Last year there was an enormous blowup in the blogosphere about whether or not Nick Saban's massive over-signing was ethical or not. A few months, one Jimmy Johns nose-candy arrest, and a half-dozen suspicious medical scholarships later, and Saban managed to cram his class in and even had scholarships left over. This year Alabama is recruiting within reason, but it's another SEC coach messing with the kids he's in charge of: Steve Spurrier. First, he's told senior non-starters to GTFO:
And Freddie Brown Sr., the head coach at Spartanburg High School, said it was his understanding that the non-starting rising seniors on the team are being encouraged to look for new programs.Nice. You've spent three years at South Carolina, are presumably a year away from your degree, and the football program is actively encouraging you to go somewhere else. How is this any less callous than the NFL? It's not.
Matters did not improve when South Carolina yanked a scholarship offer from a committed player for no apparent reason. SC DB Jonathan Davis is now in a lurch three weeks before signing day:
"They called my coach today. I haven't talked to any USC coaches. I really don't know what to think about it. I was committed to those guys and that's all I was thinking about. They told my coach there were looking for more cornerbacks because they had more safeties come in and they were focusing on cornerbacks." Davis said for now, he has no real options. "I haven't talked to any other schools," he said.As a result, South Carolina has been told to GTFO of Davis's high school. Davis's coach is, naturally, livid:
"The bottom line ... what South Carolina did to Jonathan was wrong."
Amen. Combined, the two stories paint a grim picture of Spurrier's desperation. South Carolina is spinning its wheels, the OBC has apparently lost his touch, and in an attempt to cram more recruits into the Indonesian ferry that is the South Carolina program he's telling kids to leave the team and breaking promises made to high schoolers.
Next time anyone affiliated with South Carolina tries to tell you they regard their players as anything other than meat, laugh in their face. Unless they're, like, huge. In that case I suggest you wait fifteen minutes and text them "ha, ha, ha."
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brian, the only blowup about Nick Saban – as you correctly linked – was your own overheated rhetoric. As you did earlier this year (http://www.alabamagameday.net/2008/02/alabamagameday-interview-brian-cook_17.html), you continue to play the spokesman for the downtrodden college athlete. But you'll find there are few buyers for that.
Given the way Tim Tebow – among others – has used Florida athletics to maximize his marketability, your attempts to paint college football as a plantation and the athletes as endentured servants is intellectually dishonest at the very least.
Actually, there are plenty of buyers for it, because even the interviewer in the page you link admits (a) it wasn't just Brian, it was just about every Tide blog responding (hence the blowup), and (b) athletes who are crunched like Spurrier is crunching his are downtrodden. They're not Tebow. They don't have marketability. In fact, the reason they're being crunched by people like Spurrier is because they're likely not even playing (and certainly not contributing meaningfully on the football field).
The only thing here that's intellectually dishonest around here is your comment, actually.
As a Tide fan myself, I can speak to how easily some of my fellow fans are goaded into responding to anything thrown onto the tubes.
The interviewer in the link was yours truly, so that part was a tad self-serving. The point was, there was no real controversy about over-signing at Alabama; Brian created one by donning his sackcloth and ashes and calling Nick Saban a snake oil salesman. Tide fans dutifully took the bait and voilá, blowup achieved.
College athletes are offered scholarships in the hopes they can contribute to the team; in exchange, players are given the opportunity to better themselves through an education, and possibly through parlaying their talents into a lucrative career in the NFL. They all know the bargain.
I genuinely do feel for the athletes that don't make it, as I do for anyone who fails to realize their dreams. But it's self-righteous to see college athletics in terms of the evil coaches lording it over the cowering players.
No, there ended up being no real controversy about Saban's oversigning. Have you (or any Tide fan/blogger) revisited those individuals who were cut to get below 85?
Your description of the bargain is either incomplete or it is completely cold-blooded in terms of what it means for those talented enough to get an offer but not start/contribute meaningfully. Is a partial education good enough for those kids? That's what you seem to be saying.
