attitude problem, flunked out, failed a drug test, or something else along those lines.

You said, "It's incredibly common throughout the NCAA in all sports and is only just now become a hot button issue in football because people outside the SEC need to latch onto something as a reason for why they can't compete." I don't want to believe that, but it's hard not to seeing the attachment some have to the issue and the way they latch onto it despite any concrete evidence to support their view.

All of the above is well reasoned. I will say that you're not putting enough weight in the empirical numerical evidence that suggests something is amiss. The statistical anomaly with regards to medical hardship scholarships issued by Alabama is so many standard deviations away from the norm that you can't just discount it as a happenstance. Is it a conclusive smoking gun of anything? No, not in and of itself. But when you combine it with the quotes from the article I linked above it is, at minimum, extremely strong supporting circumstantial evidence that Alabama puts kids on medical scholarship who are totally capable of continuing to play football.
 

irishfanjho15

Hello world
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
251
Sorry. If you can't prove something or even offer compelling evidence, there's a good reason not to believe it. That sort of mushy, emotional, "I just want it to be so" thinking won't fly in court, won't hold water in the field of science, and won't convince any intelligent, thinking person. Now, I may be a dumb old Southerner who can't read & write, and only have gone to Bama, but I did learn about Occam's razor, that you should choose your opinions based on facts and not choose your facts based on your opinions, and that what I want to be true is rarely as accurate as what the evidence tells me is true.

If any of what you said was true, don't you think the NCAA would have nailed us by now? Do you really think they haven't looked? Do you think they're that incapable? When there was something wrong going on, they had no trouble proving it in the past. You can't keep something that big involving hundreds of players, coaches and boosters quiet for very long. There's a reason they haven't "nailed" us for it. We aren't cheating. You just need to think so in order to explain away our success. Very common psychological tool for dealing with an unpleasant reality.

As for Allgator, he trolled you. He insulted ND and did his best to just aggravate you and disrupt things. I've done nothing of the kind. I've simply refused to sit back and let a small handful of you insult the school I love with distortions, ignorance, and dishonesty. I've never said a single negative thing about ND, and have in fact said several very positive things about your school. What you don't like is that all your self-serving BS insults, regional stereotypes, and willful distortions can't stand up to a little critical examination and presentation of facts. At least 90% of the people on this forum seem like bright, decent, knowledgeable fans. A few of you seem determined to be intentionally uninformed and willfully dishonest. I like the 90%. I have no tolerance for those who choose to act like the others, though.

Remember, everyone has a right to his own opinion. Nobody has a right to his own facts.

Your attempt at intelligent rhetoric is a waste of time. You've already proved yourself to be unable to pull your head out of the sand and I'm not surprised. The SEC has always been dirty, and for good reason is widely excepted to be by the people outside of the region. People in the region just refuse to believe because it would surely reflect negatively on how they go about producing winning football teams.

So next you're going to tell me that Bama didn't have NCAA sanctions on them in '95, '02, and '09? That's three different coaching staffs at Bama that have had NCAA sanctions leveled against them. That seems like an institutional and cultural problem to me, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb Northerner.

Your deflection of the oversigning issue, it's problems, and it's significance to a level playing field is as disingenuous as Bama claiming 15 football titles.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
You have no tolerance for informed opinions that you don't like..... I have no tolerance for Tide fans in general, especially those coming here and acting all uppity towards us... to hell with it... and you.


okay?

The NCAA does not have power of subpoena, so no, I do not think they would have gotten you by now… Look at SC, everyone in the country knew what was going on there but it took how long to find ONE case that the NCAA could use to hammer them for the hundreds they couldn’t? That was not one guy taking down SC, that was the NCAA finally finding something they could use for all the other things they couldn’t find proof on, your day is coming brah...

And sorry, to be quite blunt... a fan from a 3rd tier public institution with a very dirty history, that lives off nothing but football and disrespects the rest of the college football world by claiming titles they have no right to... all while complaining, whining and writing books about titles they also have no right to complain about, coming to this site and calling us out for dishonesty really rubs me wrong. Sorry the NCAA will nail you guys, mark it down. Saban is a jerk and cuts kids. Over signing is dirty. Your precious program is not clean.

Don’t like it…? go whine about “missing rings” with your jackass fan base.
 
Last edited:

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
I said "IF." My example was hypothetical to make a point. Alabama will sign 25+ every year...no matter what. ND won't if it means going over the 85 cap. That's all I'm saying. I get that Bama (and other schools that do this) may be within the rules. I get that they may be above avg in turnover/attrition. I understand EE and signing more than 25 if you know some are border line qualifiers, etc. I get it. My issue is that this is such a gray area for the NCAA that schools are interpreting this subject differently. The playing field needs to be leveled. I personally feel that the 85 cap should be enforced on NSD. If you sign a player that ends up not qualifying, that's your problem.

Say ND needed 23 signees to get to 85 this cycle. But they went ahead and signed 25 knowing that one might not qualify and a current roster player may transfer. Then player A ends up qualifying and player B ends up staying. Now what? Something has to give. Two kids need to be removed from scholarship or else ND is breaking rules. This is the issue, because this does happen. And it's how the excess of 85 is dealt with. Even if it's just one player. You can't tell me this doesn't happen.

And I don't disagree with you on this, really. I 100% get where you're coming from and agree with you for the most part. Right now, the NCAA just says you have to be at 85 by the start of fall practice, I believe. If they made the rule where you had to be at 85 as soon as you finished NSD, I'd say OK, we follow that rule now and it would level the field a bit, but not as much as you would want. Teams would just nudge players into early entry to the NFL that probably shouldn't go early. They'd nudge players out in January instead of May.

