I predict the 25 limit ends next year

[FlabLoser]

It burned U Mississippi. And it burned UGA apparently http://www.ledger-enquire...ll-national-signing.html

I assume other schools didn't like it either.

Let's face it - the SEC isn't an anchor of recruiting integrity. So why should we have the nations most restrictive recruiting limit?

Exactly. This rule won't live another year.

 

[FlabLoser]

It burned U Mississippi. And it burned UGA apparently http://www.ledger-enquire...ll-national-signing.html

I assume other schools didn't like it either.

Let's face it - the SEC isn't an anchor of recruiting integrity. So why should we have the nations most restrictive recruiting limit?

Exactly. This rule won't live another year.

 

[Dawgpile]

Unfortunately, it's here to stay.

 

[jmbeck]

nt

 

[Count Istvan Teleky]

By not having the top feeders over signing, we benefit.

For every bright light school like Bama and LSU (add whoever else you want in that group), just dropping from 28 to 25 players allows three players for each school to go elsewhere. I don't think we would have gotten Beniquez, and possibly not Kivon had AU and UA been able to oversign. Multiply that out and it should help the schools down the ladder. Like us.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

By not having the top feeders over signing, we benefit.

For every bright light school like Bama and LSU (add whoever else you want in that group), just dropping from 28 to 25 players allows three players for each school to go elsewhere. I don't think we would have gotten Beniquez, and possibly not Kivon had AU and UA been able to oversign. Multiply that out and it should help the schools down the ladder. Like us.

i've been saying the same thing since the rule was announced, but apparently you and me are in the minority inpreferringa couple of 4* and high end 3* to filter down to us because bama/lsu/auburn can't oversign instead of oversigning the **** out of guys that really belong in c-usa.

<div>i'd love to see an early signing period for recruits. maybe in november? or early december? most recruits have made the rounds enough to have visited their top choices by then even if they haven't taken an official visit. it would give the coaches a better idea of where they stand and how many spots they have going into NSD, and it would allow players to either lock up a spot at their #1 school, or to find out just where they stand if lesticles or saban tells them they can't sign in the early period and have to wait and see the numbers come february. if a kid finds out he'sbasicallya plan B 2 months before NSD, he can either gamble that there is a spot, or he can start looking elsewhere as the MSU's of the world who would love to have him. he would have 2 months to shop though. whereas the philbin kid that i believe ended up signing with arkansas was just told last week he would probably have to be a greyshirt at bama. i bet he would have loved to either (1) lock in his spot in an early signing period or (2) have known 2 months ago he was bama's plan B all along and might get screwed. instead he had an awkward press conference to announce he would greyshirt, ended up breaking down in tears afterwards, and signed with arkansas. i know some of yall think you gotta deal with it and grow up, but imagine 17 year old you being wined and dined by your dream school, being offered a full scholarship for anything (athletics, academics, etc) to your dream school, only to be told a week before everyone signs on the dotted line that you aren't getting it anymore, or have to wait an extra year to get it, while most of your backup schools have already filled out their scholarship spots since you've been telling them you were headed to your dream school.</div>

 

[lanceharbor7]

UM was burned by a coaching change and poor recruiting (and **** Karma from Houston Nutt's signing day orgies). UM will benefit from the rule eventually just like MSU did. However, because it helps the less fortunate, it will probably be overturned.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I agree on that. I've always liked the idea of having HS kids have the opportunity to sign early. It would put a decent amount of pressure on kids to not commit as a place holder for one, and it would give some of them the opportunity to go ahead and sign and shut down the process early.

Some people suggest December. I suggest they have the early signing date the first week of August. That way players that already know and are 100% sure can lock up their spot. Coaches would have to clarify if early offers are committable, and players that are committed early would have to clarify if the are truly done with the process.

ETA: I think you'd somehow have to allow those signees to have their LOIs become void if a coaching change occurs however. That, or you leave it on the players to accept the risk of committing to a school, knowing the coach may or may not be there the next year.

 

[boomboommsu]

I really think the players benefit by going where they are really wanted. The schools that take them have more invested in them, so they have a better incentive to see them succeed both on the field and off the field.

