That Oversigning guy is pathetic

Nothing to see here.

Ohio State didn’t oversign.

Despite a football player saying he was told his scholarship was needed for someone else. (See AP story here.)

Nothing to see here.

Move along.

We know Ohio State didn’t oversign because Ohio State said it didn’t oversign. (See that idiotic tweet here.)

Yeah, like we can trust anything those cheaters say! Nevertheless, just stick your head in the sand. Nothing to see here. Move along.

There is nothing more pathetic than when a crusader is exposed as a person who was motivated by the continual ass kicking his favorite team or teams received by the superior Southeastern Conference (SEC).

Hey, if the oversigning guy were serious, he would tackle the real issue facing the NCAA—the rampant cheating. Oh wait, Ohio State cheats like nobody else.

There is probably nothing to see in that NCAA investigation of Ohio State either.

We should all be so glad that the Big Ten models ethics for the rest of college football. There have been no ethical lapses at Michigan or Ohio State. Things are just fine.

Move along.

Nothing to see here.

18 Responses to “That Oversigning guy is pathetic” Subscribe

  1. tsmonk June 28, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Yeah, he’s shut the comments now. Reading the prior comments, it’s hilarious – even people that agree with him on the issue are calling him out for being a 1-A homer.

  2. Rc June 28, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    Maybe Auburn needs to move to the Big 10? All hypocrites think alike

  3. KC June 29, 2011 at 8:28 am #

    Not sure OSU oversigning by 1 player over two years is really comparable to us being oversigned by 22 players over the same period. Yeah the SEC owns OSU, but I do not think this is an arguement we look very good in (oversigning).

  4. capstonereport June 29, 2011 at 9:41 am #

    KC, I didn’t say it was comparable. I said it exposed the guy as a hypocrite.

    And the oversigning argument is funny because it is pointless. These guys have one-year scholarships and should be expected to work hard to maintain that scholarship. Not sit around with an entitlement mentality because they are “guranteed” four years. That doesn’t happen on the academic side….

    And you aren’t fooling anyone with the “we” shtick. And this nonsense about Alabama oversigning is foolish. Alabama has not oversigned because even walkons have been given scholarships during this same period. Several of those “oversignees” have pursued pro baseball or never qualified. See, someone who doesn’t qualify or doesn’t intend to go to college isn’t an oversignee even though he might sign a letter of intent.

  5. KC June 29, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    I am not quite sure how one determines a team has not oversigned when they have in fact signed more players in February than they have allotable scholarships for – with 85 being the total available number for NCAA football programs.

    Also, if you are implying alabama players sit around with an entitlement mentality, I think you are mistaken. If that was the case, they would not be leaving the program shortly before the roster has to be trimmed to 85. They would be leaving well before that as CNS is not exactly the type to tolerate such an attitude.

  6. capstonereport June 29, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    First of all, do you know how many people have already been declared medically ineligible in January?

    If not, then you don’t know how many scholarship slots are open.

    In other words, you don’t know if Alabama oversigned or not. You are just assuming because you have an agenda.

    And the entitlement mentality was reference to why four-years scholarships are a bad idea—something that people who oppose oversigning don’t seem to grasp. You aren’t entitled to your scholarship for anything more than ONE year.

    Therefore, there can be NO OVERSIGNING because the roster is completely clear at the end of every academic year.

  7. KC June 29, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    I am not quite sure what you mean by “the roster is completely clear at the end of every academic year.” First I would ask for your definition of an academic year. Then I would ask for the date when Alabama has no football players on an any athletic scholarships.

    I will wait for your response.

    To address the medical issue you raise, how many players do you advocate a team sign in anticipation of medical redshirts each year “in January”? SEC teams average less than 1 medical redshirt per year. Are you implying there should be a given number of scholarships available as a type of reserve (sorta like a bad debt reserve in the business world)? Or are you implying teams should be able to sign an unlimited number of players in general in anticipation of medical redshirts? Do you believe the current 85 limit is insufficient to address the average of less than 1 medical redshirt per team per year?

    Again, I will wait for a response since I have requested some clarifications.

