New Signing Day Rules...Discuss
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
Especially in place like MS where in February we dont' know if a kid is going to qualify academically, we need a little leeway to have a backup plan. Not 37 signees type leeway, but 28 was fine. Gave us some flexibility.
I can easily see this coming back to bite us:
<font color="#ff0000">Greater oversight by the SEC office of medical scholarship exemptions. In accordance with NCAA rules, schools would apply to SEC Commissioner Mike Slive for a player to get a medical scholarship and it "may be granted" by Slive. The application must be endorsed by a school's trainer, physician and athletics director.</font>
<font color="#ff0000">Greater oversight by the SEC office of medical scholarship exemptions. In accordance with NCAA rules, schools would apply to SEC Commissioner Mike Slive for a player to get a medical scholarship and it "may be granted" by Slive. The application must be endorsed by a school's trainer, physician and athletics director.</font>
I know that we "should" all be recruiting guys that are definitely going to qualify and be model student-athletes, but let's get real. Every year some of the best prospects are borderline grade risks. The limit of 28 is good as it stands and already limits teams from going after too many grade-risk prospects.
Nutt and Saban in particular. Mullen has stayed within these guidelines anyway. It's possible another player or 2 could open up for MSU.
I think I would keep it at 28, but enforce it from Dec. 1 to Aug. 1. Dropping it to 25 and including december signees is a pretty big change andputs the SEC at a disadvantage compared to other conference.
The more I think about, these rules would devastate Nutt.
I think I would keep it at 28, but enforce it from Dec. 1 to Aug. 1. Dropping it to 25 and including december signees is a pretty big change andputs the SEC at a disadvantage compared to other conference.
The more I think about, these rules would devastate Nutt.
...before agreeing wholeheartedly with Columbus. Like him, I'm not a fan, but it appears we mightnot be as affected by these guidelines as much as other universities. Because of that, I could see MSU supporting it. On the other hand, Ican see MSU being against it becauseit wouldmean a weaker conference, which is why I'd like to know what other conferences aredoing/have done.
I'm wondering how much input LT had what with this being mentioned:</p>
</p>
I'm wondering how much input LT had what with this being mentioned:</p>
</p>
Other teams can sign an academic risk, knowing that if he fails HS they can replace him with a 3 or 4 *. If it's us, we replace him with a 2*. So we have more to gain from a hard-cap system, where if a grade-risk flunks then the team that signed him lost a spot. Plus, that would leave schollys available for walk-ons. I say go with a hard cap of 25.
what actually gets adopted. Seems like they went for the whole package and left some room to negotiate in Destin.Columbus Dawg said:
DING DING DING. <div>boomboommsu said:
</div><div>also, under the current rules, saban and miles can slack on splitting hairs in their talent evaluations with kids coming out of HS to decide which 4* DT they want to offer, they just offer both and cut a guy that didn't pan out, and in 2 years they cut the DT that didn't pan out. it allows the bamass and lsu's to effectively have a mulligan for players who don't achieve whatever potential saban or miles determines they should have achieved. now instead of bama signing both DTs, they might have to pick 1 of the 2 DTs and the other one might sign with us. maybe they both pan out or maybe only 1, but this keeps bama and lsu from hoarding as many as possible to see who pans out, knowing that they can just sign another 28+ guys next year and cut the ones from previous years that didn't pan out.</div>
If it helps us more than it hurts us, I'm all for it. It just seems like there tend to be more grade-risks among the top prospects in MS than in other states, and since Mullen wants to recruit MS so heavily I'd hate for us to not be able to take a chance on a top kid from Mississippi because he's a potential grade risk.
Under a plan like this, OM would not be a able to sign the 4* guy out of anywhere, that even God could not get into school.
And he is not at all Happy about this new chnage..Columbus Dawg said:
I need to do some Heppin..
To Nutt, more regulations don't take into account the realities of
unexpected attrition, commitments who change their minds at the last
minute, players who get in trouble - or any other unpredictable,
headache-causing outcome for a coach.<span class="aa"></span><span class="pp"></span>"It's a very difficult job to try to manage, to keep two, three deep at every position," Nutt said.
He's right with that.
These rules are stupid. Slive is WAY too concerned about PR. This is all in reaction to articles about Miles, Saban, and Nutt and their varying practices of taking advantage of the system.
I think the 28 rule is stupid myself. If a school wants to sign 40, let them sign 40. If they alienate kids or coaches over it, they have to deal with the consequences. Same with the medical hardships. Saban is cutting players and using medical hardships to do so. If it's a poor practice, he'll alienate coaches and it'll hurt him in the long run.
If it isn't that bad of a deal, it won't hurt him. The system works fine. You have limits of 25 and 85 that you have to follow. Those are the only limits you need. How you get to 25 and 85 really doesn't matter that much.