And in terms of the power in the scenario, it is not "self-righteous", it is accurate to describe the power imbalance as it is, to describe marginal athletes as victims (because they are, in this situation), and to describe coaches as abusers of power where they do so.
The Bryant scholarship, by the way, still sounds as an interesting and fishy way to get around 85. But that's cool, because it's all legal, right?
Can't say that I have, but that's honestly a fascinating idea. I'd also encourage Brian to do the same when he's done being the Advocate of the Little Man.
Cold-blooded? No; jaded perhaps. I know not every athlete is using the school as a stepping stone to an endorsement deal and a spot on MTV Cribs. Many (most?) are guys who want to use whatever ability they have to get a education they can use when their playing days are over.
I just don't see it in the black and white terms of yourself or Mr. Cook. If college athletics is nothing more than coaches taking advantage of their helpless charges, then let's shut the whole thing down and make these mean coaches get jobs torturing kittens or something.
Brian isn't the saying it's a black and white situation between coaches and players. He's saying it's black and white between oversigning and not oversigning. Oversigning recruits is shady at best and to try and justify it is just ridiculous. Recruiting players when you know for a fact that you will have to screw over athletes on the team is wrong. There's no argument that can justify it. These schools are making cash hand over fist and to sit there and say that it's justifiiable because, hey, these high schoolers play these schools off each other, is stupid. The schools will make money regardless of whether or not they get that recruit. But hey, if it helps you sleep better at night to think that little old helpless Spurrier has to do this then whatever.....
If you agree that the guys who get hurt by oversigning - "guys who want to use whatever ability they have to get a education they can use when their playing days are over" - then how in the world are you seemingly an advocate for cutting off that education before it's complete? You do realize that without the scholarship, most of these marginal athletes can't finish school where they are (especially if they're from out of state, as many football recruits are), right?
Let's make it clear to everyone reading - you are okay with this treatment of these young men? You see nothing wrong with it? If that's how you truly feel, then there really is nothing else to say, other than that you are, in fact, cold-blooded.
Division I-A college football "is nothing more than coaches taking advantage of their helpless charges." If you don't know that already, you haven't been paying any attention. Somehow, I think your commitment to the "let's shut the whole thing down and make these mean coaches get jobs torturing kittens or something" idea is about as firm as Steve Spurrier's commitment to Jonathan Davis.
For the record, the first time I heard of the 'Bama oversigning was actually a piece in the Birmingham News on al.com. From there, it seems Brian Cook took the figurative ball and ran.
So much righteous indignation, so little time...
Anyone reading this thread without the blinders of their own self-importance can see I don't advocate throwing poor, helpless children out in the street, or at least out onto the Quad. Let's take a deep breath, get over ourselves, and look at the real world; not the magical land where scholarships and employment and whatever else you like is irrevocable and unconditional.
College athletes receive scholarships for one reason: they may be able to contribute to the team. Their spot on the team is predicated on a combination of their grades and their continued ability to help the team. That's not cold-hearted, that's just the reality of the situation. Just as an employer hires at will, so that it can turn a profit, a college fields sports teams as a way to generate revenue for the school. Feel free to delude yourself that it's a noble, altruistic venture.
And what of the kids that get cut from the team? Well, maybe they get a job and pay their way through school like I did. Maybe they go to a tech or vocational college. Or maybe (shudder), they enter the workforce without the benefit of five years of lettin' their hair grow and experimenting.
My point is, and has been, that these are young adult males we're talking about, not babes in the big, bad world. I sleep fine at night, because I have confidence that young men can adapt to and overcome their circumstances in life without the help of condescending, guilt-ridden do-gooders who want to shield them from the realities of adult life.
I'm not sure I can disagree with pushing some non-contributors out to make room for better talent. College tuition isn't a birth right if you have marginal skills on the field. Hey, ever here of student loans to finish your degree? I sure have. I have a hard time feeling sorry for any kid who's having to pick up the tab for his final year of school, but if he's taking up space and not contributing to the team, tough break for him. If there wasn't so much pressure for coaches to win or lose their jobs, things might look different. Get a job, and pay your way if you don't have the skills to make it on the field. Just like the rest of us do.