  8. capstonereport June 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    SIGH

    OK, since each scholarship is for ONE-YEAR, the player is notified sometime after the Spring term if their scholarship will be renewed or not. It is at this point that technically, the roster is clear….because the school must actively notify of the renewal or non-renewal of the scholarship per NCAA defined procedures.

    Medical REDSHIRTS have nothing to do with this. Perhaps you just mixed up the terms, but medical redshirts are not what we have discussed here. Redshirted players are still on scholarships and count against the 85 limit. Perhaps your confusion is just an example of why oversigning topics should be confined to people who actually have read the NCAA rulebook.

    Players that are put on medical scholarship are no longer eligible to play football at the school and no longer count against the 85 limit. These players get to finish their education despite not being able to play football. Understand?

  9. KC June 29, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    As to the medical issue, yes, you are correct, I mixed up the terms. Please insert “scholarship” where I used the term “redshirt” to answer the original questions stemming from your implication that not knowing the number of medically ineligible is an important consideration (keeping in mind the average number per SEC team per year is < 1 and their are 85 scholarships available to be given by an NCAA football team).

    Now, as to the other part…

    If all players are notified whether or not their scholarship will be renewed at a given date after the spring term, why is it that there are no announcements of such? It would seem that there would be considering when a recruit signs, an announcement is made. It is even reported when a high school recruit receives an initial offer. These recruits have no affliation with the University whatsoever as a recruit, yet announcements are made. It would seem when you sign 12 more players than you have scholarships available for (2011) assuming all are renewed, this would be something noteworthy as so many current players will not be able to particpate in football and will not have their scholarsip renewed this year.

    Further every school in the SEC submits a report of players on scholarship each year. Why does Alabama not do so? Is every public SEC school as well as most public schools in the country violating federal privacy laws as the University of Alabama has explicitly implied by directly stating laws prohibit them from releasing the information?

    Lastly, since you state walkons have received football scholarships at Alabama the past two years, can you name them?

  10. capstonereport June 29, 2011 at 2:14 pm #

    You are a sophist. A bad one.

    I didn’t say within the past two years, but since Saban has been at Alabama and since the oversigning crap started. Walkons that I can remember off the top of my head include Leigh Tiffin, PJ Fitzgerald and Tyrone King. You can google those if you care. However, since your tactic was to change what I said…you clearly aren’t interested in the truth.

    And here is where we are different. I’m not myopic. I believe that Alabama is violating the state’s open records law by not releasing this type of information. Alabama has a long history of doing the wrong thing in regards to records. It is arrogance and I have considered litigating to get access to the records.

  11. KC June 29, 2011 at 2:58 pm #

    Ha, ha. So you like my method of trying to make a point? Or rather you believe I am good at making a point which is incorrect or inaccurate. Well, part of my job at times is to make complex arguements within a framework of certain rules, laws or provisions and I am good at it.

    Anyway, I am very far from myopic. I will give you much credit for acknowledging the official position of Alabama in regards to releasing the information as erroneous and to be frank stupid. Of course, that is your job as a “journalist” of any media outlet.

    Now, I will state my position and leave it at that if you wish. Alabama makes a mockery of the intent of the 85 scholarship limit each year under CNS. Alabama oversigns drastically if you define oversigning as signing more players on NSD than you have room for under the 85 limit, assuming all eligible football scholarships are renewed (as is the expectation at almost every university in the country notwithstanding any circumstances known at the time which would specifically preclude the renewal – constantly violating team rules, arrests, becoming ineligible, etc). Given the obvious that Alabama significantly exceeds the 85 limit every NSD under CNS, players must accordingly be removed from the team. Lots of them. Now I do not believe an athletic scholarship should ever be guaranteed for 4 years. However, I do believe a reason of nonrenewal to make room for an incoming recruit is not sufficient grounds for not renewing a scholarship. And to argue what CNS is doing is anything other than exactly that is a bit asinine or ignorant (or both).

    The fact that Alabama and CNS do not feel they have to adhere to the INTENT of the rule (and really the only intent of a rather simple rule) in any way whatsoever, it should be a bit of an embarrassment to the university. I do understand it is not however, it seems more of a source of pride in fact.