As for your example where ND hypothetically oversigns 2, that probably happens sometimes, but not as much as some seem to believe. Even once though is too much. I'd hate for any kids and a coaching staff to be in that position. I don't want to see ANY player treated badly and unfairly lose his chance to play or get an education.

As I said earlier though, the problem and the solution are more complicated than it seems at first glance. There are all sorts of issues that are often at odds with each other. Consider your example, but ND doesn't sign the two extra players and they do lose the two they expected to lose. Now you only have 83. That's two kids who won't get a chance to play at ND or get an education there. And that scenario is actually the more likely of the two. I know it happens, but it's rare for most teams to make it from NSD to the start of fall practice without losing a couple of players.

The school is trying to put a good team on the field. The money generated by a successful football program funds the non-revenue programs and provides their scholarships, as well as provides a lot of funding for the school itself, not to mention the positive effect it has on the local economy. That doesn't mean I'm claiming this is all for noble purposes aside from football, but those are factors and things to consider, and part of the bigger picture the NCAA has to look at in making these rules.

Every program has its own goals and way of handling this issue. I won't claim our way is the only way, but don't want anyone else doing the same. Some schools are very strict about not signing more than they already have slots for. Some try to anticipate normal attrition and sign enough to make up for it. There are legitimate, good, valid reasons for both ways and as long as a team stays within the NCAA rules and treats its players honestly and fairly, I'm fine with how they handle the issue.
 

irishfanjho15

Hello world
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
251
You have no tolerance for informed opinions that you don't like..... I have no tolerance for Tide fans in general, especially those coming here and acting all uppity towards us... to hell with it... and you.


okay?

The NCAA does not have power of subpoena, so no, I do not think they would have gotten you by now… Look at SC, everyone in the country knew what was going on there but it took how long to find ONE case that the NCAA could use to hammer them for the hundreds they couldn’t? That was not one guy taking down SC, that was the NCAA finally finding something they could use for all the other things they couldn’t find proof on, your day is coming brah...

And sorry, to be quite blunt... a fan from a 3rd tier public institution with a very dirty history, that lives off nothing but football and disrespects the rest of the college football world by claiming titles they have no right to... all while complaining, whining and writing books about titles they also have no right to complain about, coming to this site and calling us out for dishonesty really rubs me wrong. Sorry the NCAA will nail you guys, mark it down. Saban is a jerk and cuts kids. Over signing is dirty. Your precious program is not clean.

Don’t like it…? go whine about “missing rings” with your jackass fan base.


At least you and I are on the same page ACamp. Even though it's not surprising we are.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
OK hold on a second. Read this article, and then let's circle back to Saban "only giving medicals to kids with career ending injuries." Just so we're all on the same page here... the moment you actually accept a medical scholarship then you get to finish out school at the school you currently attend and forfeit your ability to ever play sports again. So by default any kid who accepts a medical scholarship can't play for another school by design of the NCAA rule. The reason this is the case is so that people can't keep a "reserve" roster on medical. So I'm really confused by what you're even getting at when you say: "if he were using medical hardships on kids who weren't really suffering career-ending injuries, you'd think at least one of them would be able to get cleared to play somewhere else." Them playing anywhere else after accepting a medical is literally impossible under any circumstance by NCAA rules.



All of the above is well reasoned. I will say that you're not putting enough weight in the empirical numerical evidence that suggests something is amiss. The statistical anomaly with regards to medical hardship scholarships issued by Alabama is so many standard deviations away from the norm that you can't just discount it as a happenstance. Is it a conclusive smoking gun of anything? No, not in and of itself. But when you combine it with the quotes from the article I linked above it is, at minimum, extremely strong supporting circumstantial evidence that Alabama puts kids on medical scholarship who are totally capable of continuing to play football.

You are right about a player accepting a medical no longer being able to play. However, if I was told by Saban or any other coach that I wasn't medically able to play any longer and offered a medical hardship, yet I thought I still could play, I'd certainly get a second opinion from a doctor and contact other schools about joining their program before accepting it. Even if I accepted the medical hardship, and later decided it was BS, I believe that if you got one or more doctors to say it was a BS diagnosis and given only to get a player off the roster, the NCAA would almost certainly agree you'd accepted the hardship under duress and reinstate your eligibility to play elsewhere, as well as probably lower the boom on the first school.

I agree Saban's number of medical hardships has been well above average, but again, other than the unusually high number of them, there's just nothing else that indicates any wrongdoing. No doctor has examined any of them and said there wasn't a legitimate career-ending injury or health problem.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
You have no tolerance for informed opinions that you don't like..... I have no tolerance for Tide fans in general, especially those coming here and acting all uppity towards us... to hell with it... and you.


okay?

The NCAA does not have power of subpoena, so no, I do not think they would have gotten you by now… Look at SC, everyone in the country knew what was going on there but it took how long to find ONE case that the NCAA could use to hammer them for the hundreds they couldn’t? That was not one guy taking down SC, that was the NCAA finally finding something they could use for all the other things they couldn’t find proof on, your day is coming brah...

And sorry, to be quite blunt... a fan from a 3rd tier public institution with a very dirty history, that lives off nothing but football and disrespects the rest of the college football world by claiming titles they have no right to... all while complaining, whining and writing books about titles they also have no right to complain about, coming to this site and calling us out for dishonesty really rubs me wrong. Sorry the NCAA will nail you guys, mark it down. Saban is a jerk and cuts kids. Over signing is dirty. Your precious program is not clean.

Don’t like it…? go whine about “missing rings” with your jackass fan base.

