New football recruiting article
- Thread starter Todd4State
- Start date
Oops
That was for the people that complain about my posts being too long.**
http://maroonandwhitenation.com/?p=5340
That was for the people that complain about my posts being too long.**
http://maroonandwhitenation.com/?p=5340
Let Bama and the likes take 30
and it makes 5 extra that we might could have had.
Scholly's ain't cheap.
Remember Title 9.
and it makes 5 extra that we might could have had.
Scholly's ain't cheap.
Remember Title 9.
Having 30 scholarships wouldn't be an advantage for us
But it would be an advantage for the players- and that was the angle I was going for.
But it would be an advantage for the players- and that was the angle I was going for.
This is not in direct response to your article in particular, but
every time I read about an early signing day and the writer laments on it being "for the kid", I don't buy it.
every time I read about an early signing day and the writer laments on it being "for the kid", I don't buy it.
Go 17 yourself man. Your only saying that **** because it would hurt you cheating bastards.
While I appreciate your gusto, your school isn't the only one whose players get recruited by other schools after they commit. I'm sure you see Railin Jammye's daily reports.
Good article. I agree with everything except increasing the scholarship limits. No matter how much it would benefit the recruits, it would further increase the gap between the elite schools (Alabama) and the rest of the pack, and it would be bad for college football in general because of the trickle down effect it would cause.
I think something else the NCAA should do is give a "verbal commitment" at least some weight. In my mind, verbal commitments should give schools some idea early on of what needs they've secured, and give the recruits some protection from schools stringing them along in case they don't get their first choices, and they do absolutely nothing for either of those. Verbal commitments as they exist now also allow the pre-madonnas to manipulate the recruiting process of every school in the hunt for them, which is not good for anyone. Either instate some penalty to whichever party breaks the commitment, or outlaw the existence or acknowledgement of any kind of commitment status prior to signing day.
I think something else the NCAA should do is give a "verbal commitment" at least some weight. In my mind, verbal commitments should give schools some idea early on of what needs they've secured, and give the recruits some protection from schools stringing them along in case they don't get their first choices, and they do absolutely nothing for either of those. Verbal commitments as they exist now also allow the pre-madonnas to manipulate the recruiting process of every school in the hunt for them, which is not good for anyone. Either instate some penalty to whichever party breaks the commitment, or outlaw the existence or acknowledgement of any kind of commitment status prior to signing day.
That kind of surprises me to be honest with you
I figured Ole Miss fans would be in favor of increasing signing limits. I know Houston Nutt would have liked it.
I'm actually thinking you didn't read it to be honest with you. Yes, it is on a MSU blog- but the things I touched on aren't necessarily things totally in MSU's favor. See the comments on those that disagree about the 30 man limit. I don't see how anyone can not think it's a good idea or advantageous to offer kids with good grades. Actually, that's probably an advantage for Duke.
I figured Ole Miss fans would be in favor of increasing signing limits. I know Houston Nutt would have liked it.
I'm actually thinking you didn't read it to be honest with you. Yes, it is on a MSU blog- but the things I touched on aren't necessarily things totally in MSU's favor. See the comments on those that disagree about the 30 man limit. I don't see how anyone can not think it's a good idea or advantageous to offer kids with good grades. Actually, that's probably an advantage for Duke.