    In conclusion, if no one is required to adhere to the principle and intent of the rule and it becomes adherence by choice (which is really what it is right now), the rule is useless and should not exist in the first place. As it stands now, you have the few teams who choose to essentially ignore the rule gaining a significant advantage over the many who do not. If the rule is deemed to have merit, you make it enforceable. If not, you do away with it.

  12. pete4tide June 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Once again, KC, your allegiances are showing. This rule is not “significantly” exceeded each NSD by Bama if there is evidence to the coaching staff and administration that there will indeed be reductions in the roster by the time summer practice begins. This may be technical and academic, but it is the fact. Just because it is not reported to any media outlet does not make it less than factual, any more than your stretching of the truth to make your point(s). Alabama is one of the least egregious in what you term “oversigning”, and, yes, it does occur in every conference, and, at diverse times, within almost every member of the BCS, if not the NCAA. The only reason it wouldn’t is because so many schools are unable to attract the talent to sign at their school. And this appears to be your main problem with Saban and Alabama – they attract a high level of interest and talent, and SIGN those individuals each NSD. Whether or not this represents “oversigning” is an unknown as far as Alabama goes, because we – the public – are not aware of other circumstances within the Alabama athletic department that may affect the number of scholarships available. At this time, there is no requirement that the athletic department release that information to the media. In fact, I would expect them to continue to do as they have the past few years and not make any concrete decision until the summer following the spring semester. Strategy would dictate that you only release information like that if it benefits the program. Journalists like Cap might not like them “withholding” that information, but I believe it is well within their rights to do so until the information is “official”. Saban has been able to manipulate media releases – and members of the media themselves – since his arrival at Bama. That would piss me off, too, if it was what I did for a living. But I don’t think litigation will have any eventual affect on the availability of the information.

  13. KC June 29, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    Not a bad arguement Pete. However, it makes more assumptions and leaps of faith than any of my reasoning. Occam Razor’s time (and I gotta keep this brief as I am about to leave):

    Is it more likely that CNS has pertinent information in Feb at the time of NSD that would neccessitate him to oversign by a dozen players (2011) or 10 players (2010) or is it more likely he signs too many players, disregarding the 85 limit with full intent to remove players from the program after spring training.

    I believe the answer is fairly obvious.

    And not to be rude, but in an attempt to preclude you from wasting my time on this particular nuance, I will remind you that saban removed 3 players from the roster of scholarship athletes on the DAY BEFORE (or maybe it was two days) the 85 limit had to be reached last year. Are you going to try and tell me he had this information available and informed the 3 players in February when he intentionally signed too many players, thereby necessitating this move? I hope not.

    Your assertion that alabama is one of the “least egregious” is hardly worth responding to, but I will…

    I previously defined oversigning which is in agreement with the intent of the term when used in this particular discussion. Name a school that signed more than Alabama this year taking into account the number they had available assuming all eligible scholarships were renewed.

  14. Crimsonite June 29, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    We had a safety who was a walkon last year and he was so good that HE replaced the injured Baron in the Cap 1 Bowl. I can’t remember his name. But I bet he has a scholly this year. Lowrey??? Anyway phuck anybody that doesn’t like how Bama recruits. Think we give a shyt what you think? Bwaa Haww haww! RTR!

  15. pete4tide June 29, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    KC – are you aware of how incredibly anal and OCD CNS really is? How very controlling he is with his program? He doesn’t just manipulate the press, he does that with everyone and everything around him. He reminds me of the coach in North Dallac Forty – so stuck on his plan and how each player and part stick together that there is hardly anything that he is not aware of at any one time. I think this is why he didn’t do as well in Miami with the NFL (however, I think his method and “process” would work in some other NFL franchises). Occam’s Razor would dictate – if you know the personality of this particular coach – that the simplest of explanations is that he knows already – at signing day – who is going to make it and who is not – and he signs what he thinks he will need to fill out his class. If something unlikely happens – some athlete doesn’t have season- or career-ending surgery and instead rehabs in a miraculous way – then I think what we would see if some signee that was borderline end up in a junior college somewhere instead of on scholarship.