And I really don't want to hear a damn thing from Florida or Georgia about recruiting ever. They have the easiest recruiting bases in the SEC by far. They know that, and they don't have to play in the gray areas because of it. They want to eliminate those gray areas for others solely because it benefits them.
These rules are stupid. Slive is WAY too concerned about PR. This is all in reaction to articles about Miles, Saban, and Nutt and their varying practices of taking advantage of the system.
I think the 28 rule is stupid myself. If a school wants to sign 40, let them sign 40. If they alienate kids or coaches over it, they have to deal with the consequences. Same with the medical hardships. Saban is cutting players and using medical hardships to do so. If it's a poor practice, he'll alienate coaches and it'll hurt him in the long run.
If it isn't that bad of a deal, it won't hurt him. The system works fine. You have limits of 25 and 85 that you have to follow. Those are the only limits you need. How you get to 25 and 85 really doesn't matter that much.
And I really don't want to hear a damn thing from Florida or Georgia about recruiting ever. They have the easiest recruiting bases in the SEC by far. They know that, and they don't have to play in the gray areas because of it. They want to eliminate those gray areas for others solely because it benefits them.
right, because the kid that studies hard and makes his grades and shows up for workouts and practices, but just never develops into anything more than position depth and scout team deserves to have his scholarship not renewed *ahem* excuse me, should be encouraged to look elsewhere to finish out his eligibility because nutt or saban or miles or petrino decided they misevaluated the kid out of HS and now wanna get him off the books so they can bring in another 4* kid to see if they got it right with this one?<div>
</div><div>i'm of the opinion that scholarships should be 4 year deals unless a kid is (1) in academic trouble, (2) not attending practices/workouts, (3) violating team rules, or (4) in legal trouble. if the coach fails to coach the kid up, or fails in his talent evaluation, then that's the coaches fault, if the kid is pulling his weight and just doesn't develop, that's on the coach's shoulders to bear the burden of an underperforming player.</div>
</div><div>i'm of the opinion that scholarships should be 4 year deals unless a kid is (1) in academic trouble, (2) not attending practices/workouts, (3) violating team rules, or (4) in legal trouble. if the coach fails to coach the kid up, or fails in his talent evaluation, then that's the coaches fault, if the kid is pulling his weight and just doesn't develop, that's on the coach's shoulders to bear the burden of an underperforming player.</div>
dawgs said:
Exactly. That's why they call it an ATHLETIC scholarship.
I wasn't good enough to earn an athletic scholarship to Ole Miss. I did however have academic scholarships, and if I let my performance dwindle in the academic sphere, I would lose those scholarships.
The same can and does apply to athletic scholarships in my opinion.
<span style="text-decoration:line-through">I'm personally of the opinion</span>I know that the "student athlete" is a farce of an idea when it comes to football and basketball. College football and basketball are way too big of a business for charity cases. If a guy isn't cutting it, he needs to be replaced. The ultimate goal is winning. For the money that's invested in big time college sports and the attention the athletes get, the price they pay is that they may not have a 4 year scholarship when they sign.
If a student athlete's ultimate concern is getting a good college education and he's good enough to earn an SEC scholarship, he can always go CUSA, Sun Belt, or 1AA and get a free ride to one of many other good schools where he won't run the risk of losing his scholarship.
It's a two way street. Athletes choose to try to play at the highest level because they want the exposure and the possibility of pursuing a pro career. The downside to choosing that path is that it's not about the education first. If they are more concerned with the education, they can get a free education at a lower level, possibly even at a stronger academic school.
Edited to correct statement above.
or else they wouldn't have to make grades.
that, and they could have had an academic scholly to a lesser school, but are no longer eligible as a non-incoming-freshman.
that, and they could have had an academic scholly to a lesser school, but are no longer eligible as a non-incoming-freshman.
As I said, the players come to school knowing their No. 1 job is to win football/basketball games. School is second. That's why they're required just to pass the minimum to stay eligible and then perform at a high level.
The ONLY reason coaches are concerned about grades is NCAA eligibility. If they didn't have to worry about that, then they wouldn't even make guys attend class.
Most fans like to pretend that the players they cheer for are true student athletes. I'm not one of those. The players we recruit (and this goes for everyone in major conferences) are brought in to win games...period. If they lose value in that regard, you make room for someone else.
If the education is such a concern, then Saban is taking care of that by offering medical hardships which gives the player a free scholarship to finish out school without playing football, and most coaches would be more than happy to call a friend at a local Sun Belt or CUSA or 1AA school to help find a spot for the player they no longer can use but might be able to offer something to a smaller school.
It's an ugly business, and if people are going to demand wins and fire coaches despite the fact that they're graduating their players, then I don't think we should pretend college sports is something that it's not.
