Oversigning Recruits

[Kak7304]

Saban doesn't force kids into grayshirting or medical hardship waivers, but he does strongly persuade them to do so. Against NCAA rules? No. Ethical? Absolutely not.

 

[Rack Em]

Alabama Crimson Tide Football Has Some Unhappy Castaways - WSJ.com



Discuss.

I don't see any reason to discuss that. It's pretty black and white.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

The last comment I will make on this subject is this, Bishop, if you never post here again, I will not miss you. If you are, let's say "replaced" by another $EC apologist, well, I guess it will just be Darwinism on the Internet. Have a good evening.

 

[Irish To The Core]

Tell me Bishop, other than Saban's assertion that he doesn't push anyone out, what defence do you have to the accusation that Alabama oversigns players and uses a variety of shady tactics (greyshirts, medical hardships, transfers) to remove the less talented players from their scholarship list?

I have read articles citing former Alabama scholarship players who claim that they were coerced into filing for medical hardship status. I have looked at stats showing that the rate of transfers out of the Alabama football program and use of "greyshirting" are far higher than the NCAA average.

To me the evidence seems to indicate that Alabama does indeed engage in ethically questionable practices to "strip" less capable players of athletic scholarships.

I am not choosing to ignore any evidence, it is just that you have not provided any evidence at all other than assertions that this person's numbers are wrong etc. You Haven't countered with the numbers that you believe are accurate. Saban's assertion of innocence is meaningless.

 

[stlnd01]

Per ESPN Recruiting, Notre Dame has signed 89 LOIs in the last four recruiting cycles (2010-13). Alabama has signed 106.
That margin is equivalent to Notre Dame's entire 2012 recruiting class. And in each of the last four years, Alabama has signed more players than Notre Dame has signed in any of them.
Obviously, some attrition is natural, and happens everywhere. ND's 89 includes Matt James, Tee Shepard and several transfers and medical cases. I'm sure Alabama's 106 has legitimate flunk-outs, transfers and whatnot. I'm also sure they were all cleared by Compliance and are therefore not "illegal," and I'd agree that Saban runs a tight ship and does good by a lot of his players (Alabama's graduation rate, for instance, has improved dramatically in recent years).
But if that number is not indicative two programs playing by different handbooks, I don't know what is.

 

[anarin]

alot of italics missed!!!

 

[Bishop2b5]

I don't see any reason to discuss that. It's pretty black and white.

So, did any of those three players find another doctor who said they weren't too seriously injured to continue playing? No. Despite doctors telling them they were no longer physically able to continue playing, they felt they could. Not exactly a big surprise there. They're upset their dreams of being a star for a major program didn't work out and that's a hard thing to accept.

Have any of the dozen or so players Bama's put on medical scholarships ever gotten cleared by another team or doctor? No. If a few of those players had gotten cleared elsewhere, I'd be the first to admit some of the medicals might not be legit, but it hasn't happened for one good reason: they were all legitimately too injured. Maybe not in their own mind, but certainly so in the minds of every doctor who examined them. I'd bet you anything in the world that if Bama hadn't put one of those kids on medical scholarships and they had gotten seriously injured after being told they could no longer safely play, you'd be screaming bloody murder that Saban ignored the doctors and just used the kid without any concern for his welfare.

 

[Kak7304]

So, did any of those three players find another doctor who said they weren't too seriously injured to continue playing? No. Despite doctors telling them they were no longer physically able to continue playing, they felt they could. Not exactly a big surprise there. They're upset their dreams of being a star for a major program didn't work out and that's a hard thing to accept.

Have any of the dozen or so players Bama's put on medical scholarships ever gotten cleared by another team or doctor? No. If a few of those players had gotten cleared elsewhere, I'd be the first to admit some of the medicals might not be legit, but it hasn't happened for one good reason: they were all legitimately too injured. Maybe not in their own mind, but certainly so in the minds of every doctor who examined them. I'd bet you anything in the world that if Bama hadn't put one of those kids on medical scholarships and they had gotten seriously injured after being told they could no longer safely play, you'd be screaming bloody murder that Saban ignored the doctors and just used the kid without any concern for his welfare.

It's quite the coincidence that only guys way down on the depth chart get medical waivers.

 

[irishfanjho15]

It's quite the coincidence that only guys way down on the depth chart get medical waivers.