    And I think that Ole Miss the past two signing days would answer your request in the last sentence. They are, after all, the reason that the rule change is taking place this year.

  16. KC June 30, 2011 at 7:54 am #

    Pete,

    Yes I am aware of of CNS’s qualities good and bad having also followed his time with the Dolphins. I can tell you, two things hurt him in Miami:

    1. Intimidation and treating players poorly works in college as the players are kids and will take it and respond to it. In the NFL, you deal with grown men who make more than you and in some cases know football and the game better than you. They do not respond as well.

    2. Talent. His drafts were mostly very poor. His free agency decisions were poor. At both LSU and Bama his team has had more talent than the opponent. In Miami, the talent was equal or less than the league median.

    Now, we can just agree to disagree about him knowing who he will be removing from the team in January. I already stated my position, reasoning, and provided the late timing of the “cuts” last year as evidence, so I do not see a need to rehash.

    And Ole Miss is the team I was thinking of as the only team to have signed more players with less available scholarships (based on the previous definition) than Bama last year (and maybe in 2010).

  17. Catch 5 June 30, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

    KC
    1. You say the SEC teams average less than one medical harddship a year. Where did you get this? I have searched ffor such data but have been unable to find it. I did look at the 2008 signing classes and found that Bama had 2 medicals from that year while the rest of the league had at least 10, probably more as medicals are often not publicized.
    2. Go read the recent articles about Goode leaving. Saban is quoted as saying he sat down with Goode before spring (as he does with all players) and Goode said he wanted to transfer if he didn’t improve his standing over spring. I imagine Goode wasn’t the only one making such statements, and a coach who talks with his players like that probably does have a good idea of who isn’t happy. He can then sign enough players to cover these loses (with a handfull of these accepting a grayshirt offer in case fewer transfer than anticipated. If you read enough of Saban’s quotes, you will find this is how he operates.
    3. Lastly you also say that every other SEC team releases scholarship rosters. Please provide a link to this as well as I don’t believe I’ve ever seen this.

  18. KC July 1, 2011 at 12:47 am #

    Catch 5,

    Below are my responses and links addressing your 3 points:

    1. In regards to medical hardships, the Wall Street Journal did the research and there findings were the SEC has issued 25 over the past three years. With 12 teams in the conference that works out to .69 per school per year. Alabama gave 3 in 2009 alone. More than 4x the league average. Alabama is rumored to be looking at giving 2 this year, double the league average. They are being used as a tool to remove players and make room for an oversigned roster it would appear.

    2. I am sure there are many players on Alabama’s roster who feel they were misled during their recruitment and want out. Unfortunately they must sit out a year or go to a small school that does not afford them many of the opportunities of an SEC school. This is the price they pay for not doing their homework and signing with Alabama in the first place.

    3. The Crimson White (Tuscaloosa Alabama news media outlet) wrote an article stating every public SEC school with the exception of Alabama released the information when asked for it. Vanderbilt also withholds the information, but they are a private institution and are not legally required to release the information as the University of Alabama is. Following is a legal opinion quoted in the Tuscaloosa publication:

    “Deborah Lane, and assistant vice president for University Relations, said in an emailed statement that privacy laws prohibit them from disclosing scholarship numbers because they can be used by a reasonable person to find out personal information about individual students.

    But law experts disagree.

    “This information is not confidential,” said Frank LoMonte, the executive director of the Student Press Law Center. “In fact, Alabama routinely announces the names of star athletes it has signed to scholarships…. Other schools are comfortable releasing the numbers. There is no practical way that you could match up the number of scholarships with particular athletes and, even if you could, it would not compromise any private information.”

    Lane said student athletes sign a form each year allowing the University to disclose their educational records to the SEC and NCAA.”

    Furthermore, every program in the state of Alabama provides the information EXCEPT Alabama.

    Alabama’s postion on the issue should be an embarrassment to the University in all honesty.

    Here are a couple of links:

    http://cw.ua.edu/2011/04/13/university-blacks-out-scholarship-numbers/

    http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/02/scarbinsky_alabamas_dont-tell.html

%d bloggers like this: