No players were “booted” from the team to make room for anyone. Check the link I posted somewhere above for confirmation of that (except of course, for our FELONS, but I digress).

ThWard –

I can see where you’re coming from on the incentives angle. I would disagree that coaches have an incentive to keep every player on the team that he can from year to year. Many times, a coach has a bigger incentive to keep team cohesion by ridding the team of some of its “dead weight” (either in terms of off-field issues, academics, or troublemaking amongst teammates). A good example of this is with former LB Prince Hall. He could not keep his head on straight for violating team rules, and has missed the last two spring practices due to suspensions. Saban was given no incentive to keep this kid around, but rather had an incentive to boot him to help keep the team playing as a unit. The same thinking really applies to these kids who, en masse, were given medical schollys. This particular group of players had injuries that kept them from helping the team on the field. No doubt, these were all nagging injuries that any coach (much less Saban) would have noticed before the end of the year. It is not at all unlikely that Saban kept a list of players whom, in his studied opinion, had little chance of ever overcoming these injuries and producing for the team. To compensate for this, Saban no doubt knew that he would need to bring in a few more recruits to help fill those spaces. Of course, it is inevitable that some of those recruits will fail to qualify for one reason or another, which further reduces the number of scholarships needed. Other recruits can enroll early and back date, which also helps numbers. Ultimately, Saban had an incentive to oversign to make sure he had enough talent to help this team win.

I find it hard to believe that Coach Saban, the work horse that he is, who is prepared for every situation when it comes to game-planning, would rely on luck to make sure he could make scholarship numbers. I find it much easier to believe that Saban knew which players would not be able to play because of nagging injuries, and planned accordingly.

Again, this is just my view. I know it’s not for everyone.

APR means a coach can’t kick kids off the team without consequences. Retention is part of the APR calculation.

You have a very poor argument here.

I understand your point. But again – Brian Cook’s argument was never that “under no circumstances, can a coach kick a player off of the team.” Or hell, let’s tone down the word “kick” and use “encourage to leave.” The example the original post cites is a kid who has violated probation (!!!). I refuse to believe that the author of the OP really believes that Cook suggests that under no circumstances can a kid who violates probation (!!!) be kicked off the team.

As to the quote that others might be in trouble – I fail to see what’s unique about it. I’m being honest, if one was so inclined, couldn’t you find an example of EVERY DI coach talking like that? Many coaches try to light a fire under their players asses if they’re failing in the grades department.

Again – in my view, it simply comes down to incentives. Coach Rod benefits in no way in losing Grady, or any other kid. He has no incentive for them to leave, and is actually hurt if they do. But if a kid can’t cut the academics at UM OR violates probation (and thus pisses on his second chance), what can you do but apply your standards, right?

Again, perhaps every kid that is med-shirted or asked to leave a program the same year that program oversigns X number of players is a completely innocent case (Harvey, you’ve obviously pointed out a few examples). But I don’t see how we can’t agree that the practice of unaligning a coach’s and players’ incentives for all kids to stay is probably a bad practice.

I would have no problem agreeing with you excpet that Rod’s quote indicated (in no uncertain terms) that other players could most definitely get the boot. Not just you DUI kid.

Capstone is arguing that giving someone the boot because they are unable to live within the rules of the team (and society) is somehow comparable to over-recruiting. No.

Let me first say that I appreciate the tone you bring to the discussion.

I agree that oversigning can create some pretty awkward (to say the least) situations between a player and coach. Especially a player that isn’t seeing the field regularly. The next thing the player knows, some hotshot DB recruit is coming in and the coach calls you in to tell you good luck and godspeed.

My argument is about appearances. Yeah, it might be easy to assume that Saban is signing these recruits left and right only to have some assistant strength coach tell the kid being replaced to hit the road. But, all indications are that these kids are leaving football altogether because of medical reasons, or something closely related. Most if not all of those were “nagging” type injuries that really made it difficult for the kid to contribute. That kid is still going to get a four year degree and a scholarship to boot. Sketchy? I guess we’ll have to disagree about that, but I’ll tell you that Saban waited a good while before even putting Tyrone “The leg injury from hell” Prothro on the medical scholarship, so it’s not something he jumps at doing.

Still, my point remains the same. Brian was assuming a LOT of things (as did some other bloggers) to say that the practice of oversigning was a “sketchy” practice.

I think the tenor of Cap’s post above was that we should feel free to cast the same assumptions Rich Rod’s way now that he is kicking players out.

Agree or disagree, that is how I see it.

So why not limit the discussion specifically to the heart of the matter, which is whether MGoBlog’s indictments against Saban have merit?

And not whether Michigan, which MGoBlog just happens to support, is kicking football players off the team for football-related reasons. Uh, because it is not the case. It is not even close.

You place a ton of weight on why the Saban players were RS’d, booted, etc. You therefore argue that IF the reasons were pure, then there’s nothing wrong with signing.

Fine.

Would not not agree that the practice of oversigning COMPELS the result, though? Even for innocent reasons? Would you also agree that the practice of oversigning NECESSARILY, even if for a short period of time, creates an incentive for a coach to find a way to lose players (it has to, right? I mean, if the team doesn’t shed players Saban’s in trouble, right?).

So you are apparently against the PRESUMPTION that oversigning causes a coach to push a kid out the door, based on the fact that the same thing could happen for totally innocent reasons, right?

But you do see how oversigning CAN cause a coach to push a kid out the door… and you do see that oversigning requires a coach to either luck into some medical redshirts/drop outs/armed robberies OR to do something sketchy… and you’re just more comfortable than others, apparently, that a coach that practices massive oversigning will always fall into the former category… or you’re willing to give Coach Saban the benefit of the doubt, though you admit that you don’t know exactly what happens behind closed doors.

But certainly, CERTAINLY you can understand why (given the unaligned incentives that oversigning creates) why others may fairly NOT give Saban that benefit of the doubt, right?

REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!?
Ya think thats true?
If you do, I wanna sign you up for my
payday a week deal. I only need 4 of you guys to sign up and give up one payday a month for a chance to win one a week .
DIdnt make since did it?

Please take a look at this before posting anymore, please.

MY IT’S EASY TO MAKE UP THINGS.

My point is this – Brian had no idea whether or not Saban had a “sit down” with every kid that left the team and discussed their future before deciding to replace them with a recruit. If he did have a “sit down” with every kid, then what he did was not sketchy.

CALLING IT SKETCHY BEFORE YOU HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS IS FUN, NO?