The SEC should at least give this rule a few years, and see if transfer numbers drop.

 

[MonkeyCheese]

Georgia and and Auburn didn't even sign 20 players, how did the 25 cap affect them? It was the 85 limit they were having to stay under.<div>
</div><div>Or am I missing something?</div><div>
</div><div>Only four of the 14 SEC schools signed 25 or more players (Bama 26, MSU 28, USC 25, Kentucky 29)</div>

 

[Shmuley]

that they intend to sign "a couple of guys" after signing day, or to the effect that they will sign guys later this year. I heard this specifically in the case of Chizik.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

Georgia and and Auburn didn't even sign 20 players, how did the 25 cap affect them? It was the 85 limit they were having to stay under.<div>
</div><div>Or am I missing something?</div><div>
</div><div>Only four of the 14 SEC schools signed 25 or more players (Bama 26, MSU 28, USC 25, Kentucky 29)</div>

coaches held out hope for landing big time studs that everyone wanted so schools like auburn tried to call up beniquez at 5 am yesterday morning and decide he was worth the extra push. thankfully he recognized msu wanted him, whereas auburn was viewed him as plan B or C and only after they lost several other targets did they get serious about him at the last minute.<div>
</div><div>also, i don't think auburn have a lot of graduating seniors next year, so if they signed a full load, they'd have a really small class next year, like around 15 or less. maybe a similarsituationwith uga?
</div>

 

[BleedtheFreak]

I personally think there needs to be an early signing period for football just as there is for all other sports. I also agree that a head coaching change should void a LOI if the player wants to void it. Once you get that in place, then the 25 limit isn't so bad and in fact, should probably be an NCAA rule (which I think it will be before too much longer).

 

[RebelBruiser]

And you know if the NCAA was REALLY concerned about education first and foremost, they would completely eliminate ALL scholarship limits. Leave it up to each school to determine how many athletes they wanted to put on scholarship. That way even more students would have the opportunity at this free education thing. After all, academics is first and foremost right?

 

[Irondawg]

As stated above, it would let kids know where they stand and most kids know where they want to go after the summer rounds anyway.

I would add a caveat that an early signee could void the LOI if the head coach changed jobs before the late signing date (Feb) just to protect that few kids that signed for a coach (a bad idea but happens anyway)

ETA - Bruiser beat me to posting this so I have to agree with his thoughts there.

 

[FlabLoser]

I'm in complete agreement with your opinion.

I was making a prediction, not stating a preference. I think with enough name brand schools whining, the 25 rule is going away.

 

[8dog]

that article indicates that 85 limit was more of a factor.

 

[rabiddawg]

why in the world would you NOT want to limit the number of 5* players your opponents can buy, er, recruit? You can hide payments, I mean recruiting tactics, but you can't hide bodies. Every 5* over the limit that Bama has is one more for someone else... Sounds like a good rule. Now they need to annihalate "grey shirting". What the NCAA needs to do is set a "points system" in place. Every BCS conference team gets 100 points, every recruit is worth their "Star" points. If you recruit a 5* kid that is 5 points subtracted from your 100 point limit. 4* = 4 points. You become wise on how your recruit to maximize your needs. You want to recruit and sign only 5* players then you can only recruit 20 kids for that season. If you want to recruit all 3* kids that are coachable and have talented then you get to sign 33. Get rid of everyone who isn't a walk-on with a jersey number ON YOUR POSTER or a sholarship player. Instant parity...

 

[Sauron]

I think it will only help us in the long run. The big boys can't fifty people (exaggeration) people anymore. They fill up quick. We get the scraps. I will feast on Bama and LSU's scraps right now, guys.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

why in the world would you NOT want to limit the number of 5* players your opponents can buy, er, recruit? You can hide payments, I mean recruiting tactics, but you can't hide bodies. Every 5* over the limit that Bama has is one more for someone else... Sounds like a good rule. Now they need to annihalate "grey shirting". What the NCAA needs to do is set a "points system" in place. Every BCS conference team gets 100 points, every recruit is worth their "Star" points. If you recruit a 5* kid that is 5 points subtracted from your 100 point limit. 4* = 4 points. You become wise on how your recruit to maximize your needs. You want to recruit and sign only 5* players then you can only recruit 20 kids for that season. If you want to recruit all 3* kids that are coachable and have talented then you get to sign 33. Get rid of everyone who isn't a walk-on with a jersey number ON YOUR POSTER or a sholarship player. Instant parity...

can't make a rule on subjective evaluations. you might view player A as a 5* but get him at a 3* price. how many other coaches would ***** to the ncaa that the kid now needs to be bumped to a 5* or at least a 4* because he's better than the subjective 3* rating he was given.