On the nose, Kak, on the nose. But that won't be enough evidence for Harvey "the bishop" Updyke.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Tell me Bishop, other than Saban's assertion that he doesn't push anyone out, what defence do you have to the accusation that Alabama oversigns players and uses a variety of shady tactics (greyshirts, medical hardships, transfers) to remove the less talented players from their scholarship list?

I have read articles citing former Alabama scholarship players who claim that they were coerced into filing for medical hardship status. I have looked at stats showing that the rate of transfers out of the Alabama football program and use of "greyshirting" are far higher than the NCAA average.

To me the evidence seems to indicate that Alabama does indeed engage in ethically questionable practices to "strip" less capable players of athletic scholarships.

I am not choosing to ignore any evidence, it is just that you have not provided any evidence at all other than assertions that this person's numbers are wrong etc. You Haven't countered with the numbers that you believe are accurate. Saban's assertion of innocence is meaningless.

I don't have any proof he doesn't do any or all those things. My assertion is that there are equally or even more likely explanations, such as all the medical hardships were legit and players who left were sent packing for academics or behavior, or left for playing time elsewhere. I don't think you can prove it either way, but if all or even some of the accusations were true, wouldn't you expect to later see some of those medicals get cleared by another doctor, or players who'd transferred claiming they'd been cut for no reason?

It seems to me that most of this stems from people who are just tired of seeing Saban and Bama win and prefer to attribute that success to cheating. There are a few here who've done nothing but spew accusations and hatred, but can't actually come up with the slightest evidence to back it up, other than the number of transfers and medicals are high. That's far from compelling, let alone proof.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Per ESPN Recruiting, Notre Dame has signed 89 LOIs in the last four recruiting cycles (2010-13). Alabama has signed 106.
That margin is equivalent to Notre Dame's entire 2012 recruiting class. And in each of the last four years, Alabama has signed more players than Notre Dame has signed in any of them.
Obviously, some attrition is natural, and happens everywhere. ND's 89 includes Matt James, Tee Shepard and several transfers and medical cases. I'm sure Alabama's 106 has legitimate flunk-outs, transfers and whatnot. I'm also sure they were all cleared by Compliance and are therefore not "illegal," and I'd agree that Saban runs a tight ship and does good by a lot of his players (Alabama's graduation rate, for instance, has improved dramatically in recent years).
But if that number is not indicative two programs playing by different handbooks, I don't know what is.

And I agree we're probably playing by a somewhat different set of rules, but we're following the NCAA rules to the letter. If your school chooses to voluntarily follow a more restrictive set of rules than required, why complain then about the disparity in results or accuse those who are following the NCAA rules but not yours of cheating? You chose to go that route and there may be some fine reasons for doing so, but nobody else is obligated to abide by your rules, and if they don't, what right do you have to then complain that they don't?

 

[PraetorianND]

And I agree we're probably playing by a somewhat different set of rules, but we're following the NCAA rules to the letter. If your school chooses to voluntarily follow a more restrictive set of rules than required, why complain then about the disparity in results or accuse those who are following the NCAA rules but not yours of cheating? You chose to go that route and there may be some fine reasons for doing so, but nobody else is obligated to abide by your rules, and if they don't, what right do you have to then complain that they don't?

I complain because I think it's unethical. No doubt they are following the rules but what they're doing is not right by most peoples' standards.

If you can't agree that it's unethical then the debate is and will always be at an impasse.

Also, if you can't separate at will employment from what a student athlete should be then the impasse grows even more impassable.

Lastly, continuously defending the practice is not going to help you convince anyone on these boards that it is ethical. Feel free to try but it's not going to work. Most college football fans outside of Bama fans think Saban is one of the sleaziest coaches in the country for over signing, grey shirting, and pulling scholarships (for whatever reason that he or the fan base thinks are justifiable).

As a lawyer I agree that by the letter of the rules Bama is fine (hence why they're not getting slammed by the NCAA). However, just because it isn't against the rules doesn't make it wrong.

 

[yankeeND]

I don't even give a **** about this. I don't care what Bama does or LSU does, I'm more anxious to see what Vanderdoes! There are many things that we need to do to improve but we are getting stud kids that want to be here. We have a great coaching staff and a great conditioning program that needs a few tweaks. That will be done and we will see Bama again. Word to yo mother.