The ONLY reason coaches are concerned about grades is NCAA eligibility. If they didn't have to worry about that, then they wouldn't even make guys attend class.
Most fans like to pretend that the players they cheer for are true student athletes. I'm not one of those. The players we recruit (and this goes for everyone in major conferences) are brought in to win games...period. If they lose value in that regard, you make room for someone else.
If the education is such a concern, then Saban is taking care of that by offering medical hardships which gives the player a free scholarship to finish out school without playing football, and most coaches would be more than happy to call a friend at a local Sun Belt or CUSA or 1AA school to help find a spot for the player they no longer can use but might be able to offer something to a smaller school.
It's an ugly business, and if people are going to demand wins and fire coaches despite the fact that they're graduating their players, then I don't think we should pretend college sports is something that it's not.
...is which one needs the help, the powerhouse college program that wants to discard a 4* because they've got multiple better players, or the college "student-athlete"?
I just see forcing the powerhouse to keep that player on scholly as a form of having the best team pick last in the draft, etc. It's a minor levelling mechanism. And that's a good thing!
How about this: the school can cut the player, but they have to wait a year to do it. Just like the player has to wait a year if he transfers. You wouldn't want schools to be able to take that back, that would just lead to massive lists of cut players that are 'uncut' a year later (like the farce that is the MLB waiver wire in August). And the player probably wouldn't like playing with the team that's already cut him. So once he's cut, he gets one free year of education. That prevents seniors from being cut, gives the player time to prepare, and reduces the incentive to oversign.
I just see forcing the powerhouse to keep that player on scholly as a form of having the best team pick last in the draft, etc. It's a minor levelling mechanism. And that's a good thing!
How about this: the school can cut the player, but they have to wait a year to do it. Just like the player has to wait a year if he transfers. You wouldn't want schools to be able to take that back, that would just lead to massive lists of cut players that are 'uncut' a year later (like the farce that is the MLB waiver wire in August). And the player probably wouldn't like playing with the team that's already cut him. So once he's cut, he gets one free year of education. That prevents seniors from being cut, gives the player time to prepare, and reduces the incentive to oversign.
If it means kids have to make more of an effort to be eligible academically then so be it. It is college. If you want to watch players paid for strictly their athletic skills and 10 word vocabulary, go to a professional event or adopt a junior college program and go watch that.There are a lot of intelligent kids who are pretty decent athletically who get no shot at college athletics no matter how hard they work.Up the requirements and let the chips fall where they may. I would rather watch a bunch of kids who work hard at academics and sportsand will be successful after their playing days.If every Division I program followed those rules then, the competition would not be much different. Not as fast or bruising but the fans would still be all over it as long as everyone playedwith the same rules.
So long as the out and out cheating is rampant and overlooked. This will just change the type of cheating moving forward. There will be some rich guidance counselors and teachers in the coming seasons. If daddy can ask for 180k and nothing happens then you know a whole bunch of Mississippi Public School employees will be riding fresh in some new Dodge Chargers!
Just picture it, 4 or 5 star player is a grade risk that nobody touches. He commits to Bama or Auburn and all of a sudden he's miraculously become eligible.
More regulations always end up disproportionately hurting the little guy. Won't be any different with these changes.
Just picture it, 4 or 5 star player is a grade risk that nobody touches. He commits to Bama or Auburn and all of a sudden he's miraculously become eligible.
More regulations always end up disproportionately hurting the little guy. Won't be any different with these changes.
A 25 cap with zero exceptions is tough on us. Our public schools in ms simply dontdo a good job of getting our guys qualified(in some cases). It's sad but true. The rule can be a 25 limit, but some sort of exceptions for sign and place guys, early enrolee's, etc... Also. if you only sign 22, should 3 scholly's roll over to next year.
I don't know when you say it, but let's say you set a rule where any player on scholarship come June 1 will count toward your 85 that coming fall.
That would eliminate what Saban does. He cuts players typically around August when he knows exactly who from his recruiting class has qualified. It puts him in a position to offer the medical hardship with the player being cut knowing that they only have two options 1) take the medical and never play football again but remain on scholarship, or 2) sit out the fall not on scholarship and try to find a new home in the spring to play football.
For most of them, Option 2 is not going to be a choice because they lose a year of eligibility that way. If they don't have a redshirt year left, it's a wasted year, and you don't even know where you'll have for options come spring time.
Saban does it that way so that the players he's cutting don't really have a whole lot of choices for joining up with any of his future opponents. He doesn't want them, but you can't have them either type of thing. If you set a date like the first of summer as your cut off date for players having to count toward the 85, the coach making cuts is going to have to take some chances, and not only that, but if he does cut 3 or 4 players, those players will have all summer to find another school that has room under its 85, so they can transfer. I'd also like to see a rule that allows a player to transfer and play immediately if the reason his scholarship wasn't renewed was a coach's decision not related to discipline.
