SEC! SEC!

[detlef]

Didn't the video also show the Big 10 was the conference that took the least advantage of the rules? Hence the comparison.

So?

 

For once, this is not about who has been the most dominant conference. Well, if there's any connection it's that it shed some insight on perhaps why that is.

 

Listen, Steve had the right angle. Point out that the title of this thread is misleading and that it's not as if the SEC is head's and shoulders ahead of everyone else (The Big 12 is basically right on their heels in this regard). Actually, if you're hell bent on pointing out how rad the SEC is here, why not show that the Big 12 has done relatively crappy on the biggest stage despite being nearly as bad.

 

But, as an SEC honk, I think this is one situation where you shouldn't bring up the Big 10 because this is one situation where they can clearly be proud of their conference. After all, given the natural attrition, one could argue that they almost never have to turn their back on a kid the way SEC coaches don't seem to be thinking twice about.

 

Honestly, it's an effing disgrace the way these guys seemed so nonchalant about it and, provided what the kid says is true, you should be ashamed of the way Miles basically threw him under the bus.

[Glabra]

Look I don't like what is happening to the student athlete but the problem needs to be addressed at the NCAA level. If not, I can almost guarantee you the Big 10 will once again follow the lead of the SEC and start oversigning players themselves.

umm..oversigning is not a recent phenomenon. It's been happening in the SEC for 40 plus years. That's why Georgia Tech chose to leave the SEC in the 60s, because the other SEC schools at the time didn't agree upon putting an end to this practice.

 

It's not something that just started yesterday, that the Big-10 will just choose to adopt to keep up. They have ethics and integrity.

[Rockerbraves]

So?

 

For once, this is not about who has been the most dominant conference. Well, if there's any connection it's that it shed some insight on perhaps why that is.

 

Listen, Steve had the right angle. Point out that the title of this thread is misleading and that it's not as if the SEC is head's and shoulders ahead of everyone else (The Big 12 is basically right on their heels in this regard). Actually, if you're hell bent on pointing out how rad the SEC is here, why not show that the Big 12 has done relatively crappy on the biggest stage despite being nearly as bad.

 

But, as an SEC honk, I think this is one situation where you shouldn't bring up the Big 10 because this is one situation where they can clearly be proud of their conference. After all, given the natural attrition, one could argue that they almost never have to turn their back on a kid the way SEC coaches don't seem to be thinking twice about.

 

Honestly, it's an effing disgrace the way these guys seemed so nonchalant about it and, provided what the kid says is true, you should be ashamed of the way Miles basically threw him under the bus.

Please don't tell me you think college football is pure and all about the student athlete. Right or wrong CFB is big time business.

 

Wouldn't you agree, it's hard to be a successful CEO/Coach in big business by being a nice guy. That's probably why you or I could never be a successful CEO of a fortune 500 company. However as a stockholder we want one of those CEO's who make tough decisions that benefit our investments, not by breaking the law, but by taking full advatage of them. So again, the problem with oversigning needs to be addressed on the NCAA level not on the conference level.

[detlef]

Please don't tell me you think college football is pure and all about the student athlete. Right or wrong CFB is big time business.

 

Wouldn't you agree, it's hard to be a successful CEO/Coach in big business by being a nice guy. That's probably why you or I could never be a successful CEO of a fortune 500 company. However as a stockholder we want one of those CEO's who make tough decisions that benefit our investments, not by breaking the law, but by taking full advatage of them. So again, the problem with oversigning needs to be addressed on the NCAA level not on the conference level.

Dude, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that only the SEC needs to be held to this rule. Rather, that there is rampant abuse that needs to end and that the SEC just happens to be the worst.

 

However, at least in this regard, it appears the Big 10 is doing absolutely nothing wrong. There are exactly 11 kids signed to the entirety of the Big 10 that there is ultimately not a roster spot for come August. I would have to guess that basic attrition just takes care of that on it's own. Kids drop out, go to the pros early, flunk out of school, what have you. So, if, because of the rampant abuse on the part of the SEC, Big 12, and other conferences, the NCAA was to put into place a rule that stated that you weren't allowed to do this, it would barely impact the Big 10 at all. So, why should they care?

 

The real unfortunate thing is that schools who actually use the rule the way it should be, by signing just a couple because every year there are bound to be that many kids who won't qualify, etc, they get taken down because of the schools who push it as far as they can at the expense of the kids.

