Watching the “National Championsip” game made me sick once I realized over the past few seasons an entire football team had been oversigned by LSU and ’Bama combined.
It still warms my heart the NCAA can send out an army to investigate and suspend a player for selling his on jersey,
under some circumstances with a devilish agent, however they can’t do what you woud think would be their purpose and level the playing field for all in oversigning. The ACC has on oversigning rules. The 25 scholy bit still doesnt impact the oversigning of the last years that has already happened. It’s simple – you get 85 guys +2 for a buffer for injuries and non quals. You only have 60 players on your team, you can sign 25. But limiting signing to 25 really doesnt solve the problem. It’s more of a weak political statement that “we care.”
Don’t worry, Alabama will win another NC next year and the next and at some point someone will get tired of it enough to fix it for real. In the meantime, prepare for a beat down in Atlanta. Only UGA and UF have consistently committed to not oversigning and being truthful with recruits about scholies.
Not to go anti Rangers1980, but I don't think Alabama is cheating.
Alabama is within the letter of the recruiting rules, and that’s enough to get out of the “cheater” category with me. I don’t like the way Alabama recruits, but they are guilty of nothing more than using the existing system to the school’s advantage. I wish we had better rules to protect student athletes (enter my beloved “all players at a oversigning school can transfer without sitting out” rule), but I think we need to legislate before we judge Alabama guilty. I also hope that the rise of transparent signing limits helps student athletes make informed decisions about their prospects at a given school, but that’s on the student.
I don’t think you were calling Alabama cheaters in the “NCAA’s gonna get you!” sense, but I thought there was room to take the other side on this one.
Is Alabama guilty of breaking the rules? No. Are they guilty of unethical practices to get an edge? Yes. Are they guilty of condoning a legal activity that most find wrong, yes.
Are they guilty of looking for loopholes and “gaming” the system? Yes.
So, we may not could take Alabama to court under the letter of the law. But there are many, many, many times throughout history a government, business, person, team, group was legal under the letter of the law, but practicing highly unethical activities while doing it.
But since you invoked Rangers100’s name (it was Stephen1980 and Rangers100), I believe I’m still required to call you a weak-willed lemming who is willing to play Russian Roulette with 18-year-old’s lives and turn them into glorified gladiators for the benefit of mindless troglodytes all across the country.
dont forget braves2011 (or was it 2012), dang those guys with numbers in their names!
(not that there’s anything wrong with having a number in your name).
The line “willing to play Russian Roulette with 18 year-old’s lives” is spot on Ranger100. You forgot to add “taking advantage of impoverished and under educated.”
I can't believe I dishonored the memory of our dear departed Rangers100 and Stephen1980 at the same time.
I would sure hate it if anybody said anything bad about those guys that they didn’t deserve 100 times over. Really, I would.
I agree with Tankertoad’s response above regarding the moral implications of oversigning, but differ (maybe, I shouldn’t presume) on how to address it.
Morally, we may fault coaches who game a system that is set up to be gamed, but the real problem is that the rules allow it. The Big Ten manages to implement and enforce adequate restrictions on oversigning, and there is where our focus should be.
One reform I believe should be considered is a requirement that medical greyshirts be approved by the league office.
I don't know, guys
Alabama cheating is an SEC tradition. Are we really going to allow Slive to kill another tradition?
blackertai - January 31, 2012
I hope so...
Watching the “National Championsip” game made me sick once I realized over the past few seasons an entire football team had been oversigned by LSU and ’Bama combined.
Let’s level the playing field.
Jman781 - January 31, 2012
It still warms my heart the NCAA can send out an army to investigate and suspend a player for selling his on jersey,
under some circumstances with a devilish agent, however they can’t do what you woud think would be their purpose and level the playing field for all in oversigning. The ACC has on oversigning rules. The 25 scholy bit still doesnt impact the oversigning of the last years that has already happened. It’s simple – you get 85 guys +2 for a buffer for injuries and non quals. You only have 60 players on your team, you can sign 25. But limiting signing to 25 really doesnt solve the problem. It’s more of a weak political statement that “we care.”
Don’t worry, Alabama will win another NC next year and the next and at some point someone will get tired of it enough to fix it for real. In the meantime, prepare for a beat down in Atlanta. Only UGA and UF have consistently committed to not oversigning and being truthful with recruits about scholies.
tankertoad - January 31, 2012
Not to go anti Rangers1980, but I don't think Alabama is cheating.