 

[Kak7304]

I don't even give a **** about this. I don't care what Bama does or LSU does, I'm more anxious to see what Vanderdoes! There are many things that we need to do to improve but we are getting stud kids that want to be here. We have a great coaching staff and a great conditioning program that needs a few tweaks. That will be done and we will see Bama again. Word to yo mother.

Terrible. I'm ashamed this made me laugh.

 

[yankeeND]

Terrible. I'm ashamed this made me laugh.

And you know what? You should be!

 

[Bishop2b5]

On the nose, Kak, on the nose. But that won't be enough evidence for Harvey "the bishop" Updyke.

When you can't argue your point with reason and facts, resorting to attempted insults or name calling is tantamount to admitting defeat. You're not hurting my feelings by calling me Updyke. You're simply proving my point that you've lost the battle of ideas.

 

[irishtrain]

It's a huge problem Tate. The SEC is notorious for it. Alabama (obviously) is the worst...they find ways to get rid of players so the next batch can come in. But nobody says boo about it to them, and Saban completely gets away with it.

The surprise team team was my favorite local team, UCLA. #4? Wow, SlickRick, I've been backing you up, trying to buy you time, but that's not cool...

On signing day he was complaining to CBS about not being able to perform this magic act. I have noooooooooooooo respect for this guy. Embrace the pain and as my fellow IrishEnvy men have said we will see this guy again down the road.

 

[PraetorianND]

I think you're totally misunderstanding my position, though I've stated it clearly many times. I am not condoning unethical behavior, nor am I in favor of treating athletes as at will employees or defending the practice. I've stated over and over that while it is within the rules and I can see how it might even be right in the big picture, I don't condone it and wouldn't want my school or any other to do it. I've just said it's within the rules and a much more complex matter than some seem to understand.

My argument today has been that despite many of your fans accusing Saban and Bama of doing exactly that, there's no evidence that they do, other than some higher than normal rates of transfers and medical scholarships. That isn't even close to compelling evidence especially in light of the fact that none of the transfers have claimed they were forced out and none of the medical hardships have ever shown a shred of evidence that their injuries weren't in fact legitimately career ending. You have a player saying he didn't want to take a medical and felt he could still play. Guess what? Almost every player in that situation thinks he can still play. That's why they let a doctor make that decision, not the player. If Saban was doing all that, there'd be a slew of former players dishing dirt or waiving medical documents showing their injuries weren't severe and they were forced to take a medical without sufficient grounds. Instead, the vast majority of his former players rave about how he treated them, how upfront and honest he was with them, and the positive effect he had on their lives.

I don't think the man's perfect, nor am I naive enough to believe my university has never done anything wrong (and I'd hope nobody else is naive enough to believe that about their school or coach), but there's simply no substantial evidence they're doing the things a few of your fans seem to determined to believe of them. If they were, there would be no problem finding clear evidence or concrete examples.

You have some fans who have made up their minds and no amount of evidence or lack thereof will convince them otherwise. That's why I firmly believe that they hold onto those beliefs so doggedly despite the lack of evidence because they want or need it to be true, not because the facts say it's true. They're so emotionally invested in the idea that Bama's success is due cheating that they've become deaf and blind to any and all evidence to the contrary or lack of any compelling evidence that it's actually true. They're mad as hell at me because I've pointed that out all day and challenged them to provide a shred of credible evidence or concrete examples, and none of them have been able to. They've been reduced to name calling and personal insults, which I've thoroughly enjoyed, as it's a dead giveaway that they have nothing else and know it.

You were arguing since this thread existed that if a kid simply isn't good enough you don't have a problem with pulling his scholly and giving it to someone better. Do you not think this practice is unacceptable or am I missing something?

If you think it's ok then we will philosophically disagree with everything else around this discussion.

 

[Irish To The Core]

I don't have any proof he doesn't do any or all those things. My assertion is that there are equally or even more likely explanations, such as all the medical hardships were legit and players who left were sent packing for academics or behavior, or left for playing time elsewhere. I don't think you can prove it either way, but if all or even some of the accusations were true, wouldn't you expect to later see some of those medicals get cleared by another doctor, or players who'd transferred claiming they'd been cut for no reason?

