If you wandered over to the various recruiting sites on signing day you probably noticed big banners proclaiming Alabama's return to power via the nation's top recruiting class. This is due in large part to the enormous number of recruits that put pen to letter of intent for Nick Saban: 32, a full seven more than the NCAA's yearly limit of 25. Only Miami managed to stretch the boundaries of the rule further, signing 33. Both classes are top five but in are overrated by sheer quantity. Alabama's #1 class is actually #6 by star average; Miami's #4 class is 14th by that metric. Both contain large numbers of players with no chance to qualify this fall; it's all smoke and mirrors.
That's irritating, but Tim Gayle's piece on the massive 'Bama oversigning is disturbing. Gayle crunches the numbers and comes to these conclusions:
- Four to six guys are not going to qualify.
- Four more guys who are marginally useful can plausibly be given medical scholarships and removed from the team.
- Six more scholarships need to be forcibly extracted from somewhere.
Some might argue that no one's really hurt by the practice of oversigning, but this shocking assertion from Bruce Feldman's latest post($) argues otherwise?
One administrator I spoke with said schools also can make it so some player doesn't qualify if they don't need him to, which may sound surprising, but it probably shouldn't at this point.Jesus. That's truly filthy. When this happens a kid who manages to get qualified is shuffled off to a JUCO or prep school because there's not enough room for him. The school who signed him to a letter of intent is screwing him out of a chance to play at an actual D-I school for purely selfish motives.
The NCAA really has to do something about this. Feldman makes a point that the new APR restrictions do impose a cost upon teams that cycle through players willy-nilly, but your APR isn't affected when a kid who signed a LOI with your team doesn't qualify.
The 25-kid limit is a great idea that hurts schools who experience extreme attrition, but it's a paper tiger. Anyone who comes in for the winter semester, either via grayshirt or early enrollment, can count against either class. It's time to stop that and count kids against the class their high school teammates are in. And it's time to limit the number of LOIs schools can accept, and do away with these fictional classes of 30+ that do nothing but prop up egos and damage the careers of kids at the bottom of them.
Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Seems that "coach" has committed fraud by selling more than he has in stock. He took away their ability to sign with a legitimate program where the intentions are pure. Clearly, according to this article, his intentions are to be sure 6-12 do not make it. Where's the Bear in all of this?
Hold on now, isn't there some responsibility on the player to know if 1) he qualifies to be enrolled and 2)where he factors into the class such as depth chart etc?
Don't get me wrong, Saban is setting up some of these kids but the kids have to have some responsibility too.
First of all, Brian, over-signing is a fact of life. It happens every year by every team that can, and it comes down to statistics: some of these players just are not going to qualify. Auburn executed it perfectly last year and over-signed but ended up qualifying exactly as many as they needed.
As for this "star average" metric... you seriously don't think that has any merit, do you? A school gets exactly one recruit to sign, but he's a five star, so they must have the best class in the country? I'm sure in four years when they have players playing both ways they'll be doing really, really well.
You know better, Brian. I'm not sure what you have against Saban, especially given the similarities between him and your new head coach (key difference: Saban didn't try to weasel out of the early termination clauses in his contract.), but this post is embarrassingly naive.
I've been reading Fanhouse for a while, and it seems like Brian Cook's writing has gotten ridiculously slanted against the SEC over the past six months. Although he's always provided a slanted perspective (due no doubt to his ties to UM), I really think the quality of his writing has been effected now.
His recent articles make scathing claims about the SEC in the title and first paragraph, but there usually isn't anything unique to teams in the SEC. I'm sorry UM hired a coach marred in scandal, but nobody is fooled by you trying to stir up shit about the SEC to cover this up
All of you Bama haters need to back off this issue. Worry about your own program. Without going into specifics about who has already agreed to pay their own way (state tuition in Alabama is extremely cheap) or attend Bama on another type of scholarship (which would make said player a walk-on, no limit to those) Saban has a plan that is perfectly legal. Don't you dumbasses think he has it covered? He has done nothing wrong. Bama has done nothing wrong. Piss off! Stop speculating about what you don't know and trust that Nick Saban is managing HIS team legally and fairly.
It is the responsibility of the kid to know whether he qualifies. As far as I can tell that's the really scummy part of what's alleged here. The school tells a kid that he can qualify, and then, when they don't need him, they change the rules so he doesn't qualify.
Otherwise, caveat signer. But notice that coaches specialize in telling seventeen year olds what they to hear. So if a kid winds up buried in the depth chart (or shunted off to a JUCO), it's on him, but it's also on the system.
Rich Rodriguez (or Saban) is forty-four and knows the system he's lived in for all his adult life. The kid he's recruiting is seventeen/eighteen and has been a seriously better athlete than everyone around him all his life. Who bears the bulk of the responsibility in this situation? The adult or the kid.
As a UM grad, I was pleased that the worst UM football team since the mid-eighties beat Florida this year to further pad its record against SEC teams, and I'm really pleased to note that UM is one of the two best public university in academics. But I don't pretend that any university engaged in big time college sports isn't a part of a corrupt system that exploits teenagers to make adults millions of dollars.
Good on you, Brian.
Tisk, tisk. I believe you do protest too much and for illogical reasons.
Fact: Division I football scholarships are rewenable on a yearly basis. The fact that you had one this year does not automatically guarantee one for next year. Same for academic scholarships. If you can't meet the requirements that each type of scholarship entails, then you risk losing your ride. These players can either attempt to walk-on and earn their scholarship back, or pay their own way.
Was it unfair that I came form a lower class background and ended up having to join the Army to fully remove myself from a bad situation? Perhaps, but then again I could have been born into a much better or far worse situation. Life is neither fair nor unfair. It just Is.