 

And honestly, why wouldn't anyone who's not a fan of one of the big offenders want this? It would even the playing field. I'm just a fan of the game. I would love it if it wasn't the SEC and everyone else. It would make it more fun for me. And I would rather it be that way because everyone is handling signings the way the Big 10 is, not the way the SEC or Big 12 is.

[Rockerbraves]

umm..oversigning is not a recent phenomenon. It's been happening in the SEC for 40 plus years. That's why Georgia Tech chose to leave the SEC in the 60s, because the other SEC schools at the time didn't agree upon putting an end to this practice.

 

It's not something that just started yesterday, that the Big-10 will just choose to adopt to keep up. They have ethics and integrity.

I know it sounds like I'm in favor of what's happening in the SEC when it comes to oversigning. Believe me I'm not. However I am defending their right to do so under the currenct rules much like an attorney or politician would.

 

Take golf for example. There are rules in golf that I might not agree with but I don't call someone a cheater when they beat me in a match by taking advantage of one of those rules.

[detlef]

I know it sounds like I'm in favor of what's happening in the SEC when it comes to oversigning. Believe me I'm not. However I am defending their right to do so under the currenct rules much like an attorney or politician would.

 

Take golf for example. There are rules in golf that I might not agree with but I don't call someone a cheater when they beat me in a match by taking advantage of one of those rules.

Dude, don't pretend we're stupid. We understand that they're not violating any rules. We're saying that these guys are obviously abusing the rule and, as a result, maybe that rule needs to be better defined.

[Rockerbraves]

Dude, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that only the SEC needs to be held to this rule. Rather, that there is rampant abuse that needs to end and that the SEC just happens to be the worst.

My initial comment should tell you my personal feelings on this matter, but I have to defend the SEC when someone like Glabra says something like this "Doesn't take away from the crux of the issue, that the most competitive, best conference in the land holds that distinction in no small measure due to the willingness of its affiliates to sell their souls."

 

You have to admit Southerns did promise one day The South will rise again" and at least in football that day has come and apparently some Yankees like Glabra don't like it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE5Z09nYOK0

[detlef]

My initial comment should tell you my personal feelings on this matter, but I have to defend the SEC when someone like Glabra says something like this "Doesn't take away from the crux of the issue, that the most competitive, best conference in the land holds that distinction in no small measure due to the willingness of its affiliates to sell their souls."

Why do you have to defend that? It's true. Well what is absolutely true is that they're the worst in this regard and, according to him, the worst at actual violations. So, it's not hard to connect the dots. They seem to have the fewest scruples with regard to how they'll conduct business, so one would hope that would translate into better football teams. If they can't parlay the relative advantage that gives them, then they pretty much suck.

 

In other sports, this matters. When teams or athletes dominate their sport and it is later discovered that they did so by either cheating or stretching the rules to the extent that it required new legislation, I think it is fair to point that out. Can't see why you need to get all indignant about it here.

 

Like I said earlier, you should be more concerned that your coach has no soul than you should about defending his honor. Or what little he has.

Edited December 20, 2010 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

Why do you have to defend that? It's true. Well what is absolutely true is that they're the worst in this regard and, according to him, the worst at actual violations. So, it's not hard to connect the dots. They seem to have the fewest scruples with regard to how they'll conduct business, so one would hope that would translate into better football teams. If they can't parlay the relative advantage that gives them, then they pretty much suck.

 

In other sports, this matters. When teams or athletes dominate their sport and it is later discovered that they did so by either cheating or stretching the rules to the extent that it required new legislation, I think it is fair to point that out. Can't see why you need to get all indignant about it here.

 

Like I said earlier, you should be more concerned that your coach has no soul than you should about defending his honor. Or what little he has.

Guess it's a Southern Thang. Seriously you are completely missing the point. No one cheated and what exactlly do you mean by stretchng the rules? Competitive sportsmen have always tried to take advantage of rules.

 

Going back to the golf analogy> New rules are being made all the time in that sport to combat equipment changes, But I would never say a player had no soul because he elected to use a square groove wedge if he thought it gave him an advantage and it was legal. Guess you would, right?

[untateve]

Is there any way of finding out how many recruits are signed by an individual school annually and how many over the 85-person limit that their signings put them?

 

While I'm afraid to find out, I would like to know Florida's numbers in this matter.