No, I have all the tolerance in the world for informed opinions. I love them. I'll gladly change my own opinion if someone presents me with one and some actual evidence that their's is right. The problem is that yours is grossly uninformed and you choose your facts to fit your already made up mind, regardless of the evidence (or total lack thereof). THAT'S what I have no tolerance for - someone who tenaciously clings to an idea no matter how little evidence they have, refuses to see anything that doesn't fit their little opinion, and isn't above twisting and distorting everything in order to make it fit their opinion.

As for your opinion of Tide fans or where you wish I'd go, no problem. You're just mad because I've exposed you for not knowing what you're talking about and being dishonest and incompetent in how you support your opinion. I may have gone to a third-tier school as you say, but it got me into one of the top 10 grad schools in the country and taught me to avoid dishonest, mushy thinking. Oh, and it also taught me that when you get mad in a discussion and resort to personal insults, you've conceded defeat.
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
It looks like pOSU had to turn down taking a LOI from a Punter Johnny Townsend that had been committed for the past 6 months because they were already at their 82 limit. Most pOSU fans are speculating that UFM didn't think he would end up with all three of Wilson, Clark and Bell. Then when EE reaffirmed. There was no room.

I guess this is better then going ahead and taking his commitment and then forcing another scholarship player out.

All kinds of discussion on the Buckeye forums dealing with the ethical issue of honoring the committed player first, which means they would have had to say no to a very highly rated player. Some say the commitment should've been honored, and others feel like it would've been stupid to give up a higher rated player for a punter. I'm guessing their would've been similar view points on here if we were faced with the same dilemma.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
Your attempt at intelligent rhetoric is a waste of time. You've already proved yourself to be unable to pull your head out of the sand and I'm not surprised. The SEC has always been dirty, and for good reason is widely excepted to be by the people outside of the region. People in the region just refuse to believe because it would surely reflect negatively on how they go about producing winning football teams.

So next you're going to tell me that Bama didn't have NCAA sanctions on them in '95, '02, and '09? That's three different coaching staffs at Bama that have had NCAA sanctions leveled against them. That seems like an institutional and cultural problem to me, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb Northerner.

Your deflection of the oversigning issue, it's problems, and it's significance to a level playing field is as disingenuous as Bama claiming 15 football titles.

Well, I will agree with you that my attempt at intelligent rhetoric is a waste of time to a great extent, but probably not for the same reason you meant. :) As for previous probations, what does that have to do with this discussion. Nobody has argued they didn't happen. The discussion was on whether Bama's current success is due to cheating. I've asked you to provide a concrete example or even compelling evidence that it is, yet you can't. "I just know they do" isn't evidence. It's wishful thinking to explain away an unpleasant truth and a lot easier to accept than "They just have better coaches, better players, and work harder" is.

However, if you want to discuss the 3 previous probations, no problem. We had a player, who a few hours after winning the NC game in the '93 Sugar Bowl, with a few drinks in him, and with an agent enticing him by offering the player two very attractive young women for the night, verbally agreed to be represented by the agent and signed a "contract" on a cocktail napkin. The coaching staff found out eventually and tried to cover it up. Stupid decision. If they'd reported it and suspended him for a game or two, that would've been the end of it. When the NCAA found out, they hammered us and rightfully so.

The 2nd probation was because a booster offered a large amount of money to a HS coach to steer an elite prospect to us. No indication the coaching staff knew, but doesn't matter. We took our punishment as deserved and hopefully our boosters learned a lesson. There's no indication anything like that has happened since.

The most recent event came from a female track athlete noticing that the campus book store didn't check her schedule when she told them what books she needed. That led to her getting a couple of books for her boyfriend to save him some money. Over the next few years, word spread among the athletes and led to about 100 of them from 16 sports getting a few books for friends, siblings, girlfriends, etc. Eventually, a book store employee noticed that a few athletes were getting an excessive number of books and reported it to her superiors. The university reported it to the NCAA. They investigated and found no evidence the school was knowingly allowing it to happen or that any athletes were selling the books and getting any money (really no way to do so since all books received on scholarship have to be turned back in at the end of the semester), but did hit us for not having noticed the problem earlier and taking steps to prevent it. I disagreed with some of the punishment on this one. This was something that happened primarily before Saban even got to UA and was discovered early during his first season. Only 6 or 7 football players were involved and he immediately suspended them from playing. We consulted the NCAA about the length of their suspension and were advised 2 games would probably be sufficient. Saban suspended all of them for the next 4 games. Despite self-reporting the infraction, it being an infraction that didn't provide significant extra benefits or any sort of competitive advantage, and suspending the football players longer than the NCAA had even recommended, they vacated all wins from that season. I had no problem with the probation, but vacating the wins seemed unneccessary an excessive.
 
M

Me2SouthBend

Guest
Great points. This reminded me of an article I read a few years ago. Decided to find it: WSJ examines Alabama's Medical Scholarships

This is what I'm talking about.

Why? Do you know of any team that only brings in 85 every 4 years? ND doesn't. No team in CFB does that I know of. Why should a team only bring in 85 during a rolling 4 year period? Just because you want them to or because you don't understand the NCAA rules on the matter? It's not against the rules and for good reason. The NCAA lets you bring in 25/yr with a total of 85 on scholarship because every team loses players over the years to early departure for the NFL, injuries, academics, discipline, transfers, etc. If you sign 100 players in 4 years, you can bet your last dollar that all 100 won't still be there 4 years later.

If a team signs 25 per year, stays within the 85 total limit, and isn't misleading or mistreating players, they are adhering to both the letter and the spirit of the NCAA rules. So what's your problem with them then? I'm genuinely not trying to insult you or troll or argue. I'm just unsure what your issue is here. I don't know if you don't understand the NCAA rules, understand them but don't agree with them, or have bought into the whole "they must be cheating" thing without actually seeing if it's true or not.

