<p>Mock Big Ten for following spirit of the rules. Kids are clueless. </p>
<p>[SEC</a> Coaches Defend ‘Oversigning’ - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704444604576172954187357370.html]SEC”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704444604576172954187357370.html)</p>
<p>Well, I wouldn’t want to be a coach telling a star player he’s not gonna play on my team cause I can’t count…</p>
<p>Thanks for displaying this article barrons. Why the NCAA allows this garbage to exist is beyond me.</p>
<p>"Spurrier said oversigning is “helpful” because so many of the players in the state come from underprivileged backgrounds and may not qualify academically. He said the Big Ten, which has curbed oversigning for decades, is making a mistake by doing so. “I think that really hurts them a lot,” Spurrier said. “They end up giving scholarships to a lot of walk-ons.”</p>
<p>^^^Because some of those kids who oversign with SEC schools would be academically qualified to attend a Big 10 school. Advantage SEC.</p>
<p>And unsaid–those same underprivileged kids are not sophisticated enough to know that their spot might be cut if they don’t produce.</p>
<p>*Because some of those kids who oversign with SEC schools would be academically qualified to attend a Big 10 school. Advantage SEC. *</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>NCAA sets the academic qualifying rules. So, it’s not an SEC advantage. If a student is NCAA academically qualified, he can play at any school. The bar isn’t that high. There are lowish stats kids playing all over…and yes, in the Big 10, too.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with oversigning as long as the coaches tell the players ahead of time that they may be “gray shirted” for a year. Spurrier should not have told those players after they signed.</p>
<p>“There is nothing wrong with oversigning as long as the coaches tell the players ahead of time that they may be “gray shirted” for a year.”</p>
<p>If there is nothing wrong with it, then why doesn’t the Big 10 do it? We all know the reason why.</p>
<p>"Because some of those kids who oversign with SEC schools would be academically qualified to attend a Big 10 school. Advantage SEC. </p>
<p>???"</p>
<p>Schools like Alabama HOARD top players so they won’t sign with other schools. Then they wash out other upper classmen who aren’t living up to expectations to make room for these oversignings. How convenient.</p>
<p><a href=“http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/11/29/wall-street-journal-round-2-with-alabama/[/url]”>http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/11/29/wall-street-journal-round-2-with-alabama/</a></p>
<p>Roll Tide!</p>
<p>If there is nothing wrong with it, than why doesn’t the Big 10 do it?</p>
<p>What makes you think that the Big 10 won’t do it once they see that the strategy works?</p>
<p>Just because some are whining about it now, it doesn’t mean that they won’t start doing the same in the future.</p>
<p>^^^You can’t be serious mom. Has the SEC sunk that low that even their fanbase think this practice is right? The correct answer is for the NCAA to step up and say enough already!</p>
<p>*Schools like Alabama HOARD top players so they won’t sign with other schools. Then they wash out other upper classmen who aren’t living up to expectations to make room for these oversignings. How convenient. *</p>
<p>LOL…each school can only have X number of kids on academic scholarship. </p>
<p>BTW, which schools play upperclassmen that prove to be “wash outs” who don’t live up to expectation or won’t keep the discipline?? Which schools are those? </p>
<p>I think you are misunderstanding who the kids are who “wash out”. It’s usually kids who have broken serious team rules, who won’t “get with the program,” or who haven’t maintained their grades (despite a wealth of free resources/tutors/assistance for them. </p>
<p>Then, there are also a few upperclassmen that “go pro” after their junior year season…so their scholarships are suddenly available. For schools that have 2-3 juniors “going pro”…that gives them more wiggle room for scholarships. If Big 10 schools don’t have 2-3 juniors going pro, then they won’t have that wiggle room.</p>
<p>No, the Big Ten schools still take that school part seriously. Also there are the partial-qualifiers</p>
<p>The SEC made a quiet change to their academic policies regarding non-qualifiers at their meetings in Destin. The new policies would allow more non-qualifiers to begin school and bring their grades up prior to playing for a given school’s team. Each must be approved by SEC Commissioner Mike Slive. To provide the pro- and con- sides of the issue are Buxton Lewis the 4th and one promising non-qualifier football recruit.</p>
<p>And a big old Bullcrap to you mom.</p>
<p>“I think you are misunderstanding who the kids are who “wash out”. It’s usually kids who have broken serious team rules, who won’t “get with the program,” or who haven’t maintained their grades (despite a wealth of free resources/tutors/assistance for them.”</p>
<p>So oversigning helps eleviate this problem. IC. SHAME!</p>
<p>*Has the SEC sunk that low that even their fanbase think this practice is right The correct answer is for the NCAA to step up and say enough already! *</p>
<p>When you look at the details…there is nothing wrong with grey-shirting kids who…</p>
<p>1) have been told BEFORE signing day that they will likely be grey-shirted (It would be bad if the recruiters did not inform the athlete and his family of this possibility).</p>
<p>2) don’t have the grades to start in the fall, so they need a summer semester and a fall semester at a CC to get their grades up. </p>
<p>3) might need an extra year to mature/grow before being red-shirted or played. </p>
