Oh, I like that suggestion. it makes too much sense. Which is why it has a snowball's chance in columbus of ever being enacted.
dude, yea....i noticed the same thing at MDan's site, but i just didn't want to get into that with him. obviously, there are 3-7 guys on every SEC teams' roster that get the axe every year: kind of like in NCAA 07. anyone who plays dynasty mode does exactly what the SEC does and what the B10 does not:
you have a 25 limit for 17 openings...so just sign the most guys you can get and axe the 77 Sr OG to keep the 82 OMG shirtless Fr. if you can get 3 5* QBs but already have 4-5 upper class qbs, who cares? sign the 5*s and axe the current backup QBs or axe the back up CBs or someone who never plays. it's really sad that the SEC coaches do that in real life. i recall 1st playing dynasty in the 02 version (joey harrington i think?). i got 2-3 years into the dynasty and oversigned the limit of 65-70 roster spots. then i got to "cut players" and had tough decisions to make....i actually thought "gosh OG#77 has been with the program for 2 years...he's a quality back up and paid his dues. how can i cut him for some freshman? that's terrible." then i came to my senses and cut the f*cker to keep some 82 Fr corner. i should change my coaches' name in ncaa07 to urban or phil fatmer or some other "honorable" SEC coach.
great post. also, nice video.
Brian:
Thanks for posting that. And more importantly, thanks for the analysis into why the disparity on scholarships; I truly did not know why (I thought, OK, some disparity due to turnover, but THAT much?).
As for your two bullet points, I make an assumption, which I think smooths out the differences in 4 stars, for example, but answers poorly your second point about the weightings...and that is that it evens out over the six years. It assumes a standard distribution of four stars over that period of time.
I am abrasive?
only to some, MDan...
plus, is the standard (i guess you mean gaussian) dist statistically meaningfull over what, (5-8) 4* guys times 4 years = 30 or so guys? perhaps if it's closer to 30 and not 15-20. but still one would assume that the better prorgams are getting the better 4* guys. so perhaps a weighting factor may be needed? i'm thinking it may be closer to a blackbody fcn, if you're familiar. wow, that may be a 1st on this or any M blog. blackbody.
Blackbody = over my head. I had to look up standard deviation to do that for a future post.
Somehow, Brian, I think Dan's "blackbody" reference needs to work its way into mgoblog lore and show up on mgofaq in a year.
I know this is an ancillary point, but, while I disagree with some aspects of this posting, only one of your observations struck me as absolutely baffling.
Did you refer to Auburn's Jason Campbell as "totally shirtless"? Was that intended to be ironic and I just missed it?
Campbell, like Ryan Leaf, had one good year as a collegian. Granted, as a senior, Campbell was outstanding, and much of his poor production in prior years may have been attributable to frequent changes of offensive coordinators and offensive philosophies, but, if you don't believe me, ask an Auburn fan and he'll tell you: Jason Campbell's career on the Plains was three years' worth of tremendous disappointment and one year of impressive success.
Once again, I know that was only an ancillary point, but, if you were seriously suggesting that Jason Campbell was a better quarterback over the course of his entire college career than, say, Brady Quinn was, such a suggestion is simply mistaken.
So the top 20% are more important than the other 80%? (of the list?)
honestly, it's not that confusing. the better programs would have the peak of their 4* distribution at a higher rank than other programs. not only that, but the better programs get more of the 4* guys (any level 4* guy) than the other programs.
maybe i'm going out on a limb here, but:
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/p...body/
bbody.html
see fig 2: vertical axis = # of 4* guys. horiz axis = quality of 4* guys (LEFT = higher quality...approaching 5* status). the larger blue line (2000K) would be USC. Purdue would be the 1250K line. notice 2 things:
that USC's peak is at a greater quality (more left) than everyone else: of all the 4* guys they get, they get more of the higher quality guys. this is what the red dashed line is telling you.
that at every point, USC gets more 4*s of every quality. (ie, the blue lines never intersect). so, not only does USC get the best of the best, they get more of every quality of 4* guy.
anywho...
Off-topic, but in case you missed it below, here's the petition to fire Amaker:
http://www.fireamaker.com/sign/index.php
Funny that you brought up class sizes today.
I was at a lunch at The Detroit Athletic Club where Lloyd was the guest speaker. He mentioned that "a certain coach in the Southeast that we'd all be familiar with" signed 30 recruits for 2007. Lloyd asked him what happens to those 5 kids who don't get scholarships? The coach said that they could hopefully enroll in school in the winter. Nice. Great attitude.
Also, Lloyd said Antonio Bass = Not playing this fall. That's not good.
Great blog.
wow chris. that is crazy. more evidence that these SEC coaches treat their kids as if it were NCAA07 and not real life. it make you wonder why kids keep choosing these schools. i guess they don't see a difference between promisses from men that keep 'em and promises from 'men' that don't.
also, i hope Bass finds another career path he can enjoy. seriously, that is bad news.
best example of youtube to prove a point yet!
I don't have the time to make sure nobody else has already commented on this, but I apologize in advance if it has been mentioned.
The academic portion of marginal recruits is not the only thing that lets SEC teams sign such large classes. They also award scholarships year-to-year, and if it becomes clear that a player will never contribute during his eligibility window his schollie can be pulled, so he has to walk on or quit the team.
Rumors of Michigan scheduling Appalachian State (I-AA) to begin next season? Absolute garbage. Just garbage.
Garbage?
That sounds hot, Hot, HOT to me!
yea, re: IAA AppST.....man, did everyone see the list of available teams in IA for 9/1/07? all 7ish of them? based on the history of this, it seems like M is running thru their choices in order. Vandy would be decent, Hawai'i, etc.....but they are not accepting Ms overtures. the NCAA put teams in a pretty bad spot given that schedules are made 5-10 years in advance. I'm sure martin is doing everything possible to avoid a IAA team. but what can he do if teams (in a pool of only 6-7) aren't interested? I thought it was a MAJOR victory to get vandy last year, given the circumstances.
Kyle, you're forgetting Campbell's 2002 season, when he led the SEC in passing efficiency and yards per attempt by a significant margin:
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2002/
...00000911PD.HTML
We should all have such "tremendous disappointment." If Auburn fans are making that case, then that says more about Auburn fans than Jason Campbell.
Campbell was poor as a RS freshman (although that was to be expected, given his youth), very good as a sophomore, lousy as a junior when Auburn had a truly atrocious offensive scheme, and excellent as a senior. He, like Brady Quinn, illustrates the importance of good offensive coaching (Weis, Petrino, Borges) as compared to bad offensive coaching (Diedrick, Hugh Nall).
Fair enough, Michael, but my point still stands.
Brian distinguished between four years of "shirtless" Jason Campbell and four years of Brady Quinn. The basis for his distinction was that Brady Quinn had two bad years and two good years.
I haven't re-examined Campbell's 2002 stats, so I will accept for the sake of argument that he had a good year (even though I suspect that, if he had particularly good numbers on passing yards per game or T.D.-to-int. ratio, you'd have used those numbers instead of passing efficiency and yards per pass) . . . but, even so, that makes two good years and two bad years for Campbell and two good years and two bad years for Quinn.
My point was that, "if [Brian] were seriously suggesting that Jason Campbell was a better quarterback over the course of his entire college career than, say, Brady Quinn was, such a suggestion is simply mistaken." Since it appears that their college careers were quite comparable, my point remains correct.
In any case, though, Michael, I appreciate your reasonable tone . . . and your willingness to refrain from referring to head coaches in my home conference by putting the words "honorable" and "men" in scare quotes.
Point taken on ND. They've obviously got a lot of other issues that hindered them. They're probably the second most accomplished team of that group, and not coincidentally the other team in said group with an NFL-level QB over the past few years. I think the overall point about weighting still stands.
I wish the NCAA would enact a rule allowing no school to accept over 24 LOIs on any given year.
That would dramatically even the playing field, and eliminate the 29-man class.
If a school signs over that many, randomly select LOIs to reject.
Kids would quickly realize that when they commit or want to sign somewhere, that they have to be wary that they aren't being messed with.
It would be great.
I know Florida supposidly has the best recruiting class but they have 3 QB's: 3,4,and 5 stars respectively, plus Tebow. All these guys cannot be on the field at the same time unless they change position. Honestly, I would rather bag a 5 star running back in 2008 than another 5 star QB.
Fair point, Brian, and I wasn't trying to quarrel with your larger thesis (although, obviously, I disagree with some of the points that have been made in this comment thread).
Your general point regarding letters of intent is a fair one, as is Wolverinekeith's, and, as those of you who read Dawg Sports know, I don't follow recruiting closely or put much stock in the rankings, because I believe every top-tier team has talent and coaching plays a critical role.
Most teams win their non-conference cupcake games on talent, but few teams win their big games strictly on having more naturally gifted players.
I'm not so sure that a player is being done such a terrible disservice by being offered a scholarship that is contingent upon his qualifying academically, however. That seems to me no different from making a contract to purchase a new house contingent on the seller producing a termite letter.
If the house doesn't pass the termite inspection and the would-be buyer refuses to close the sale, the purchaser didn't do anything that called his honor, his integrity, or his manhood into question; the seller didn't hold up his end of the bargain by meeting the minimum standard required of him to earn the benefit of the offer extended to him.
I can't speak for other schools, but, generally, Georgia's non-qualifiers spend a year at Hargrave Military Academy, where they go to improve their academic standing.
I cannot recall any instance where a kid who got his grades up at Hargrave didn't have a scholarship offer waiting on him at the end of that year, although some of those recruits have opted to sign letters of intent to other institutions, which they are entitled to do if they so choose. That hardly qualifies as being an indentured servant, much less being allowed to fall off the carnival ride.
Most of Jim Delaney's remarks, while smacking a bit of desperation to ward off criticism, merely consisted of regurgitating numbers that show the Big Ten is competitive with the S.E.C., a fact which no one denies.
The part I found troubling was his conflation of "speed" with academic inferiority. Given the common use of "speed" as a euphemism, Delaney's statement was one that undoubtedly would have generated cries of racism had an S.E.C. commissioner uttered it . . . yet Delaney seems to have been given a free pass for what was, at best, a poor word choice in a written document that, presumably, went through several drafts and ought to have been proofread more carefully.
"I'm not so sure that a player is being done such a terrible disservice by being offered a scholarship that is contingent upon his qualifying academically, however. That seems to me no different from making a contract to purchase a new house contingent on the seller producing a termite letter."
I think this misses the point.
Offering to 25 kids with the expectation that 20% won't hack it is not, as you imply, an act of generosity on the part of the coach--its a reflection of the priorities of the program, which in this case is the single-minded pursuit of the finest athletic talent available. At the college level, we at least pay lip service to the idea that these are student-athletes--not just athletes. Coaches who build a high-failure rate into their recruiting strategy simply aren't acting in the best interests of the athletes they're recruiting, plain and simple.
Admittedly, there is a degree of shrinkage that even programs that do a good job of recruiting athletes that can succeed academically have to account for. I think its safe to say, however, given the wide disparity between programs on the amount of "shrinkage" that occurs, that some programs are offering to kids that they know only have a slim chance at making it academically. For the school, this is no problem--cut the kid and move on. But what about the student?
It seems to me that the student is in precisely the same position he was in before.
If he had neither academic nor athletic ability, he would have no shot at attending college. Because he has athletic ability, he is given the opportunity to earn a scholarship, provided he meets the admissions requirements. (As you say, Daniel, these are student-athletes.)
If he fails to meet those requirements, he doesn't get in and he doesn't get the opportunity, but it's on him to meet the standards, which are hardly a state secret.
If schools refuse to take chances on kids who are academically borderline, then those young men will go from having a slim chance to having no chance.
I think most of those young men would take the view that bad odds are better than no odds and it seems to me to be far more cynical for Jim Delany to write off any marginal kid as being undeserving of any chance than it is for S.E.C. coaches to give opportunities to several borderline young men, knowing that some of them won't pan out . . . but also knowing that some of them will.
At the end of the day, the borderline kid who makes it is better off and the borderline kid who doesn't is right back where he started. In Jim Delany's world, though, neither kid would get a shot and both would be doomed to stay right where they were.
Maybe the willingness to take a chance on kids who are at risk is one of the factors that attracts these young men to programs that will allow them to succeed or fail on their own merits rather than to a place where the conference commissioner has already written them off because he assumes that fast kids don't have what it takes to cut it in the classroom.
Daniel, you may be right that "[c]oaches who build a high-failure rate into their recruiting strategy simply aren't acting in the best interests of the athletes they're recruiting," but Jim Delany is advocating a recruiting strategy that builds in an absolute assumption of failure and won't even allow marginal qualifiers the chance to prove themselves. How is that in their best interests?
Let's face it. These kids never for a second think they are going to be the one not to make it, to sit or to wash out. That's for other players. The Rojos of the world can't compute not being the best. So waves and waves of kids sign on the dotted line, sure that they are the freshman sensation. But spare me the "giving the kid a chance" garbage. Clearly, in the SEC, it's all about numbers and, as Brian said, it is a zero sum game. Far more broken-hearted kids down south than in the frozen north.
Kyle,
Why are you assuming that all of the failures in the SEC are academic? I haven't seen that; what I instead thought I saw was kids who did qualify academically and who do have athletic ability, but simply have slightly less athletic ability than someone else.
And you're right, once that kid is cut loose by the SEC school, he's right back where he started. Note - that's not "no worse", because having something and losing it isn't quite the same as never having it, now is it?
In Jim Delaney's world, universities keep the promises they make regarding scholarships, for the most part. Some guys don't get fifth years, sure. But at least it's possible to get a degree in four years. Not so much in two or three.
So, again, why are you assuming that the SEC washouts are all academic? If they're not, your argument about the margins and increased chances in the SEC might be true, but it also means throwing away guys who can play, just not as well, because winning is more important than the promises to these young men.
Brian, what's the story with the "Labels" at the end of every post? Do you type those, or is it some automated search-engine type deal?
MDan, i'm hesitent to say this, but i'm on your side here. if anyone thinks these SEC coaches are giving out 30 offers a year to be good samaritans, you're nuts. most of them aren't getting dropped after 1,2,3 years because they can't cut it in the classroom. it's because they haven't shown the ability to get on the field. sim thru 2-3 years of NCAA07 and you'll know how these SEC coaches operate. axe 3-5 guys every year that didn't pan out just to make room for a couple more 5*s and a few 4*s w/ potential. why the F would I keep Carl Tabb on my roster instead of 1-2 5* Fr WRs? the guys that get dropped now have no degree, no football career. these players could have an oppurtunity to play elsewhere and get a degree. instead they accept empty promises from SEC coaches. but they knew what they were getting into though...so it's all good. and it's not about marginal qualifiers....it's about taking more guys than open slots on teh roster...and axing guys 1-3 years into the program that haven't panned out to make room for the new hotshots.
Kyle, your argument seems to be (my apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth): Giving academically borderline recruits a chance justifies signing more than 85 to letters of intent.
While a laudable sentiment, if they all qualify the school is nonetheless required to kick someone to the curb.
I get the impression that when Michigan, for instance, offers someone a scholarship, they're guaranteeing 4 years, no matter the recruit's athletic performance (serious academic or criminal issues aside). Schools with more than 85 recruits simply cannot make this guarantee.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Larry Grant, linebacker, Ohio State. Grant committed to Florida last season but couldn’t enroll in school because he failed to pass a math class required by the SEC. So where did Grant end up, you ask? Ohio State.
ATL, talk about using a single example to override statistical evidence. On average, the SEC took 7 more players than every big team. Sorry, but clearly their academic standards are much lower, regardless of Larry Grant.
And the idea that these schools are going out on a limb to help the poor borderline students is hilarious. They are stacking rosters and getting rid of anything they believe is deadwood. And yes, those kids are worse off than they were at the beginning.
If those kids had not signed with an SEC school, but a smaller school or a junior college, they would likely receive more help and probably see the field faster, which is infinitely better than getting cut or washing out.
BTW, if we are going to pick out individual stories, didn't Georgia revoke a scholarship from a recruit this year simply because better O-lineman signed up. Sounds like a real caring institution
oh lord, do we need to give a reason for OSU trolls to run thru the thread? we don't need to make this about OSU & Katzenmoyer, yadda yadda yadda. Gary & TheMile get the point: these SEC schools have to kick *someone* to the curb. if anything, it makes the administrations job easier re: academics. they don't have to stalk these extra guys to make sure they go to class b/c hey, if they get themselves academically ineligible, there's 6-8 other guys wating to take that spot every semester. They don't need to put lots of effort into helping these kids learn how to succeed academically b/c they can just give the spot to any one of the next 8 studs who may be worth the hassle based on athletic talents.
lets not buy into the illusion that these SEC coaches grant scholarship offers to these kids because they want to give them a chance. the bottom line is that CFB is all about winning, and not about the kids. if you can't help the program win games, you're probably going to be sent packing. it's that simple.
dcwolverine,
the georgia recruit in question was OL Joe Blaes. His scholarship was not revoked because a better OL signed up. He was a JUCO transfer who was going to enroll in Jan., but a Senior who was expected to graduate in Dec. failed to do so and the scholarship was not available to give. He was told he could sign in Feb. and enroll in June, but he decided to sign with Iowa State instead.
Could someone explain why Delany cares about recruiting rankings in the first place?
Also, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Speaking about Georgia, when they sign a recruit and he does not qualify academically, that recruit will usually go to Hargrave Military Academy.If he can improve his grades to qualify, he can sign with Georgia the following year, BUT Rivals lists that player as a commit for BOTH years.
Go look at Georgia's Rivals commitment page for 2006 and 2007. Near the top you should see Justin Anderson listed for both years. Though he committed last year, his scholarship was not used until this year because he failed to qualify. Perhaps this is where the big difference in numbers comes from.
While Rivals lists Georgia as having 28 recruits in 2006, and 23 in 2007, I think 2 of the 23 for 2007 were 2006 non-qualifiers that are also included in the 28 for 2006.
ct, while this is an honorable practice, it doesn't address the point I made above. With a school that overoffers, when all the incoming recruits qualify, the school has to revoke someone's scholarship.
Day late and a dollar short, but I just wanted to point out that Kyle's "house buying inspection contingent" analogy is inaccurate. If I nix the deal based on the inspection, which is perfectly normal, then I still need a house. A better analogy would be if I signed 2 or 3 contracts knowing I would buy only one house and axed the others based on inspection. No ethical buyer's agent would allow you to do such a thing.
Blackbody...Is that the theory that Notre Dame's Hornung was referring to as to why they couldn't compete anymore?
Everyone...off topic of this post, but Appalacian State is official.
TheMile, the point I was making was that it is not certain how much, if any, a school overoffers because I think some of the numbers are wrong.
This is the quote used, "Georgia plummets... because they always seem to have large classes [29, 25, 21, 19, 28, 23; ave: 24] as compared to, say Michigan [22, 17, 22, 23, 19, 20; ave: 20.5]. What’s up with that? How can Georgia have 22 more scholarships used over the last six years?)."
I'm too lazy to do too much research, but I think that the last two years for Georgia (the 28 and 23) do not correspond with the given scholarships. In 2006, 25 scholarships were given, not 28, because 3 guys failed to qualify and went to Hargrave. 2 of them got their grades up and signed this year and are also included in the 23 for 2007, while the third guy quit Hargrave and signed with another school.
So there is an overstatement of scholarships if you just go by Rivals numbers because they count non-qualifiers twice essentially.
I will start with that I am an SEC graduate, that said;
This Big 10 bias is BS, someone show me evidence of where the SEC is cutting non-performers before you all ASSUME that is what is happening. Also show me where an SEC school exceeded it's scholarship number? No school is allowed to do that, so therefore they do not, they sign as many athletes as they have the scholarships for. I wonder why you think that coaches morals suddenly disappear when they head south? Is the South less moral than the North?
That's a mighty nice white non-poop sticking cloak you are wearing there, looks comfortable. I bet you are so happy you are from the civilized North were everyone is a gentlemen and entirely honorable. I mean look at the examples, Detroit, Colombus...
Jon, to answere your question as Bugs Bunny would say (in the saloon episode with Y Sam): mmmmmm eeeeeyep.
also, SEC teams aren't exceeding the scholarship #s. no one is saying that (iirc) and yes, that's obviously WAY beyond the rules. the problem is that in a given year, out of 85 s'ships, there's maybe 20 openings due to attrition of some kind (graduating Srs, no 5th year, transfer, busted knee, whatev). but they sign 25-30 to a LOI (!= s'ship slot). and it happens EVERY year. they aren't splitting scholarships. thus, there are 5-10 guys who have no s'ship, even though they signed a LOI. sure, some are partial quals who then go to the local JC and enroll with the X+1 class. i get that double counting thing that ct brings up (this happened to M w/ slocum in 05-06-07 except he enrolled at M a year ago i think?; what a ride that kid had -ed). so sure, maybe *all* of these SEC teams are getting 5-10 (wow) slocums *every* year. that's alot of those guys though: conservative #s: 7 kids per school per year*10 schools*4 year period = 280 kids in that conference today who are partial qauls who don't get a s'ship. more likely, it's a comb. of the "2-4 partial quals double counting every year" situation and the "let's drop 2-4 1st-3rd year guys every year who have shown they will never play" situation. it's the latter that is BS, imo and many others'.
You're exactly right Dan, it's not the over-signing that's a problem, it's the NUMBER of guys being signed.
Let's say (just for argument's sake) that over a four-year period, there are 5 non-qualifiers like Slocum for a team that averages giving out 24 scholarships per year. That means that in a 4-year period, they would give 91 scholarships (24 x 4= 96, 96 - 5 = 91). That still would equal 11 players that somehow were dropped from the roster, which basically means that 3 guys a season are getting the boot.
I could understand if they were oversigned by 5 or 6 LOI's per 4-year period, because obviously some guys aren't going to qualify and a few guys are going to leave before their eligibility expires. But 15-20 extra scholarships? Nobody can tell me that there aren't guys who are unfairly losing the full ride they signed up for.
Sorry, math mistake above. Each team has 85 scholarships, so it would be 6 players from each team (not 11). Regardless, since this already takes into account the academic non-qualifiers who are counted in more than one class, my point remains the same.
yea, shorts, i'm with you. long story short: play dynasty mode in NCAA07 and you'll understand what the SEC does and B10 does not. sure, there is double counting re: partial quals, but that's not the only thing going on.
Dan and Shorts,
I can't speak for all the schools in the SEC, since they are not identical, but for UGA our average before you consider non-qualifiers (those going to prep-school) is 24. Now UGA has averaged around 2 a year that have fallen into that category. That does not add up to UGA taking an excessive amount of LOIs and cutting the ones with which they are not satsified. When looking at the number of scholarships each school has available, there are so many more factors than you are considering in you calculations. Career ending injuries, leaving early for the NFL, transfers to other schools for personal reasons (does happen), and then the non-qualifiers. All those reasons change the number of available scholarships, to jump to the conclusion that the SEC coaches are cutting student athletes for non-performance to open the number of scholarships, well the BIG 10 does not, is narrow minded at best.
Oh and here is someone elses opinion of the letter:
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/ne...=yhoo&
type=lgns
"Meanwhile, Big Ten coaches (not Notre Dame) spent the last six months whispering about the recruiting practices of Illinois' Ron Zook. "
"Look, both leagues are filled with great schools."
I'm not sure I'd agree with either of these statements, based on what I've read about the zook stuff at BGS. still, the best #s you quote are for UGA...24 LOIs per year - 2 double counters for nonquals = 22 per year * 4 = 88 for 85 slots. maybe in UGas case there isn't much of an issue. but when UF/bama etc take 28-30 EVERY year? come on. maybe UGa and Vandy are unfairly lumped in there, but the rest?
also, i don't necessarily agree with what delaney did here...this letter only comes across as sour grapes & between the lines mudslinging which is just not necessary and frankly the B10 is above that. it was a dumb move by his office. and he never should have said anything about speed...what the hell does that have to do with anything? the point was they take 15-25 more LOIs over a 4 year period than the 85 avail s'ships. sure some are partial quals, but that's still a hell of a lot of partials- and a hell of alot of other guys who just get dumped.
but that letter doesn't change the fact that every year 8-9 SEC teams take 28 or so LOIs, which i have been wondering about ever since i 1st played dynasty mode in NCAA03.
I agree that Delaney ended up sounding like a whiner, but that doesn't change the fact that he makes some very solid points which have been discussed above.
Shorts, he does not make the point of the number of scholarships, that is the point that the people here have made above. Delaney's only decent point was that the Big 10 and SEC have been pretty much competitive and comparable on the field in recent history, with which I completely agree. You are of course entitled to your opinion of his comments, but I personally think they are poorly worded for anyone let alone a lawyer and rarely approach valid.
While I do think quite a bit of "attrition" has been going on in the SEC, as regards UGA, from what I have gathered about the program, the guys that aren't making it can be lumped into three categories: doubly counted guys who didn't qualify the first year (I think it was the 2005 class that ended up with only 14 or so enrolled at UGA); medical schollie guys that ate the UGA OL numbers and though they signed LOIs freed their scholarships to be used again once they went to medical scholarships; and finally guys that were asked to leave the program because of off the field issues that they were told to clean up and didn't. Many of these guys were dropped their FR or SO years before playing time was even an issue. As for dropping guys just to sign another 5* recruit, well I guess that is why the UGA staff has bestowed those precious scholarships on walk-on players the last few years who were already in the program and weren't leaving regardless. Believe me, if UGA was yanking scholarships due to lack of playing time, then I can think of quite a few that wouldn't have a scholarship this year.
Jonathan, I wasn't really clear when I said "valid points". I definitely think that some things said by Delaney were flat-out inappropriate (for example, relating speed to academic performance, which clearly is implying a racial stereotype). And I absolutely agree that this is idiotic coming from a lawyer.
But I think that when he says "Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards..." he's defending the academic integrity of the Big 10 in a very valid way.
If you look at the arguments above, you can see that there are some definite issues with the way scholarships are being thrown about at some schools in the SEC. This may not have been exactly what he was referring to, and if not, I withdraw my defense of his statement. It just seems that he's pointing out the SEC's apparent lack of concern regarding scholarship offers and the inability of these players to qualify academically, which has led to some of the distorted recruiting rankings.
I really wasn't trying to say I agree with his statements, but that I like the fact that these issues have been brought up and resulted in a really interesting discussion.
yea, one (of many) problems with delaney's statement was that it used vague prose...i suppose this was intentional, but the result was that anyone who read it jumped to their own conclusions about his purpose/intentions/ etc. He didn't say anything about non/partial quals or anything specific about dropping guys. it was all very hand-wavy fluff that attempted to talk about the B10 in a positive light wrt recruiting etc, when the real issues he's talking about (we assume) have more to do with the SECs philosophy than the B10s. it's all about spin- we would all agree that the comish of one conf has no buisness putting out a statement about another conf. recruiting practices. i think he knew this as well (or at least his office knew), so they spun it to reflect B10 related topics. any intelligent human can see thru the spin though.
My three cents:
I don't know if this has been resolved, but I can't think of a single instance where Georgia cut a player off the team because of a lack of performance. I remember Derrick White, a senior linebacker, getting kicked off the team because of a DUI. I remember tons of offensive linemen going on medical hardship scholarships. I know of some players that had some off the field problems or just didn't like where they ended up. But, to say that Georgia cuts players to make room for other recruits is ill-informed and asinine at best.
When Dictator Adams has refused entrance to UGA, Mark Richt has taken it upon himself to find other SEC schools for recruits such as Michael Grant and Jamar Chaney who landed at Arkansas and Mississippi State, respectively. This wasn't because UGA didn't have any scholarships left to give. Richt really wanted these players at UGA. It was the University that said the players didn't meet the academic standards to enroll.
There is a difference in a player not qualifying academically and yanking a scholarship. Recruits not qualifying academically happens pretty frequently, hence the popularity of prep schools like Hargrave. Players having their scholarships yanked does not happen frequently, and it usually causes quite the stir when it does (like when Spurrier cut some thieves that were guaranteed scholarships prior to his arrival). My point? This practice of cutting players to make room for new guys is not nearly as prevalent as this comment thread has suggested.
Not that anyone is reading this thread anymore, but the UGa defenders miss the point. Georgia is one of the worst defenders with large class sizes and there may be a thousand explanations for all the extra scholarships, but the fact remains - whatever the hell is going on down there has produced an advantage as far as number of players through the system, which is, in essense, a development squad. Now, there may be a whole lot of DUIs and Slocums and JCs and all other good reasons, but it is a pattern, not an anomoly. They system is being abused, or at least used.
Meeechigan Dan, you are wrong on two counts. First obviously I still read this, and second UGA class sizes when you consider non-qualifiers (never actually receive scholarship because of grades...) is not large, and therefore the system is not being abused. Read the discussion above before you miss the point.
The large classes, where guys aren't going to qualify, shouldn't influence recruiting rankings. But to assume that SEC schools (speaking broadly here obviously) are signing whoever and however is a bit naive don't you think? I can't sit here and defend all SEC schools and their practices, but I do know a little bit about what Auburn has done and is doing in recruiting guys who might not qualify.
It's almost an investment for the future for both sides. They make the contacts with these guys and both sides are up front about whether they will qualify or not and if not, what the next step will be. Guys are placed in prep schools and ju-co programs so they have a chance to improve their academic standing and still stay in shape and play the game.
Of course they are going to stay in contact and check up on these guys. Let them know they want to see them on campus one day, etc. These guys don't qualify academically to enroll to begin with. No standards are being stretched to get them in school and on the field. The guy probably isn't going to qualify at any distinguished school with a good football program. It's not like they choose Auburn/the ju-co route instead of Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, USC, or VaTech. They aren't qualifying at any of those schools. And even after prep or ju-co, guys often end up at different schools than who they "committed to" out of high school. (And that may be in the school's court to decide, but those guys do not count FOR a recruiting class UNTIL they are enrolled at that school.)
Why SEC and not elsewhere? I dunno. Like anywhere, they come for the chance to play at a solid program with coaches that can get them to the next level, but with coaches that are interested in them and show some care and concern. Blah, blah... It's cheeseball and sure they want that talent on the field, but I have an issue with the broad assumptions that what's being done is only slightly above cattle raising and ranching. Lies and abuse only carry you so far. If guys were being wholly screwed I would think you'd see a significant backlash from players...?
Maybe I'm being naive, but it's just not that clear to me. And maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe it's just that Auburn isn't consistently in that upper group that's being looked at...
And speaking on taking back scholarships at any point in the process, the only time I remember scholarships being "revoked", or whatever term you want to use, at Auburn was when Tuberville came in initially and they wanted to clean house of guys (3 max) that didn't fit with what they wanted to do or had issues with the new staff. Scholarships are not yanked just because someone with superior talent/upside says they want to play at Auburn. Auburn will likely sign a tiny class next year because of need and because this class was clearly at the limit.
thanks.
keep up the good work!
[img]http://humferier.free.fr/sfv/infinity8.gif[/
img]
:p :o :)'
:) ;) ;)'
:-)
Commenting by HaloScan