Alabama is within the letter of the recruiting rules, and that’s enough to get out of the “cheater” category with me. I don’t like the way Alabama recruits, but they are guilty of nothing more than using the existing system to the school’s advantage. I wish we had better rules to protect student athletes (enter my beloved “all players at a oversigning school can transfer without sitting out” rule), but I think we need to legislate before we judge Alabama guilty. I also hope that the rise of transparent signing limits helps student athletes make informed decisions about their prospects at a given school, but that’s on the student.
I don’t think you were calling Alabama cheaters in the “NCAA’s gonna get you!” sense, but I thought there was room to take the other side on this one.
first and thom - January 31, 2012
Is Alabama guilty of breaking the rules? No. Are they guilty of unethical practices to get an edge? Yes. Are they guilty of condoning a legal activity that most find wrong, yes.
Are they guilty of looking for loopholes and “gaming” the system? Yes.
So, we may not could take Alabama to court under the letter of the law. But there are many, many, many times throughout history a government, business, person, team, group was legal under the letter of the law, but practicing highly unethical activities while doing it.
tankertoad - January 31, 2012
Reasonable response to a trolling headline is...
… well, is reasonable, I suppose.
But since you invoked Rangers100’s name (it was Stephen1980 and Rangers100), I believe I’m still required to call you a weak-willed lemming who is willing to play Russian Roulette with 18-year-old’s lives and turn them into glorified gladiators for the benefit of mindless troglodytes all across the country.
vineyarddawg - January 31, 2012
dont forget braves2011 (or was it 2012), dang those guys with numbers in their names!
(not that there’s anything wrong with having a number in your name).
The line “willing to play Russian Roulette with 18 year-old’s lives” is spot on Ranger100. You forgot to add “taking advantage of impoverished and under educated.”
tankertoad - January 31, 2012
I'm good with impressions. :-)
Want to see my Braves2011?
“If we signed more 5-star recruits, would we be ranked higher in the recruiting rankings?”
vineyarddawg - January 31, 2012
dude - my favorite was "Do you think the Braves will win a world series this year?"
“No”.
tankertoad - January 31, 2012
"dang those guys with numbers in their names!"
harumph
The984 - January 31, 2012
Dang those guys with profile pics that gross me out but I simultaneously can't look away from
Dawg in Beaumont - January 31, 2012
I can't believe I dishonored the memory of our dear departed Rangers100 and Stephen1980 at the same time.
I would sure hate it if anybody said anything bad about those guys that they didn’t deserve 100 times over. Really, I would.
I agree with Tankertoad’s response above regarding the moral implications of oversigning, but differ (maybe, I shouldn’t presume) on how to address it.
first and thom - January 31, 2012
Good point, first and thom.
Morally, we may fault coaches who game a system that is set up to be gamed, but the real problem is that the rules allow it. The Big Ten manages to implement and enforce adequate restrictions on oversigning, and there is where our focus should be.
One reform I believe should be considered is a requirement that medical greyshirts be approved by the league office.
T Kyle King - January 31, 2012
Oh, and tankertoad?
You’re welcome.
vineyarddawg - January 31, 2012
Talking about Man U getting it back in gear today and tying for pts lead? Let's stick to trolling alabama, there's enough soccer talk lately )
I will freely admit I know know nothing about Stoke City. Now, if you are talking about you win over Man City, congrats.
tankertoad - January 31, 2012
For real.
I’m letting folks know now: If any of the National Signing Day coverage gets threadjacked by the soccerphiles, I’m going to start banning at random.
T Kyle King - January 31, 2012
Not if I ban you first ;)
Mr. Sanchez - January 31, 2012
(Sigh.)
It’s like winning the Cold War was a waste of time.
T Kyle King - January 31, 2012
(Sees a line that has mysteriously appeared on the floor)
vineyarddawg - January 31, 2012
tRoll Bama tRoll
Dawg2011 - January 31, 2012
We allowed your band of merry men to tie for the points lead today by taking Man City down.
So… you’re welcome.
vineyarddawg - January 31, 2012
Yeah well...
Now we’re gonna take over the points lead cause we got Saha!!! Wait…. what?!?!?!? Oh well, better than Pav I suppose.
RedCrake - February 1, 2012
I think of it more that Man U tied the lead because they won.
The upcoming repeat is really going to be fun. )
tankertoad - February 1, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawg Sports to post a comment.