It seems to me that most of this stems from people who are just tired of seeing Saban and Bama win and prefer to attribute that success to cheating. There are a few here who've done nothing but spew accusations and hatred, but can't actually come up with the slightest evidence to back it up, other than the number of transfers and medicals are high. That's far from compelling, let alone proof.

Why have I never read about medical hardships at Notre Dame kicking up a fuss this way? Why would a player whose physical condition truly precluded his playing complain about keeping his university scholarship?

And no...once a player has signed his name to the application for medical hardship application and had it approved by the NCAA I would not expect them to get another doctor's dianosis...it is then too late.

I know this is just "doing business" in the SEC, but it is, in my opinion unethical. It is just sad that institutions of higher learing would stoop to this level (and much lower) in order to win football games.

 

[irishog77]

Bishop, you're sounding like the 1 guy out there who believed Lance Armstrong, dominating a sport that we learned was literally full of dopers, was able to beat them all, for SEVEN YEARS...clean.

Just because I never had any hard evidence in front of me that Armstrong doped, there are these things out there called common sense and reasoning, I was 99.99999999999% sure he doped.

Oh, and it turns out, years later, that Armstrong CHEATED. I get what you're saying in your argument, but honestly, reading objectively, you seem like you've got your head stuck in the sand on this issue. Life, and all that it entails, is very much black and white the majority of the time. I mean come on, do you really need a smoking gun and a personal eyewitness account to believe every thing in life??

 

[irishtrain]

There is no question this guy is a great coach-as there are many. My problem is the culture he is provided with thru his institution and the entire sec allows this. If Notre Dame did this it would be headline news on all sports media outlets. But in his culture it is allowed and even taken for granted. What am I missing here. Do you not think that there are other coaches in college football that could take these tremendous singing classes and win like he has. The rub is most schools would say hey coach what the $#@^ is going on here. The culture allows this guy to basically do whatever he wants as long as it isnt DIRECT cheating in regards to NCAA rules. These guys are not college football players they are pros. They take one or two guys that do well in the classroom and throw it in your face as if everyone there was a Barrett Jones. I really grow tired of the fanbase and the Finebaums of the world telling me what a great shaper of young men this guy is. He is a fine coach who wins because he can take better advantage of the benefits his university and conference allows him to perform under. Argue till the icecaps melt but in my book I have no respect for the guy. The real problem is the NCAA needs to grow a pair and recognize what the ^%$# is going on. I love the phrase 'doing business in the sec'- sounds like Blazing Saddles and 'boys we got to protect our phoney baloney business here'. 'Doing business sec style' needs to be in the dictionary under 'deceit to gain advantage'.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Why have I never read about medical hardships at Notre Dame kicking up a fuss this way? Why would a player whose physical condition truly precluded his playing complain about keeping his university scholarship?

And no...once a player has signed his name to the application for medical hardship application and had it approved by the NCAA I would not expect them to get another doctor's dianosis...it is then too late.

I know this is just "doing business" in the SEC, but it is, in my opinion unethical. It is just sad that institutions of higher learing would stoop to this level (and much lower) in order to win football games.

If Saban is forcing kids to take medical hardships just to make room on his roster when they truly aren't injured to a degree that indicates they no longer should play, then I'd find that very unethical and gladly agree with you. The problem is that other than a higher than expected number of medical hardships, there's not any evidence that's happened. You have a dozen or so medical hardships, yet none of them have presented the slightest bit of evidence their diagnosis of being too injured to continue playing was anything other than totally accurate and legit.

If you were on a team and told you could no longer play due to injury, but thought that was bogus, wouldn't you get a second opinion from other doctors? If you really thought you could still play, wouldn't you see another doctor, get cleared, and then transfer to another school? Even if you took the hardship and later decided you had been pushed out instead of truly having a career ending injury, it would be easy to prove that by simply getting another doctor to confirm your injuries weren't career ending. You could then petition the NCAA to vacate your medical hardship due to you being lied to about the extent of your injuries and having accepted it under false pretenses and duress, and the school would be in all sorts of hot water for such shenanigans.

That's the reason I don't believe Saban's misused medical hardships to manage his roster numbers. Those players couldn't find another doctor who said their injuries weren't truly career ending. They were unable to get another team's physician to clear them so that they could transfer and keep playing instead of taking the medical hardship. That's strong evidence that all the medical hardship cases were totally legit despite there being a higher number of them than expected. Find me a case of a player he put on medical hardhip who doctors say wasn't really injured enough to stop playing, and I'll gladly condemn Saban for unethical behavior, but there isn't such a case.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bishop, you're sounding like the 1 guy out there who believed Lance Armstrong, dominating a sport that we learned was literally full of dopers, was able to beat them all, for SEVEN YEARS...clean.

Just because I never had any hard evidence in front of me that Armstrong doped, there are these things out there called common sense and reasoning, I was 99.99999999999% sure he doped.

Oh, and it turns out, years later, that Armstrong CHEATED. I get what you're saying in your argument, but honestly, reading objectively, you seem like you've got your head stuck in the sand on this issue. Life, and all that it entails, is very much black and white the majority of the time. I mean come on, do you really need a smoking gun and a personal eyewitness account to believe every thing in life??

I definitely don't want to blindly believe in anyone or anything when there's compelling evidence I shouldn't. The problem here is that there's a lot of speculation and accusation, yet no concrete or even compelling evidence, and there's a lot of evidence Saban and Bama aren't doing things the wrong way. "They're cheating! I just know it!" is only convincing if you want or need to believe it, and there's a strong tendency among all of us as humans to then choose or interpret the facts to fit what we already believe. I think there are psychological reasons some people do need to explain Bama's success away as cheating.


OTOH, I'm quite aware that I'm not immune to human nature either and have a normal human tendency to not want to see the flaws in anyone or anything I'm emotionally invested in. I do my best to be totally honest with myself, objective, and not allow it to cloud my judgement, but I know I'm not perfect in that regard.

I can't prove Bama and Saban don't cheat. I don't believe any of you who think otherwise can prove they do. I hope they don't and believe they don't, but I believe that if compelling evidence they do was presented to me, I'd be objective enough to say, "OK. I was wrong." Right now, I don't see anything approaching that though. Saying "I know they cheat" or "How else can they be getting all those players?" or "Look at how many medical hardships they've given" is a far cry from showing any actual evidence or concrete examples. Whether this is me being blind or your side just wanting it to be true, time will tell.

 

[vmgsf]

Bishop2b5 are you a well-paid lawyer hired by Alabama or one of its wealthy boosters to make sophisticated but totally specious arguments that Alabama is pure as the driven snow? Who are you? Why are you here? Do you get paid by the post? Why all the lengthy posts? Are you being paid by the number of words in the post?

Your presence here and the more you post makes me believe that Alabama is even more corrupt than I thought it was. An SEC football factory now hiring and paying cunning individuals to infiltrate internet message boards to try to make it seem like Alabama is not a win at all costs SEC football factory?

Your presence here (246 posts since December 2012 with your mocking and hypocritical self proclaimed "Hates Oversigning" ) has backfired as far as I am concerned.

Nick Saban - who failed in the NFL on a level playing field - his stock, rehearsed and instructed by his lawyers reply - when questioned about his unethical, amoral, scumbag practices and policies "it is not illegal." "It is not illegal." A great legacy for a college coach of "student-athletes." "I did not do anything illegal."

I do not believe any of the hypocritcal crap you are trying to peddle here. The more you post the less I believe. Why are you spending all this time here? Why are you here? Why are you here? Do you think you have convinced anyone here?

Keep posting. The more you post the less I believe you and the more I believe that Alabama is an SEC football factory run by Nick Saban with a university attached to it as an accessory, or an app or an add-on.

 

[stlnd01]

And I agree we're probably playing by a somewhat different set of rules, but we're following the NCAA rules to the letter. If your school chooses to voluntarily follow a more restrictive set of rules than required, why complain then about the disparity in results or accuse those who are following the NCAA rules but not yours of cheating? You chose to go that route and there may be some fine reasons for doing so, but nobody else is obligated to abide by your rules, and if they don't, what right do you have to then complain that they don't?

Because it's not one school "choosing to voluntarily follow a more restrictive set of rules." It's one conference finding a loophole in the rules and exploiting it.

I just ran the same numbers for several other big time non-SEC programs. Over the last 4 years, none took more than 100 LOIs.
Ohio State: 91
Michigan: 97
FSU: 95
Okla.: 99
Tex: 90
Oregon: 86
Stanford: 75 (which makes their record over that time even more impressive)

Then I ran some more SEC schools. All but one had at least 100 LOIs over four years:
LSU: 101
Georgia: 97
S. Car: 103
Ole Miss: 101
Ark: 105
Aub: 104

Now, did those SEC schools send more kids early to the NFL and open up more slots that way? Probably. Is a kid more likely to flunk out of Arkansas than Stanford, and need to be replaced? Perhaps. But at some level the SEC just playing the roster management game differently than everyone else. And it's no wonder they had, what, 11 of the top 25 classes on Wednesday?

I guess you can argue that the rest of college football should follow them down that ethically murky road if you want. But maybe it's the SEC that should be held to the same higher standard that the rest of football is following, regardless of the "letter" of NCAA regulations.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

Bishop, you're sounding like the 1 guy out there who believed Lance Armstrong, dominating a sport that we learned was literally full of dopers, was able to beat them all, for SEVEN YEARS...clean.

Just because I never had any hard evidence in front of me that Armstrong doped, there are these things out there called common sense and reasoning, I was 99.99999999999% sure he doped.

Oh, and it turns out, years later, that Armstrong CHEATED. I get what you're saying in your argument, but honestly, reading objectively, you seem like you've got your head stuck in the sand on this issue. Life, and all that it entails, is very much black and white the majority of the time. I mean come on, do you really need a smoking gun and a personal eyewitness account to believe every thing in life??

Saban, Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and Brady Anderson have never cheated. I mean they've never been caught so obviously they've never cheated.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.

. . .

Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.

The entire SEC confrerence is a framework for the execution of plausible deniability in college football cheating, (recruiting and more), to cover coaches, recruits and institutions. I hope I could be of help.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bishop2b5 are you a well-paid lawyer hired by Alabama or one of its wealthy boosters to make sophisticated but totally specious arguments that Alabama is pure as the driven snow? Who are you? Why are you here? Do you get paid by the post? Why all the lengthy posts? Are you being paid by the number of words in the post?

Your presence here and the more you post makes me believe that Alabama is even more corrupt than I thought it was. An SEC football factory now hiring and paying cunning individuals to infiltrate internet message boards to try to make it seem like Alabama is not a win at all costs SEC football factory?

Your presence here (246 posts since December 2012 with your mocking and hypocritical self proclaimed "Hates Oversigning" ) has backfired as far as I am concerned.

Nick Saban - who failed in the NFL on a level playing field - his stock, rehearsed and instructed by his lawyers reply - when questioned about his unethical, amoral, scumbag practices and policies "it is not illegal." "It is not illegal." A great legacy for a college coach of "student-athletes." "I did not do anything illegal."

I do not believe any of the hypocritcal crap you are trying to peddle here. The more you post the less I believe. Why are you spending all this time here? Why are you here? Why are you here? Do you think you have convinced anyone here?

Keep posting. The more you post the less I believe you and the more I believe that Alabama is an SEC football factory run by Nick Saban with a university attached to it as an accessory, or an app or an add-on.

LOL! No, I'm not hired by the university nor by anyone else to defend Bama. It's much simpler than that. I'm just a fan who got tired of people constantly insulting my school with little or no evidence to back up their claims. I challenged them to provide any actual evidence or concrete examples and they couldn't. I offered valid and logical reasons why their assumptions were very unlikely to be true. They got mad when their opinion was challenged and they were unable to come up with anything more than "But we know it must be true" and personal attacks ("You went to a third rate school" or "You're an Updyke" or "Your region can't read and write because you're obsessed with football" lol), which is a dead giveaway they'd lost the battle of ideas and had nothing else to fall back on.

Believe it or not, I'm actually a very nice, decent guy who tries to be honest and fair with everyone. Notice that in yesterday's debates my responses to those who were civil and tried to discuss things reasonably were always civil, polite, and reasonable. I never insulted ND in any way at all (I have great respect and admiration for ND and no need to stoop to that level). Those who chose to be pompous, insulting, uncivil, and resorted to personal attacks when they couldn't back up their claims and had their opnions challenged were another story, though. I do not suffer fools kindly and I have little tolerance for those who spin and twist the facts to try and make them fit a conclusion.

As for the Hates Oversigning tagline, I didn't do that. I assume a mod added that as a little joke.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.