If you truly believe Saban is staying within the spirit of the rules of the NCAA you are not looking closely enough. You simply can't continually bring in 25 new recruits a year and stay at 85 without manipulating the rules and cheating players and their families. I realize he doesn't have more than 85 on scholarship but by continually bringing in classes of 25, 26, 22 and 29 in the last 4 years (yes that totals to 102) he isn't keeping with what most non $EC schools are doing. You are right, that if he signs 100 players in 4 years all 100 won't be ther all 4 years, Saban will see to it (his current roll of 102 in 4 years proves that, revisit the article above if you've already forgotten). He's a F*cking Scumbag and that's the Bottom Line.
 

MNIrishman

Well-known member
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
481
It certainly seems this debate is approaching an impasse. We are presenting statistical evidence (which is persuasive but not completely conclusive) while Bishop is demanding that evidence come in the form of specific cases of rule breakage. I don't think our side is going to be convinced, for a variety of reasons, that a lack of specific cases of ethical compromise or rules violations is convincing evidence of lack of guilt, anymore than a statistical argument is going to convince Bishop that Alabama is definitely guilty in light of the fact that the statistics leave (admittedly improbable) wiggle room. If we disagree on what constitutes valid evidence one way or the other, how can we conclude this in a fashion that convinces everybody?
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
And I don't disagree with you on this, really. I 100% get where you're coming from and agree with you for the most part. Right now, the NCAA just says you have to be at 85 by the start of fall practice, I believe. If they made the rule where you had to be at 85 as soon as you finished NSD, I'd say OK, we follow that rule now and it would level the field a bit, but not as much as you would want. Teams would just nudge players into early entry to the NFL that probably shouldn't go early. They'd nudge players out in January instead of May.

As for your example where ND hypothetically oversigns 2, that probably happens sometimes, but not as much as some seem to believe. Even once though is too much. I'd hate for any kids and a coaching staff to be in that position. I don't want to see ANY player treated badly and unfairly lose his chance to play or get an education.

As I said earlier though, the problem and the solution are more complicated than it seems at first glance. There are all sorts of issues that are often at odds with each other. Consider your example, but ND doesn't sign the two extra players and they do lose the two they expected to lose. Now you only have 83. That's two kids who won't get a chance to play at ND or get an education there. And that scenario is actually the more likely of the two. I know it happens, but it's rare for most teams to make it from NSD to the start of fall practice without losing a couple of players.

The school is trying to put a good team on the field. The money generated by a successful football program funds the non-revenue programs and provides their scholarships, as well as provides a lot of funding for the school itself, not to mention the positive effect it has on the local economy. That doesn't mean I'm claiming this is all for noble purposes aside from football, but those are factors and things to consider, and part of the bigger picture the NCAA has to look at in making these rules.

Every program has its own goals and way of handling this issue. I won't claim our way is the only way, but don't want anyone else doing the same. Some schools are very strict about not signing more than they already have slots for. Some try to anticipate normal attrition and sign enough to make up for it. There are legitimate, good, valid reasons for both ways and as long as a team stays within the NCAA rules and treats its players honestly and fairly, I'm fine with how they handle the issue.

That all sounds a bit hypocritical to me. You don't have the student's best interest in mind when you "nudge" them out early. When the school puts money and it's product above the students, there's a problem.
 

irishfanjho15

Hello world
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
251
Well, I will agree with you that my attempt at intelligent rhetoric is a waste of time to a great extent, but probably not for the same reason you meant. :) As for previous probations, what does that have to do with this discussion. Nobody has argued they didn't happen. The discussion was on whether Bama's current success is due to cheating. I've asked you to provide a concrete example or even compelling evidence that it is, yet you can't. "I just know they do" isn't evidence. It's wishful thinking to explain away an unpleasant truth and a lot easier to accept than "They just have better coaches, better players, and work harder" is.

However, if you want to discuss the 3 previous probations, no problem. We had a player, who a few hours after winning the NC game in the '93 Sugar Bowl, with a few drinks in him, and with an agent enticing him by offering the player two very attractive young women for the night, verbally agreed to be represented by the agent and signed a "contract" on a cocktail napkin. The coaching staff found out eventually and tried to cover it up. Stupid decision. If they'd reported it and suspended him for a game or two, that would've been the end of it. When the NCAA found out, they hammered us and rightfully so.

The 2nd probation was because a booster offered a large amount of money to a HS coach to steer an elite prospect to us. No indication the coaching staff knew, but doesn't matter. We took our punishment as deserved and hopefully our boosters learned a lesson. There's no indication anything like that has happened since.

The most recent event came from a female track athlete noticing that the campus book store didn't check her schedule when she told them what books she needed. That led to her getting a couple of books for her boyfriend to save him some money. Over the next few years, word spread among the athletes and led to about 100 of them from 16 sports getting a few books for friends, siblings, girlfriends, etc. Eventually, a book store employee noticed that a few athletes were getting an excessive number of books and reported it to her superiors. The university reported it to the NCAA. They investigated and found no evidence the school was knowingly allowing it to happen or that any athletes were selling the books and getting any money (really no way to do so since all books received on scholarship have to be turned back in at the end of the semester), but did hit us for not having noticed the problem earlier and taking steps to prevent it. I disagreed with some of the punishment on this one. This was something that happened primarily before Saban even got to UA and was discovered early during his first season. Only 6 or 7 football players were involved and he immediately suspended them from playing. We consulted the NCAA about the length of their suspension and were advised 2 games would probably be sufficient. Saban suspended all of them for the next 4 games. Despite self-reporting the infraction, it being an infraction that didn't provide significant extra benefits or any sort of competitive advantage, and suspending the football players longer than the NCAA had even recommended, they vacated all wins from that season. I had no problem with the probation, but vacating the wins seemed unneccessary an excessive.

I didn't bring up three instances that I had no knowledge of. 1/10, did not read.
 

palinurus

New member
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
192
I'm new to the issue, but why isn't this just an "A+B and look at the facts" problem? If, say, Alabama, in fact, gets down to about 60 players under scholarship by NSD from the 85 they were at on the day of the last game of the season, that means that 25 guys were lost.

Why is it so hard to do the math?:

Made up example:

4 Jrs to the Draft
10 graduated/eligibility ended
11 -- various reasons...

And then examine the legitimacy of the "various reasons"?

Wouldn't that tell us if Saban is forcing guys out or what? And shouldn't a coach have to identify what happened to this delta between who was left on his roster on the day of his last game + the new schollies (about 110 players), on one hand, and the 85 magic number, on the other, by doing a breakdown as suggested above? It seems the crux of the problem is the reasons the coach gives for cutting the current roster number down by 25 (in my example). If they are vague and hard to prove as throat-cutting, then we are just arguing about indecipherable motives and, as LAX said, you can perhaps draw some circumstantial conclusions about certain types of actions that are genuinely disproportionate.

Another thing: I don't see the material difference between telling a kid, "Harry, you can stay here, you are on scholarship, but you have less chance of seeing the field than Big Al does." or "Harry, I'm pulling your scholarship because I'm giving it Courtney here." If Bishop is saying there is nothing wrong with the former, but there is the latter, then I disagree. I think they are essentially the same thing. And in honesty, the coach doesn't know if Harry will ever be good enough to play, but he knows d@mn well that he controls whether Harry will be given a chance to play or not. And he knows d@mn well if he'd rather have Courtney than Harry.

Not casting aspersions, just trying to understand the issue. I'll read the posted articles too.
 
Last edited:

irishfanjho15

Hello world
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
251
That all sounds a bit hypocritical to me. You don't have the student's best interest in mind when you "nudge" them out early. When the school puts money and it's product above the students, there's a problem.

Sorry BBG that's not enough. This Updyke is going to need concrete, real-life proof of your claims.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
This is what I'm talking about.



If you truly believe Saban is staying within the spirit of the rules of the NCAA you are not looking closely enough. You simply can't continually bring in 25 new recruits a year and stay at 85 without manipulating the rules and cheating players and their families. I realize he doesn't have more than 85 on scholarship but by continually bringing in classes of 25, 26, 22 and 29 in the last 4 years (yes that totals to 102) he isn't keeping with what most non $EC schools are doing. You are right, that if he signs 100 players in 4 years all 100 won't be ther all 4 years, Saban will see to it (his current roll of 102 in 4 years proves that, revisit the article above if you've already forgotten). He's a F*cking Scumbag and that's the Bottom Line.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I just believe your opinion is based on false assumptions and that you're choosing which facts to look at based on your already formed opinion, twisting or interpreting any further evidence to fit that opinion, and have become blind to anything that doesn't fit your opinion. In other words, you've made up your mind and no amount of evidence to the contrary or lack of evidence to support your position will make a bit of difference to you. That doesn't prove you're wrong, but it's a sure-fire recipe for being so when you make up your mind about something without suffcient evidence and refuse to consider any other possibilities.

As for your 102 at Bama in the last 4 years, I have no idea where you got that number. I imagine you're counting signed, not actually awarded scholarships, which means you're counting some grayshirted players more than once. You can't bring in more than 100 in 4 years and I'd be interested in hearing how you think he did that without the NCAA knowing. In the end, Bama follows the NCAA rules on roster numbers and recruiting that every other school has to follow. You may not like those rules and you may wish we'd all do it your way, but the NCAA has made those the rules for right now and we follow them.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
That all sounds a bit hypocritical to me. You don't have the student's best interest in mind when you "nudge" them out early. When the school puts money and it's product above the students, there's a problem.

Again though, WHICH students? The player who isn't going to play or the one who would, but won't get a scholarship because you continue to give it to the first player? Keep the first player and you have to deny the second one a scholarship. Keep the first player and your team isn't as successful, and you now have less money to use for golf, volleyball, or track scholarships... or the ability to donate a million dollars to your school's academic scholarship fund. I'm not advocating nudging the player out (and I believe I made that clear several posts ago). I'm just trying to point out that it's not a simple black or white issue. Just saying take care of the student is not so clear when you start asking which student, what's the school's obligation to its entire student body, to its teams, to its fans, and to its community. I don't have all the answers and don't claim I'm right about all of the opinions I have. I just know that there's a lot more to it and it's a lot more complicated than some realize.
 

irishfanjho15

Hello world
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
251
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I just believe your opinion is based on false assumptions and that you're choosing which facts to look at based on your already formed opinion, twisting or interpreting any further evidence to fit that opinion, and have become blind to anything that doesn't fit your opinion. In other words, you've made up your mind and no amount of evidence to the contrary or lack of evidence to support your position will make a bit of difference to you. That doesn't prove you're wrong, but it's a sure-fire recipe for being so when you make up your mind about something without suffcient evidence and refuse to consider any other possibilities.

As for your 102 at Bama in the last 4 years, I have no idea where you got that number. I imagine you're counting signed, not actually awarded scholarships, which means you're counting some grayshirted players more than once. You can't bring in more than 100 in 4 years and I'd be interested in hearing how you think he did that without the NCAA knowing. In the end, Bama follows the NCAA rules on roster numbers and recruiting that every other school has to follow. You may not like those rules and you may wish we'd all do it your way, but the NCAA has made those the rules for right now and we follow them.