Tony Orlando's comments are so full of non-sequiturs, red herrings and overall faulty logic, it is hard to know where to start.
First, it's "indentured" not "endentured".
Second, you suggest "let's shut the whole thing down and make these mean coaches get jobs torturing kittens or something." This is a red herring. No one stated that all college football coaches do is take advantage of athletes, only that some take advantage of the technicalities inherent in the NCAA's rules. That being said, it does not follow that that just because something is allowed that it is the right or advisable thing to do and consequently that these rules should not be changed. Thus, oversigning and cutting scholarships of non-contributors, while technically allowed, may not be practices that we want to continue. Isn't it worthy of asking the question?
Another point, I don't think anyone here is saying that people cannot adjust to adversities such as having a scholarship revoked, but again it does not follow that because people can overcome obstacles such as this that it is advisable to allow such obstacles be put up by coaches.
And to compare this to an employment setting is not apt. Where is the remuneration then? Oh I know you will say the athlete will be marketable in the future, but the same can be said for employment and employees are still paid. The more apt concept is promissory estoppel, where (1) there is no contract, (2) an individual makes a promise and (3) someone reasonably relying on that promise acts accordingly. A scholarship offer is (or should be) the promise of four years of college paid by the institution; the athlete reasonably relies on this promise by electing to go to the school with the expectation that they will get four years tuition free. Who should be punished? The athlete for believing the coach? Or the coach who later thinks it advantageous to renege on this promise? I know Tony thinks that college is just experimentation for long-haired hippies but it also is a requirement for advanced degrees and many desirable jobs. I'm sure Tony has no experience with any of the foregoing so likely was not aware of such requirements.
So, Tony Orlando's argument essentially boils down to "righteous indignation is for pussies; College football is about money; I paid for college myself!" Cool, guy.
But when faulting 17 year old kids for being non-performers, you're essentially saying that the coaching staff shouldn't have to live with its own manifested inability to evaluate talent. Look, recruiting is a crapshoot. That's why you're allowed to sign 25-28 kids a year for a sport that allows 21 kids to play at any given time. If you walk, as a grown man, walk into a child's house and tell his mother that you will help her son achieve his goals, you need to be a man and honor that promise. It's called integrity. Unfortunately, integrity isn't marketable and it doesn't calm down pissed off alumni.
As for your other arguments, Tony Orlando, they don't hold water. You paid for your own college? Congrats. A couple semesters at Bishop State Community College shouldn't have set you back too far. As for CFB being a money maker, you're both right and wrong. Sure, it makes money. But if you want to treat kids like professionals, you've got to pay them like professionals.
I couldn't agree more.
The matter is not a question of "Oh, you no longer contribute to the team, so it's OK to let you go", rather the real issue is "I signed a player who did not live up to his potential, but I'm going to cover up my recruiting problem by signing more other players and screwing them out of the college education I promised them back when I thought they might be better".
If you're ok with that, then I guess you're ok with oversigning, but to me, it seems disingenuous and callous. The coach needs to accept that not every recruiting venture is going to work out perfectly, and move on. Grown men passing their failures onto 18-22 year-old football players they themselves recruited is pretty irresponsible as well.
There are two promises made:
1. The athlete promises to work hard and do his best to contribute, while maintaining the necessary grades.
2. The coach promises to provide 4 years school with the tuition paid for.
It doesn't matter that the schools make money or that the athletes try to market themselves once at the school. Keep in mind that the player never guarantees he will be a star, only to play football. It is disingenuous for a coach to offer a scholarship and then try to push that player out. The kid gets 4 years, plain and simple.
So, Orlando, is that the pitch that Saban makes when he enters the living room:
"Well, I'll be here to give your son a scholarship on a year-by-year basis, so long as he helps our team out more than a Rivals five star. Now, if entering his senior year, there's a recruit who looks more impressive... well, I'll probably be telling your son to move along to a different school. . . I've got alot of pressure on me to win, you know."
How many parents agree to that?