[Rockerbraves]

Is there any way of finding out how many recruits are signed by an individual school annually and how many over the 85-person limit that their signings put them?

 

While I'm afraid to find out, I would like to know Florida's numbers in this matter.

From what I gather Florida doesn't oversign as many as some other SEC teams. Georgia does a nice job of not oversigning as well.

[detlef]

Guess it's a Southern Thang. Seriously you are completely missing the point. No one cheated and what exactlly do you mean by stretchng the rules? Competitive sportsmen have always tried to take advantage of rules.

 

Going back to the golf analogy> New rules are being made all the time in that sport to combat equipment changes, But I would never say a player had no soul because he elected to use a square groove wedge if he thought it gave him an advantage and it was legal. Guess you would, right?

This is what I mean by stretching the rules. I'm not sure how these all came about, but let me guess. First they put restrictions on scholarships. Then, schools noticed that they'd sign as many players as they were allowed to, only to find a bunch ended up not being able to play for various reasons and they wished they'd been able to sign a few extra to cover those. So they probably cried to the NCAA to let them sign extras, just so long as they were under 85 by a certain date. Now, most honorable schools just did that. They signed a few extra and it all worked out fine.

 

But others saw this as a chance to stockpile far more players than they damned well knew they'd have to in order to cover their butts in the manner the extension was intended. Screw the kids, that's someone else's problem. We'll just grab as many as we can convince to come with promises of scholarships and Josh Gordon them out as needed. So what if a kid who would have been good enough to play at another D-1A school now has to scramble to make a D-II squad, that's not our problem. Not only do we get first crack at them, 2nd tier schools in our league won't get them either. Nobody gets hurt, right? Well, nobody but the kids. Way to go LSU. Stay classy.

 

Sorry, but that is the very definition of stretching the rules and one that the NCAA should absolutely change to stop this abuse. And make analogies about golf technology all you want if that makes you sleep better at night. The simple fact is, if a rule needs to be tightened up because your school is taking it too far, that's nothing to be proud of.

[Square]

Is there any way of finding out how many recruits are signed by an individual school annually and how many over the 85-person limit that their signings put them?

 

While I'm afraid to find out, I would like to know Florida's numbers in this matter.

Not to interrupt the pillow fight, but I'd be interested to find out numbers as well. I'd never really heard of that happening much in the Big12 but apparently it's going on somewhere. NU has a walkon program so I'm not sure if that changes things much.

[Rockerbraves]

This is what I mean by stretching the rules. I'm not sure how these all came about, but let me guess. First they put restrictions on scholarships. Then, schools noticed that they'd sign as many players as they were allowed to, only to find a bunch ended up not being able to play for various reasons and they wished they'd been able to sign a few extra to cover those. So they probably cried to the NCAA to let them sign extras, just so long as they were under 85 by a certain date. Now, most honorable schools just did that. They signed a few extra and it all worked out fine.

 

But others saw this as a chance to stockpile far more players than they damned well knew they'd have to in order to cover their butts in the manner the extension was intended. Screw the kids, that's someone else's problem. We'll just grab as many as we can convince to come with promises of scholarships and Josh Gordon them out as needed. So what if a kid who would have been good enough to play at another D-1A school now has to scramble to make a D-II squad, that's not our problem. Not only do we get first crack at them, 2nd tier schools in our league won't get them either. Nobody gets hurt, right? Well, nobody but the kids. Way to go LSU. Stay classy.

 

Sorry, but that is the very definition of stretching the rules and one that the NCAA should absolutely change to stop this abuse. And make analogies about golf technology all you want if that makes you sleep better at night. The simple fact is, if a rule needs to be tightened up because your school is taking it too far, that's nothing to be proud of.

Can I assume your kid plays or played recreational ball instead of competitive ball? Because you sure do sound like a wimp when it comes to competitive sports.

[Rockerbraves]

Not to interrupt the pillow fight, but I'd be interested to find out numbers as well. I'd never really heard of that happening much in the Big12 but apparently it's going on somewhere. NU has a walkon program so I'm not sure if that changes things much.

According to rivals Nebraska signed an average of 24 LOI these past 4 years 07-10. That's 96. So the must be oversigning as well since you can only have 85 scholarship players and I assume Nebraska redshirted some players in 2006.

 

In that same period of time Florida signed 93 LOI. while LSU signed 105 and Bama 110.

 

And Michigan of the Big 10 signed 93 LOI , Big 10 Wisconsin 97, Minnesota 99

 

And just for the heck of it the PAC 10 Conference Champions Oregon Ducks signed 98 LOI in that same period.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Rockerbraves

[detlef]

Can I assume your kid plays or played recreational ball instead of competitive ball? Because you sure do sound like a wimp when it comes to competitive sports.

I don't have kids.

 

And you're a freaking joke if you see my disgust with this as "wimpy". That this may provide schools a competitive advantage over other schools is nowhere close to my main concern.

[Rockerbraves]

I don't have kids.

 

And you're a freaking joke if you see my disgust with this as "wimpy". That this may provide schools a competitive advantage over other schools is nowhere close to my main concern.

No on is denying it's not an advantage, but all teams are playing by the same rules. Have a good friend of mine who son will be playing for Northwestern in the Big 10 next season. According to him if a player doesn't have (he says) a 3.0 average the coaches told him he can't play football. Now that doesn't seem fair to the kids either, now does it?

[Glabra]

According to rivals Nebraska signed an average of 24 LOI these past 4 years 07-10. That's 96. So the must be oversigning as well since you can only have 85 scholarship players and I assume Nebraska redshirted some players in 2006.

 

That's not how the math works. '24*4 =96 > 85' is not the way to look at it.

 

How many you can sign in a given year depends upon the 85 limit; and attrition due to graduation, transfers, ineligibility and dismissals. So 96, though seemingly on the high side, is not automatically 'bad'. Depends upon, if in any given year, the team gave out so many LOIs that it put them temporarily over 85 before the 'corrections'.

[theprofessor]

There is no denying the importance of CFB is a Southern thang and it's reflected on the scoreboard. Here are the stats I found from another site.

 

In 2009, the SEC went 6-4 in bowl games. In 2008, the SEC ended up 6-2; 7-2 in 2007. That 19-8 bowl record in the past three years is the best record of all the conferences and the most bowl wins ever by one conference over three years.

 

Oh, and the SEC won the National Championships each of those years, as well as the prior year (2006).

 

So, how'd the Big Ten do? This past year (2009) they went 4-3. In 2008 they were 1-6. In 2007 they were 3-5. So, a cumulative record of 8-14 over the past three years. Note that Ohio State lost both the '06 and '07 Championship Games to Florida and LSU.

 

Over the past two bowl seasons; the SEC is a cumulative 13-5; the Big Ten 5-10. And, interestingly, the Big Ten is 3-3 vs the SEC and 2-7 versus everyone else! Not sure what to make of that stat.

 

SEC teams are 33-20 vs the Big Ten in bowl games 1930 - 2007.

 

Through 2009, the SEC leads the Big Ten with a 67-48-2 all-time record.

 

The SEC has a .581 winning percentage versus the Big Ten..

 

 

And what conference has the best bowl record in the BCS era .......... SEC....... Pac-10............ Big 10 ........ Big 12?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big East (36-23)

[theprofessor]

playing for Northwestern in the Big 10 next season. According to him if a player doesn't have (he says) a 3.0 average the coaches told him he can't play football. Now that doesn't seem fair to the kids either, now does it?

Disagree, more schools should have these type of academic standards. Why shouldn't they?

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Rocker, don't drag me into this. Conference Championships are all about the $$$. Big Ten expanding does nothing to change my opinion on that. However I will say, the Big Ten is the only conference that seems to have any academic standards in terms of who they let into the conference. Academically, only Vanderbilt and Florida would even be allowed entrance in the Big Ten. Other than that, I sort of agree with you that once again, this is an NCAA issue, and detlef hit the nail on the head... "don't allow it". And those kids that don't "cut it" should be able to sign on with a UCF or a Troy or a Northern Illinois etc etc etc.

 

Reality of the situation is the burden ultimately needs to be placed on the schools and conferences to police it, because the NCAA sucks at it. Until these conferences (all of them not just the SEC) get some moral fiber, these things will continue to happen.

 

edit to add: I apologize to my Pac 10 friends, the Pac 10 also has supreme academic standards as well.

Edited December 21, 2010 by GWPFFL BrianW

[detlef]

Rocker, don't drag me into this. Conference Championships are all about the $$$. Big Ten expanding does nothing to change my opinion on that. However I will say, the Big Ten is the only conference that seems to have any academic standards in terms of who they let into the conference. Academically, only Vanderbilt and Florida would even be allowed entrance in the Big Ten. Other than that, I sort of agree with you that once again, this is an NCAA issue, and detlef hit the nail on the head... "don't allow it". And those kids that don't "cut it" should be able to sign on with a UCF or a Troy or a Northern Illinois etc etc etc.

 

Reality of the situation is the burden ultimately needs to be placed on the schools and conferences to police it, because the NCAA sucks at it. Until these conferences (all of them not just the SEC) get some moral fiber, these things will continue to happen.

 

edit to add: I apologize to my Pac 10 friends, the Pac 10 also has supreme academic standards as well.

So does the ACC. It was a big reason why they went after BC, because they fit the academic model. But pretty much all the schools in the conference are at least above average and some are absolutely top notch. Not exactly sure about FSU, but that would be the weak link if there was one.

 

Mind you, if we're talking about conferences that actually play football, then they don't qualify in that regard.

 

And the really messed up thing is that some of these kids may even make it at schools better than the UCFs and Troys of the world. I mean, LSU is pretty elite. Maybe the kid would have still been playing BCS ball, maybe even the SEC. Just for Kentucky or Ole Miss or something. T-minus 10 and counting until Rocker explains that's exactly why LSU should be doing this. To keep players from other SEC schools, even if it means totally screwing the kids over in the process.

Edited December 21, 2010 by detlef

[Glabra]

Maybe the kid would have still been playing BCS ball, maybe even the SEC. Just for Kentucky or Ole Miss or something. T-minus 10 and counting until Rocker explains that's exactly why LSU should be doing this. To keep players from other SEC schools, even if it means totally screwing the kids over in the process.

That and he's constantly feeling the heat from Nick and Houston who're not shy in one-upping him in this rat-race.

[Rockerbraves]

Rocker, don't drag me into this. Conference Championships are all about the $$$. Big Ten expanding does nothing to change my opinion on that. However I will say, the Big Ten is the only conference that seems to have any academic standards in terms of who they let into the conference. Academically, only Vanderbilt and Florida would even be allowed entrance in the Big Ten. Other than that, I sort of agree with you that once again, this is an NCAA issue, and detlef hit the nail on the head... "don't allow it". And those kids that don't "cut it" should be able to sign on with a UCF or a Troy or a Northern Illinois etc etc etc.

 

Reality of the situation is the burden ultimately needs to be placed on the schools and conferences to police it, because the NCAA sucks at it. Until these conferences (all of them not just the SEC) get some moral fiber, these things will continue to happen.

 

edit to add: I apologize to my Pac 10 friends, the Pac 10 also has supreme academic standards as well.

Apologize for bringing you into the discussion, but I honestly don't think I misrepresented your stance towards conference championship games. I don't know if you look at the stats I placed little further up on this thread for other teams outside the SEC who obviously oversigned like Oregon, Wisconsin etc. , but my entire point to Detlef is that it's a national problem not an SEC problem.

 

There's little doubt in my mind, that the Big 10 because of their academic high standards have less of a need to oversign based upon the type kids they recruit. In short, the SEC signs less college material athletes than the Big 10, so thus the need to allow for more kids not making the grade. Some beat writer wrote an article explaining part of Les Miles's problem is that he is too good of a recruiter. No way did he or anyone for that matter expect LSU to have all their recruits qualify thru the NCAA.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Rockerbraves

[Glabra]

Apologize for bringing you into the discussion, but I honestly don't think I misrepresented your stance towards conference championship games. I don't know if you look at the stats I placed little further up on this thread for other teams outside the SEC who obviously oversigned like Oregon, Wisconsin etc. , but my entire point to Detlef is that it's a national problem not an SEC problem.

You just don't get it. No one in the Big-10 is allowed to oversign, period. If they do have a situation, where for example, they have to exceed the 25 limit to make up for a shortfall, they have to provide detailed proof that no existing scholarship athletes are being sacrificed to do so.

 

There's little doubt in my mind, that the Big 10 because of their academic high standards have less of a need to oversign based upon the type kids they recruit. In short, the SEC signs less college material athletes than the Big 10, so thus the need to allow for more kids not making the grade.

It's not a choice of convinience for them. Buffering for academic casualties is only one of many benefits the Big-10 refuses to avail of by avoiding this practice