And your assumptions have been widely based on Nick Saban saying he doesn't push kids out. Same guy who said he wasn't leaving Miami for the Bama gig. At this point I would seriously consider believing the two other serial liars in college football (Urbie and Lame Kitten) before Tricky Nicky.

We are never going to agree. I say Bama (like the rest of most of the SEC) is a dirty program because they have long been associated with violating NCAA rules and have even been sanctioned numerous times, including while Saban was the coach, and you still don't see what that has to do with Bama now or this discussion. This comes even in the face of your declaration for evidence.

On the other issue, Saban blatantly oversigning is not illegal it's just unethical, cruel, and self-serving. The day Bama goes to 4 year scholarship commitments instead of one-year mercenary contacts is the day I'll give them at least somewhat of a benefit of the doubt. But it won't happen, because then Saban will have to provide the true reasons guys go off scholarship so the next great 4* or 5* can come to Bama. He'll lose his competitive advantage and leave Bama high and dry as he scurries back to the League.


A wise man told me don't argue with fools
Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who

/drops mic walks off stage
 
Last edited:

palinurus

New member
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
192
Again though, WHICH students? The player who isn't going to play or the one who would, but won't get a scholarship because you continue to give it to the first player? Keep the first player and you have to deny the second one a scholarship. Keep the first player and your team isn't as successful, and you now have less money to use for golf, volleyball, or track scholarships... or the ability to donate a million dollars to your school's academic scholarship fund. I'm not advocating nudging the player out (and I believe I made that clear several posts ago). I'm just trying to point out that it's not a simple black or white issue. Just saying take care of the student is not so clear when you start asking which student, what's the school's obligation to its entire student body, to its teams, to its fans, and to its community. I don't have all the answers and don't claim I'm right about all of the opinions I have. I just know that there's a lot more to it and it's a lot more complicated than some realize.

See, to me, this is a false equivalence. You already have an obligation to the first kid; that may well preclude an offer to someone you like better, unless we all agree that college football ought to be a "Darwinian" process. Tying in money to be made by having a better team is just proportionalism.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
See, to me, this is a false equivalence. You already have an obligation to the first kid; that may well preclude an offer to someone you like better, unless we all agree that college football ought to be a "Darwinian" process. Tying in money to be made by having a better team is just proportionalism.

Exactly. These are STUDENT-athletes. Step away from your football factory for a second and think about what you're saying, Bishop.
 

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
Again though, WHICH students? The player who isn't going to play or the one who would, but won't get a scholarship because you continue to give it to the first player? Keep the first player and you have to deny the second one a scholarship. Keep the first player and your team isn't as successful, and you now have less money to use for golf, volleyball, or track scholarships... or the ability to donate a million dollars to your school's academic scholarship fund. I'm not advocating nudging the player out (and I believe I made that clear several posts ago). I'm just trying to point out that it's not a simple black or white issue. Just saying take care of the student is not so clear when you start asking which student, what's the school's obligation to its entire student body, to its teams, to its fans, and to its community. I don't have all the answers and don't claim I'm right about all of the opinions I have. I just know that there's a lot more to it and it's a lot more complicated than some realize.

YES IT FREAKING IS! You accuse of us of picking and choosing what facts we look at but you're just as guilty, if not more, of the same thing!

Let me explain:
1) Offer scholarship
2) Provide STUDENT-ATHLETE with the necessary tools to balance both academics and sports
3) Player graduates in 4 years.

What the hell is so hard about that? And why won't you acknowledge it?

I'll ask nicely. Please stop trolling us. Please.
 

irishfanjho15

Hello world
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
251
See, to me, this is a false equivalence. You already have an obligation to the first kid; that may well preclude an offer to someone you like better, unless we all agree that college football ought to be a "Darwinian" process. Tying in money to be made by having a better team is just proportionalism.

Exactly. It's like saying "Hunny (player on team), I know we're married, you love me, and everything, but this other woman (5* recruit) I met is better than you. Cooks dinner faster, cleans better, f*cks better, and is younger than you. Tell the kids and family (other teammates) that I'm sorry but we're getting divorced and this other woman and I are going to Vegas tomorrow."

May not be illegal, but sure doesn't make it right.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
Bishop is getting an unnecessarily rough time in this thread, IMO. The guy is not trolling even if you disagree with him.

No, I don't think he's "right" on a couple counts... but the argument has gotten wayyyyyyyyyyyy too broad for anyone to convince the other side of anything. And there is way too much rhetoric involved.

So I'd say reign it back in a little and make it more specific or you should probably drop because nothing is going to be accomplished.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
I'm new to the issue, but why isn't this just an "A+B and look at the facts" problem? If, say, Alabama, in fact, gets down to about 60 players under scholarship by NSD from the 85 they were at on the day of the last game of the season, that means that 25 guys were lost.

Why is it so hard to do the math?:

Made up example:

4 Jrs to the Draft
10 graduated/eligibility ended
11 -- various reasons...

And then examine the legitimacy of the "various reasons"?

Wouldn't that tell us if Saban is forcing guys out or what? And shouldn't a coach have to identify what happened to this delta between who was left on his roster on the day of his last game + the new schollies (about 110 players), on one hand, and the 85 magic number, on the other, by doing a breakdown as suggested above? It seems the crux of the problem is the reasons the coach gives for cutting the current roster number down by 25 (in my example). If they are vague and hard to prove as throat-cutting, then we are just arguing about indecipherable motives and, as LAX said, you can perhaps draw some circumstantial conclusions about certain types of actions that are genuinely disproportionate.

Another thing: I don't see the material difference between telling a kid, "Harry, you can stay here, you are on scholarship, but you have less chance of seeing the field than Big Al does." or "Harry, I'm pulling your scholarship because I'm giving it Courtney here." If Bishop is saying there is nothing wrong with the former, but there is the latter, then I disagree. I think they are essentially the same thing. And in honesty, the coach doesn't know if Harry will ever be good enough to play, but he knows d@mn well that he controls whether Harry will be given a chance to play or not. And he knows d@mn well if he'd rather have Courtney than Harry.

Not casting aspersions, just trying to understand the issue. I'll read the posted articles too.

I have no problem with any coach having to explain any roster reductions that aren't obvious (such as graduation, early entry to the NFL, etc.). I believe Saban has always done so with the exception of giving details about why a particular player was dropped because of academic or behavior issues. You really can't give out those details due to legal and privacy issues.

To me, what this all boils down to is that some people claim Saban has gotten rid of an excessive number of players, but when you start looking at it, the numbers are nowhere near as high as they claim, and they can't provide a single concrete example of any wrongdoing. It's just convenient to blame our success on wrongdoing without providing any evidence other than higher than average numbers. That's suggestive, but FAR from proof or even compelling.

As for the Harry/Courtney example, I don't think telling a player he isn't likely to ever see playing time but can stay on the team and pulling his scholly are the same thing at all. There are players on every team that simply don't develop enough to ever see significant playing time. To tell a kid he's unlikely to ever see the field may be hard on the his ego, but it's honest and gives him a chance to weigh his options. A lot of players at a big school may not be good enough to play at that level, but could at a smaller school. I'd rather a coach be honest with me and just let me know.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
Exactly. It's like saying "Hunny (player on team), I know we're married, you love me, and everything, but this other woman (5* recruit) I met is better than you. Cooks dinner faster, cleans better, f*cks better, and is younger than you. Tell the kids and family (other teammates) that I'm sorry but we're getting divorced and this other woman and I are going to Vegas tomorrow."

May not be illegal, but sure doesn't make it right.

And I agree. I think there's a bit of difference between the commitment you make to your spouse and the one you make to a scholarship athlete (the scholarships are afterall one year renewables), but I get your point. I've never said a school should cut the first player and give his scholarship to a more promising player. I've just said it's not a simple black & white issue.

That being said, your post reminded me of a joke: A guy tells his fiance that he can't marry her and is going to marry someone else. Tearfully she asks, "Is she more beautiful than I am?"

"No! Hon, you're the most beautiful woman I know!"

"Can she cook better than me?"

"Heck no. She can't even boil water."

"Is she better in bed than I am?"

"Not even close, babe. You're the best!"

"So what can she do that I can't?"

"Sue me for child support."
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
YES IT FREAKING IS! You accuse of us of picking and choosing what facts we look at but you're just as guilty, if not more, of the same thing!

Let me explain:
1) Offer scholarship
2) Provide STUDENT-ATHLETE with the necessary tools to balance both academics and sports
3) Player graduates in 4 years.

What the hell is so hard about that? And why won't you acknowledge it?

I'll ask nicely. Please stop trolling us. Please.

Sorry, dude. I'm not trolling you. If I was trolling you I'd be insulting ND. Instead, I'm just defending my own school from insults based on opinion instead of fact. I'm disagreeing with some of your posters and their method of making assertions with no evidence (and in the face of strong evidence against their argument).

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your opinion about a school being completely obligated to a player for four years. I think they have the right to give their scholarships to whichever players they want, and the NCAA rules allow them to do just that, but I don't really want my school or any other doing it that way. I've just pointed out that there's a lot more to it than some simplistic answer and the school has several obligations - to the player, other players, its other students, its community, and such. If it's as simple and clear as you assert, why hasn't the NCAA ruled that way? It's because they see those other issues and realize there are several factors involved. Very few things are quite as simple and black & white as you think this is.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
Bishop is getting an unnecessarily rough time in this thread, IMO. The guy is not trolling even if you disagree with him.

No, I don't think he's "right" on a couple counts... but the argument has gotten wayyyyyyyyyyyy too broad for anyone to convince the other side of anything. And there is way too much rhetoric involved.

So I'd say reign it back in a little and make it more specific or you should probably drop because nothing is going to be accomplished.

Thank you, sir. You're right. I genuinely am not trolling or trying to antagonize anyone. As for me not being right on a few points, I'd be the first to admit that I'm not always right and my wife would strongly agree! :)

I disagree with some of the posters' opinions and especially disagree with their method of forming or arguing those opinions, but I respect their right to hold them. I just got fed up with the constant "Bama is cheating" BS with nothing to back it up other than they just want it to be so. If I'd insulted ND with such I'd expect no less of a vigorous defense in reply.

On that note, you're right about dialing it back and letting it go for now. I hope all of you have a good evening and thanks for the discussions today.
 
M

Me2SouthBend

Guest
And I agree. I think there's a bit of difference between the commitment you make to your spouse and the one you make to a scholarship athlete (the scholarships are afterall one year renewables), but I get your point. I've never said a school should cut the first player and give his scholarship to a more promising player. I've just said it's not a simple black & white issue.

That being said, your post reminded me of a joke: A guy tells his fiance that he can't marry her and is going to marry someone else. Tearfully she asks, "Is she more beautiful than I am?"

"No! Hon, you're the most beautiful woman I know!"

"Can she cook better than me?"

"Heck no. She can't even boil water."

"Is she better in bed than I am?"

"Not even close, babe. You're the best!"

"So what can she do that I can't?"

"Sue me for child support."