<p>What’s the big deal? Where is it written in stone that a high school senior must begin at his chosen college in the following fall? If he and his parents understand the situation, what’s the big deal? If the goal is to play for a coach/team that will better his chances for making it to the NFL, then let that be their choice. As long as the college has the right number of kids on football scholarships, then no biggie.</p>
<p>How is this much different from when schools offer their “smart” athletes merit scholarships so as to “free up” their limited athletic scholarships to have more kids on scholarships? </p>
<p>*“I think you are misunderstanding who the kids are who “wash out”. It’s usually kids who have broken serious team rules, who won’t “get with the program,” or who haven’t maintained their grades (despite a wealth of free resources/tutors/assistance for them.”</p>
<p>So oversigning helps eleviate this problem. IC. SHAME! *</p>
<p>??? What shame? what is the problem to alleviate? You’re upset that schools know that a certain number of athletes (not a large number) will not “cut it” despite all of the available resources and advising? What’s shocking or shameful about that. Schools even have estimates about how many “non-athletes” will wash out every year over grades or whatever. </p>
<p>You’re complaining about Bama, but Bama has one of the highest NCAA graduation rates for football players. Are you aware of that? During the past few seasons, Bama has had 10-12 students who have already received their BA/BS degrees playing. Their quarterback rec’d his MBA in December. (Perhaps the players who are in grad school are no longer on their athletic scholarships and are then receiving grad assistanceships? This I don’t know. But, if so, that also frees up more scholarships.)</p>
<p>I still say that once the whiners see that there’s nothing wrong with it (as long as the players are informed) and scholarship numbers are followed, then the whiners will take the attitude…if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.</p>
<p>(I think the whiners are just upset at being out-smarted. They’re upset that they didn’t think to do it first.)</p>
<p>The reality is not abotu gray-shirting. It is about forcing kids to go off scholarship after arrival as they are bypassed on the depth charts. Most likely poor black kids who won’t speak-up or take the schools to task. There has been plenty of articles on how it REALLY works. Get your head out.</p>
<p>*Get your head out. *</p>
<p>No need to be nasty.</p>
<p>And, why is this thread in the College Search and Selection Forum anyway…</p>
<p>*is about forcing kids to go off scholarship after arrival as they are bypassed on the depth charts. Most likely poor black kids who won’t speak-up or take the schools to task. There has been plenty of articles on how it REALLY works. *</p>
<p>Instead of speculating about athletes who’ve been bypassed, how about providing athletes names’, their semester GPAs, their credits accumulated each semester, their discipline records, their performance records, the year that they were bypassed, and the reasons given. For all we know, these bypassed students could have been bypassed for legit reasons. It doesn’t matter if there have been plenty of articles written if the relevant details were not all disclosed. </p>
<p>Frankly, the relevant details about bypassed athletes are probably not disclosed because the schools can’t do that for privacy reasons. So, the schools’ mouths are “gagged” while others are throwing attacks. It is very conceivable that these articles do not tell the whole story, because the writers are only really getting the athletes’ side (and it’s very likely that the athletes are not going to volunteer that they didn’t make grades, didn’t follow the rules, etc.)</p>
<p>These athletes’ socio-economic factors nor their races are relevent if they were bypassed for legitimate reasons (that again, a school may not be able to legally disclose for privacy reasons). You don’t get a free pass to keep your athletic scholarship if you won’t uphold your end of the bargain.</p>
<p>This got me thinking about an article in the local paper. University of Dayton, the school with a heart:
</p>
<p>[Nothing</a> ‘plain’ about UD’s Ebony](<a href=“http://www.daytondailynews.com/dayton-sports/university-of-dayton-flyers/nothing-plain-about-uds-ebony-1092309.html]Nothing”>http://www.daytondailynews.com/dayton-sports/university-of-dayton-flyers/nothing-plain-about-uds-ebony-1092309.html)</p>
<p>You are excusing and defending a corrupt and indefensible system that everyone who has looked at finds corrupt and indefensible. So as I said, if the shoe fits. Even one of your own is sick of it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/01/florida-president-blames-fellow-sec-bigwigs-for-oversigning/[/url]”>http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/01/florida-president-blames-fellow-sec-bigwigs-for-oversigning/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you got your history wrong, mom2collegekids. It’s not that the Big Ten was “outsmarted” or “didn’t think to do it first.” They did. And then they thought better of it, and the Big Ten conference banned the practice in 1956. Because, as barrons says, it’s corrupt and indefensible. </p>
<p>In this as in many areas, the Big Ten sets higher standards for its athletic programs, while conferences like the SEC take the position that as long as they’re technically in compliance with minimum NCAA standards that’s all that’s required. So just shaft some poor kid who you brought in on an athletic scholarship and didn’t turn out to be as fast or as strong as you thought, pull his athletic scholarship in favor of some new young stud who may pan out better athletically, and who gives a damn if that means the first kid can’t stay in college? As University of Florida President Bernie Machem said of the practice: “Morally reprehensible.”</p>