 

[PraetorianND]

Early in the thread I was somewhat supportive of it, though not nearly as strongly as my argument seemed to indicate. As the discussion went on, my opinion changed to a certain degree. I said that a school has the right to do so per NCAA rules and that I could make a case that it was the right thing in some ways (basically that a school has an obligation to give its scholarships to the most deserving recipients and that letting one player keep a scholarship deprived a possibly more deserving player from getting it), but I also made it very clear I would feel bad for any kid that happened to, wouldn't do it myself except as a last resort, and wouldn't want my school or any other to do it.

So no, I don't think it's OK. I just see both sides of it and some valid reasons from both sides, and think there's more to it than most realize.

Well I'm happy that you aren't as supportive of it as you made out to be earlier.

Here's my biggest problem with cutting kids for lack of talent (everything else aside), these kids get punished when/if they transfer. If they didn't have to sit out a year to play somewhere else I would be less infuriated by it. It's still awful because imagine if this kid was a first generation college student and had dreams of graduating from the University of Alabama or Notre Dame or wherever, now he has to find another school that may or may not be as good academically and hope to get a scholarship, hope to play (after he sits out a year), and hope to graduate. The kid made a commitment to the school that includes a penalty for transferring. If that scholarship couldn't be used for a year or something (because the kid can't play for a year) then I might be ok with that (BIG might).

Also, there is a HUGE academic implication that you're forgetting about if the kid transfers, not all college credit transfers. This kid could be significantly set back on his goal of graduation if he has to transfer. Not to mention, if the major he was in is only offered at the school he chose, then he's really screwed.

I guess what I'm saying is that the student/athlete takes on WAAAAAAY more risk than the coaching staff or university by picking a certain school. The risk is everywhere from financial to academic to emotional. If it were as simply as, hey you're cut, go play somewhere else, then ya it wouldn't be such a big deal. But it's not that simple at all.

 

[chubler]

I dont think this discussion is going anywhere fast. It seems to me that the general consensus on this board (and I'd suspect among ND fans across the world) is that the first priority is to do right by (educated and prepare for a successful life) every young man who agrees to attend the University of Notre Dame by signing an LOI, and winning football is second to that priority.

My impression so far is that Bishop is of the opinion that although a few young men MIGHT get shafted in the process, the negatives for those young men are outweighed by the resulting positives for the University of Alabama and its fans, community, and state.

Bishop, I think our question for you is this (brace yourself gonna be a long one):

Notre Dame attempts to hold itself to a very high standard academically and ethically. As far as recruiting goes, that means that Brian Kelly can't sign a recruit, no matter how talented, unless the admissions office decides that in their independent judgement, that player will be able to handle the pressure/rigors of Notre Dame academically, socially, and spiritually and graduate in a standard four-year timeframe, taking into account the added pressure and added support systems that go along with being a member of the football team at ND. That also means that once a recruit is promised a spot (even verbally), he will not be pushed out to allow a more highly rated player to take his place. Once he accepts the offer, ND will follow through on its end of the agreement, leading to ND not carrying a full 85 scholarship athletes ever in the past 3 or 4 years. (It's important to note that ND considers any scholarship offer to be a 4-year commitment to that individual)

Alabama, like any big-time football school not called Notre Dame, has a different set of pressures: Academics are generally less rigorous, there are no parietals and dorms can be mixed-gender (which may or may not be a good thing for a specific student athlete), etc. You would know more about that than me. However, due to less stringent academic standards, Saban can accept a verbal or an LOI that Kelly never could, from players who in some cases have no business being accepted to an institution of higher education, despite their athletic excellence. He can also accept commitments (make agreements) and then back out on them in order to take another commitment (make a new agreement) which will be more advantageous to the University of Alabama. He can also offer a recruit a 'greyshirt', which you, I, and Nick Saban all know the player is statistically not likely to turn into a scholarship, in order to entice a player to join his team. Among the other examples that have been rehashed over and over in this thread, he can also end the agreement between the school and the player, although I think most reasonable people would agree that recruits assume they will receive a scholarship for 4 years, regardless of how many times they are informed otherwise.

So, regardless of Nick Saban and Alabama's complete innocence by legal and NCAA standards (following the letter of the law, as some have stated), do you think that there is an ethical or moral difference in the way the two schools run their football programs? Is one program conducting itself in a way that is morally superior to the other, or are they different but no better than the other?