I also think it would be fair to tell coaches that a player has to be informed formally by letter by June 1 if he's going to possibly have to take a grayshirt. If a player receives a potential grayshirt letter, then that player should automatically be given the option to sign somewhere else if a spot is available and the player chooses to do so. Most wouldn't do it, but it would create some transparency about grayshirting. Along with that rule, you'd have to say that any coach that oversigns his available scholarships has to send out letters to at least as many players as he's oversigned. For instance, if you signed 30 and only had 25 spots, you have to pick at least 5 players to send grayshirt letters to.
Outside of those rules I'd like to see, I have no problem with grayshirts. I have no problem with oversigning, and I have no problem with cutting players that aren't getting it done. Put in some rules to protect the players' interests in those situations, but there is no reason why teams shouldn't be able to oversign, grayshirt, or cut players when necessary.
That would eliminate what Saban does. He cuts players typically around August when he knows exactly who from his recruiting class has qualified. It puts him in a position to offer the medical hardship with the player being cut knowing that they only have two options 1) take the medical and never play football again but remain on scholarship, or 2) sit out the fall not on scholarship and try to find a new home in the spring to play football.
For most of them, Option 2 is not going to be a choice because they lose a year of eligibility that way. If they don't have a redshirt year left, it's a wasted year, and you don't even know where you'll have for options come spring time.
Saban does it that way so that the players he's cutting don't really have a whole lot of choices for joining up with any of his future opponents. He doesn't want them, but you can't have them either type of thing. If you set a date like the first of summer as your cut off date for players having to count toward the 85, the coach making cuts is going to have to take some chances, and not only that, but if he does cut 3 or 4 players, those players will have all summer to find another school that has room under its 85, so they can transfer. I'd also like to see a rule that allows a player to transfer and play immediately if the reason his scholarship wasn't renewed was a coach's decision not related to discipline.
I also think it would be fair to tell coaches that a player has to be informed formally by letter by June 1 if he's going to possibly have to take a grayshirt. If a player receives a potential grayshirt letter, then that player should automatically be given the option to sign somewhere else if a spot is available and the player chooses to do so. Most wouldn't do it, but it would create some transparency about grayshirting. Along with that rule, you'd have to say that any coach that oversigns his available scholarships has to send out letters to at least as many players as he's oversigned. For instance, if you signed 30 and only had 25 spots, you have to pick at least 5 players to send grayshirt letters to.
Outside of those rules I'd like to see, I have no problem with grayshirts. I have no problem with oversigning, and I have no problem with cutting players that aren't getting it done. Put in some rules to protect the players' interests in those situations, but there is no reason why teams shouldn't be able to oversign, grayshirt, or cut players when necessary.
My main concern would be giving cut players time to set them selves up to succeed somewhere else, whether that be academically or athletically. I guess June 1 would be early enough, but how about closer to the end of ST? June 1 still gives a coach time to see if a recruit will qualify. The end of ST doesn't. Hell, if you want to actually stay in school at that university, by June 1 you've missed all the application dates for financial aid. How about you have to cut a player by Jan 1 or so, or else you owe him a scholly for the next academic year? Counting towards the 85 or not, i don't care.
How about a rule that a senior can't be cut fromhis scholly? Someone who's actually in line for their degree (and it may be rare but there are marginal players who use football to afford schools they otherwise couldn't attend) shouldn't have to transfer for their last year. Academically, that's just a cluster17.
How about a rule that a senior can't be cut fromhis scholly? Someone who's actually in line for their degree (and it may be rare but there are marginal players who use football to afford schools they otherwise couldn't attend) shouldn't have to transfer for their last year. Academically, that's just a cluster17.
I'd be in favor of an earlier date. I could even consider a post-spring practice timeline of say April 15 or even 5 days after the spring game if you wanted to have a varying date, something like that, so that the team has the chance to evaluate players through spring practice. Obviously the player would keep his scholarship through the end of the spring semester, but you'd have to notify that player that he wasn't going to have it in the summer/fall, so that he would have time to apply elsewhere.
I could deal with Jan. 1 or a post-bowl date of say Jan. 15, but either way I think the player needs the option of finishing out the spring semester on scholarship despite the release notification.
The idea about seniors is a decent one.
I could deal with Jan. 1 or a post-bowl date of say Jan. 15, but either way I think the player needs the option of finishing out the spring semester on scholarship despite the release notification.
The idea about seniors is a decent one.
That gives the coach time to evaluate his signing class and spring practice, keeps the player on scholarship through the spring semester, and gives the player that gets cut a month to find a new school before the first summer semester starts. Also, if you get your scholarship taken, you don't have to sit out a year and/or you automatically get a 6th year to complete your 4 years of eligibility.