Wait, you're telling me that they don't give 4 year scholarships? AllGaytor told me otherwise. I just don't know which $EC fan to believe. I guess I'll believe none of you. And to answer your earlier question, I used Scout for the last 4 years classes to determine the numbers committed to the cesspool that is Bama. Hope that term isn't offensive to you.
 
Last edited:

Kak7304

Well-known member
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
361
Alabama Crimson Tide Football Has Some Unhappy Castaways - WSJ.com

Former Alabama football players say the school's No. 1-ranked football program has tried to gain a competitive edge by encouraging some underperforming players to quit the team for medical reasons, even in cases where the players are still healthy enough to play.

At least 12 times since coach Nick Saban took over the program in 2007, Alabama has offered players a "medical" scholarship, according to public statements made by the team. These scholarships, which are allowed under NCAA rules, are intended to make sure scholarship athletes who are too injured to play don't lose their financial aid. A player who receives one of these scholarships is finished playing with that team.

Three Alabama players who've taken these exemptions say they believe the team uses the practice as a way to clear spots for better players by cutting players it no longer wants. These players said they believe Mr. Saban and his staff pressure some players to take these scholarships even though their injuries aren't serious enough to warrant keeping them off the field.

"I'm still kind of bitter," said former Alabama linebacker Chuck Kirschman, who took a medical scholarship last year. Mr. Kirschman said Mr. Saban encouraged him to accept the scholarship because of a back problem that he believes he could have played through. "It's a business," Mr. Kirschman said. "College football is all about politics. And this is a loophole in the system."

Alabama isn't the only school that has given players medical scholarships. Including the Crimson Tide, the 12 members of the Southeastern Conference have given at least 25 of these scholarships to football players in the past three years. Ultimately, it's the school's decision whether a player is healthy enough to play football.

In a statement, Doug Walker, the school's associate athletic director for media relations, said Alabama's first priority in these situations is always the health of its players. "Decisions about medical disqualifications for student-athletes are made by medical professionals and adhere to the parameters outlined by the NCAA…and the Southeastern Conference," he said in the statement.

The school added that the "process for medical disqualification is very similar from campus to campus across the country." Alabama said that student-athletes sign a medical-exemption certificate agreeing that they fully understand the conditions, that the diagnosis of the injury or illness clearly appears to be an incapacitating one, and that there's a "reasonable expectation" they'll never again be able to play.

An Alabama spokesman said the school won't discuss individual cases, citing health-privacy laws. Mr. Saban declined to comment.

How college-football teams manage their allotted number of players is a serious competitive issue in the sport. The 120 schools in the NCAA's Football Bowl Subdivision, the sport's highest echelon, are limited to 85 scholarship athletes each. No more than 25 new signees are allowed to join a team in the fall. Because injuries are common, teams do whatever they can to make sure those spots are filled by the best athletes.

Because some players may fail to qualify academically, some teams take on more players than they have room for, to make sure they don't get caught short. The problem for teams comes when the numbers don't work out and the team winds up needing to make cuts.

Alabama, which won the national championship last season, is off to a dominating 3-0 start this year, including a blowout win over Penn State. The Crimson Tide play at No. 10 Arkansas Saturday in the weekend's most anticipated game.

The program is one of several in the SEC that have developed reputations for pushing roster limits. Since Mr. Saban took over as coach after a stint with the NFL's Miami Dolphins, Alabama has routinely had to trim its roster ahead of the season. Placing players on medical scholarships has helped it do so.

In some cases, the players who took these scholarships say they didn't feel pressured. Charles Hoke, a former Alabama offensive lineman who took a medical scholarship in 2008 because of a shoulder problem, said the choice was left entirely up to him and was based on the many conversations he had with the team's doctors and trainers over the course of his junior year.

Others who took these scholarships say they believe the school is violating the spirit of the rule. Mr. Kirschman, the linebacker, said he injured his back in April 2008 but continued practicing with the team through the spring of 2009. That May, he was approached by coaches and trainers and asked to take a medical scholarship.

"I wasn't playing significant minutes, but I was personally upset because I did anything coach asked, I was a team player, I had a 4.0 average," said Mr. Kirschman, who played in two career games, both in 2008, and is now working full time as a robot programmer at Mercedes.

Mr. Kirschman said the school offered in the summer of 2009 to pay for his graduate degree in business—an offer he accepted—and that he still gets some of the same perks as players. "I still get game tickets, which is nice," he says.

Mr. Kirschman said the decision to take the medical scholarship was ultimately his, and that he decided to do it to open up a scholarship for the good of the team. But he said he felt he was pressured. "It was pushed," he said. "It was instigated for several players."

In August 2009, Jeramie Griffin, a redshirt sophomore running back at Alabama, tore an anterior cruciate ligament in his knee during a practice—an injury that kept him out for that season. After undergoing surgery, he said, "I came back in the spring and I was OK."

Indeed, Mr. Griffin's bio on Alabama's official athletics website said he "looked strong in 2010 spring drills, just eight months off of surgery."

Mr. Griffin said that he was surprised last month when the football staff told him he had failed a physical. At that point, Mr. Griffin said, Mr. Saban sat him down and asked him what he wanted to do besides playing football. He said that Mr. Saban floated the possibility of a medical scholarship and asked if Mr. Griffin was interested in student coaching.

Mr. Griffin said he doesn't contest the results of the physical and said it was "basically my decision" to forgo the rest of his playing career.

Mr. Griffin said he has agreed to take a job as a student coach. He added that he felt less angry about being pushed to take the medical scholarship—which frees up roster space for the team—than he did about not living up to his potential.

"I felt like I could have played," he said.

Write to Hannah Karp at hannah.karp@dowjones.com and Darren Everson at darren.everson@wsj.com

Discuss.
 
Top