<div>edit: i do agree greyshirting needs to go. if you want to "count back" then it should only apply to EEs, whether juco or HS kids. i guess technically, do greyshirts even sign papers or is it all a handshake deal?</div><div>
</div><div>seems to me that if you are wanting to greyshirt a kid, he's a fringe guy anyway, and you shouldn't have a problem finding a comparable player next recruiting class. also, we signed a full load this season, so unless some guys don't make it with grades, we can't even count any january 2013 EEs back to 2012. </div><div>
</div><div>finally, has a greyshirt ever ended up being a significant contributor on a decent team?</div>

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

And you know if the NCAA was REALLY concerned about education first and foremost, they would completely eliminate ALL scholarship limits. Leave it up to each school to determine how many athletes they wanted to put on scholarship. That way even more students would have the opportunity at this free education thing. After all, academics is first and foremost right?

lulz ole miss' struggles must really have you down cause this will totally annihilate 80% of the FBS programs, including both ole miss and MSU. guess you are just wanting to end it all now.

 

[maroonmania]

it prevents the SEC power programs from scooping up additional good players and left us with more prospects to choose from this year. This absolutely should benefit UM as well if they were competent enough to take advantage of it.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I'm not proposing it as an option, just pointing out that if the NCAA were REALLY about the student athlete, that's what they'd do. They aren't about the student athlete. They're about having a competitive product to sell to TV stations.

 

[8dog]

it really only affects grade risks. You can't take chances on grade risks, but in the past, you always had a back up plan for that to get 25 in. This really should make it easier....you just don't sign the grade risk and go ahead with your backup plan.

So Im not sure its as crippling as everyone makes it out to be and Im not sure it helps us like everyone makes it out to help us.

 

[rabiddawg]

besides,...well,...nothingexcept constantly disallowing our BB players eligability. Make the NCAA actually do the footwork to evaluate these players and either agree with the cruitin' services or put the pressure on them to be consistent. The services have built an industry on evaluating kids, they will play along or they will be deemed unnecessary

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

I'm not proposing it as an option, just pointing out that if the NCAA were REALLY about the student athlete, that's what they'd do. They aren't about the student athlete. They're about having a competitive product to sell to TV stations.

well by that logic, if america was about educating its citizens, we'd all be going to college for free. <div>
</div><div>
</div>

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

besides,...well,...constantly disallowing our BB players eligability. Make the NCAA actually do the footwork to evaluate these players and either agree with the cruitin' services or put the pressure on them to be consistent. The services have built an industry on evaluating kids, they will play along or they will be deemed unnecessary

yeah, there wouldn't be a shitstorm when MSU's top QB commit is only evaluated as a 3* while OM's top QB commit is evaluated as a 5*. it's just not a viable method to fairly determine recruiting. suddenly bama and texas are signing classes of 30 3*, while MSU is signing classes loaded with 4* and 5* guys. yet bama and texas are winning titles while msu is stoked to go to the gator bowl. that wouldn't be fishy at all either. but hey, it's subjective rankings. and when you have different scouts scouting different regions and with their own subjective determination of the subjective rankings, you just get a muddled mess that breeds accusations of cheating and recruit sandbagging. hell, you'd probably have programs encouraging their commit to go out and suck their senior season so they drop a * and help free up more room for more recruits.

 

[rabiddawg]

Jacksonville was the shiznit and you know it was. Never had more fun at a Bowl then there. But i know what you mean, there is no simple fix. I do believe the fix should be drastic though. Drastic always benefits the have-nots, usually with a shitstorm of hell raising from the elites