It's "affected", Patrick, not "effected". And you should take Brian's point in context. Out of the six BCS conferences, the SEC is the worst when it comes to oversigning and attrition to account for oversigning. Brian and Orson (EDSBS) did the research a while back:
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2007/02/23/coming-or-going-southeastish/
http://mgoblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/coming-or-going-westnorth-ish.html
You'll note that Orson's the one who looked at the SEC and found that the SEC is the worst offender. And you're right, oversigning/attrition isn't unique to the SEC. The Big 12's not so great, and neither is the Big East. And Oregon State's sketchy as all get out. But Alabama's far from clean, as is the rest of the SEC (save Vandy).
Pete - just because "over-signing is a fact of life" doesn't mean it's a good thing, or immune from criticism. And, by the way, saying "some of these players just are not going to qualify" is the same as saying "some schools have less-than-the-minimal-standards for recruiting" and should be criticized for chasing recruits who can't qualify. That the SEC seems to do it more than other conferences is something that deserves to be pointed out, highlighted, and criticized.
Firstly, the whole premise of this article is incorrect. What makes you think that a team with 25 available scholarships oversigns anymore players than a team with 15 available scholarships? I know for a fact that USC and OSU dont intend for 19 players to show up in the fall. Therefore, arent they as guilty as Saban is in this case?
Pete, are you a moron or are you just stupid? there isn't a single class in that metric that has less than 15 players. If you get 15 5-star players and no one else, you're doing better than a team with 30 3-star players or 20 4-stars
bamagrad: "Division I football scholarships are rewenable on a yearly basis. The fact that you had one this year does not automatically guarantee one for next year."
Yeah, that's the attitude prevalent in the SEC that isn't as prevalent in the rest of the country and that deserves criticism. In other places - whose treatment of these guys is better than in the SEC - recruitment of a young man means that you keep him on scholarship for at least four years unless you have to medical scholarship him (Prothro, for example).
James: "What makes you think that a team with 25 available scholarships oversigns anymore players than a team with 15 available scholarships? I know for a fact that USC and OSU dont intend for 19 players to show up in the fall. Therefore, arent they as guilty as Saban is in this case?"
How do you know for a fact that USC and OSU don't intend for all of the players they've inked to LOI's to show up in the fall? Care to back that up? Also, the post's premise is not incorrect, because Nick Saban got 32 LOIs. That's seven over the maximum. Seven. You asserting that USC and OSU intend for seven of the guys they've signed not to show up? If not, then even assuming you're correct that they're playing the over, they're not nearly as bad as Saban.
So, Brian, the topic of your article is oversigning. In your first paragraph, you state that Miami is the most guilty of this "offense", yet you don't even mention the practices of Randy Shannon.
Your focus on Saban reveals how threatened you are....you and all the other haters out there with unwarranted attacks on Nick and Bama. You can at least mask your fear by bringing up other and more relevant coaches/schools.
Miami's class does not contain "large numbers of players with no chance to qualify this fall"
Miami ended up enrolling 9 kids in the spring semester, many of whom will count against the previous class (which only featured 18 signees). So, at most Miami stands to lose 2-3 players to qualification issues.
Man, let a conference dominate college football for a few years and watch all the jealous "little brothers" show up to bitch and moan about why the big "bully" doesn't play fair!! You guys are pathetic! How many kids are recruited from up north to SEC schools and how many northern schools recuit kids from southeastern states. Hell, there are more kids from Fla. alone recruited by northern schools than ALL SEC schools recruit kids from up north. Why is the SEC better? You figure it out...geniuses.
So let me get this straight........Saban is the snake oil salesman, even though you point out Miami signed 1 more player than Alabama??!! Where is Randy Shannons name in your article??? Oh wait, nm, Randy Shannon isn't in the SEC is he, so that makes it ok.
Did you happen to point out the God of all college coaches, Bobby Bowden signed 30 this year??? **gasp**...Bobby Bowden is a snake oil salesman!!!!
What a douchebag you are...You obviously have a personal agenda to push and lay out nothing but a useless bunch of BS. In addition if you did any research you would find out sheer number have zero to do with recruiting "ratings" you refer to. It is a formula based on the top 20 signees for any institution. Maybe next timne you have some clue waht you are talking about brfore you go spouting off your anti-SEC and Saban agenda. You are pathetic
If you (the writer) knew your facts you would know that rating services only use the top 25 recruits in their team rankings.
Fact: 2 of the recruits graduated early from HS and are enrolled at UA now. They counted against last the 2007 class. Of the 5 remaining 2 will be grayshirted to count against 2009. Expect 2 to come in on a Bryant scholarship available through the Bear Bryant Foundation for kids of former players (many kids have been educated on a Bryant scholarship, including non athletes, male and female, and the son of TCU player Kent Waldrop who broke his neck against Bama in 1970's). The 1-2 may not qualify. These recruits have exceptionally high grades -- check the record. Most are from private schools. The football team had the highest cumulative GPA this year ever - thanks to Saban's emphasis on academics. Shula had a dismal record on academics -- and check out Shula's non qualifiers.
It's obvious you don't know how Rivals conducts their rankings. They only take into account the top 20 recruits in their rankings. In fact, oversigning actually hurt Alabama in overall points, so your point is null. Nice try though.
You've got a lot of nerve talking about another school's coach being a snake oil saleman when you've got coach rod coaching your team. I'm amazed he found time to recruit between shredding files and trying to weasel out of paying his agreed to buyout in his contract. Stick to blogging about the maze and blue. This just makes you look like a whinny poor sport.
As a Michigan fan, I am insanely jealous of Alabama's successes. I assume all the others are, too.