CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

OT: Alabama/LSU Oversigning is Disgusting

by Mars · 8/5/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/LSU-s-ship-has-two-men-too-many-so-Elliott-Port?urn=ncaaf-260264



LSU offensive lineman Elliott Porter [was] effectively cut from the roster Tuesday when all 27 Tiger signees showed up for the start of training camp in good legal and academic standing...



"I got called to coach Miles' office. I had no idea it was coming," Porter said of his being asked by LSU to 'grayshirt' this season and re-enroll next year. "He just told me that they didn't have room for me. I moved out of my dorm today and I am now back home trying to figure everything out. It's been a rough 24 hours."



Porter has received a release from LSU and is free to go to any school he chooses. In order to be eligible somewhere else, Porter has to win an appeal... "It's unfair how they told me at the last minute" [Porter said].



According to Rivals, Porter had been committed to LSU since last July, meaning he went an entire year through his senior season, signing day, his high school graduation, an entire summer and move-in day on campus assuming he had a secure position on Les Miles' team. He reportedly turned down other offers from Florida State, Nebraska, Stanford, Texas Tech and a dozen other I-A/FBS schools based on that assumption, only to have the rug pulled out from under him at the last possible second. Again, as far as the NCAA is concerned, this is perfectly on the up-and-up.





Miles at LSU isn't the only one who does this:



http://oversigning.com/testing/



Alabama signed 29 kids this recruiting class when they only had room for 19. Guess what happened to 10 unlucky "student-athletes"? Disgusting.
G
Guest
The schools should be punished for this.
J
jonnylingo
hawkwing wrote:
The schools should be punished for this.


I 100 percent agree. That is horrible. Recruits beware. Wouldn't happen at byu, that is for sure.
R
redneckjedi
If I remember right, there was some sort of new rule related this exact thing, but I can't remember the details about what it is and when it goes into effect.
L
Lawboy
I believe there is a limit to the number of recruits per year, like 25 or something.



Regardless, this needs to get out because it is a joke. so much for a commitment right? Goes both ways, and those schools should have to face schollie restrictions for each kid they do that to.
Advertisement
B
Bluma
Of course they do this to keep other teams from getting the same players. It should be counted as a form of abuse. Luring players with that nice piece of scholarship paper to attract gullible teen football players, and then cutting them before even having their first class or real practice.



The NCAA is a poor governing body though. The individual schools have more clout than them, and anyway the governing boards are usually made up of current or former school presidents.
B
Bluma
Lawboy wrote:
I believe there is a limit to the number of recruits per year, like 25 or something.



Regardless, this needs to get out because it is a joke. so much for a commitment right? Goes both ways, and those schools should have to face schollie restrictions for each kid they do that to.


4.5*25=112.5, not 85



The limit should be more like 20 or less. Assuming half of the NCAA FBS players redshirt at some point, it is more like 4.5 years for the average recruiting class span (excluding JC transfers). Granted some quit and drop, but still 5*20=100, so you have an error margin of 15 in the case of losses from transfers, quitting, and even deaths (you can redshirt anyone).



20 is almost enough for a full starting lineup (22) for both offense and defense.
L
Lawboy
The rule is 25 because because in some years, you lose underclassmen due to academics, the NFL Draft or legal issues. So they gave wiggle room. If it was even each year, it is 21-22 annually, but things happen. And it is based upon a 4 year graduation cycle, not 5. You do not get an extra year of schollies for a fifth year. You redshirt a guy, just means you carry him 5 years and limit recruiting further for 1 season.
B
Bluma
20 gives wiggle room and prevents coaches from conning and abusing players.
L
Lawboy
Bluma wrote:
20 gives wiggle room and prevents coaches from conning and abusing players.




When you have 85 schollies, 20 a year x4 is not even a full allotment. The BYU class last year had 27 commits, including JC guys,and in 2009 21 commits. So 25 makes sense.
Advertisement
S
scott715
The kid should sue for damages. He is losing a year of a promised education and he lost chances to go else where. The LOI is a contract with promised from LSU.
Y
YNot
The answer isn't to create an arbitrary annual maximum. What happens if you have 20+ players graduate, 6+ players declare for the NFL draft, and a few guys drop out because of grades or other issues? It's not the annual number, it's however many scholarships that you have available, whether it's 10 or 40 in any given year.



The answer is to punish teams like LSU and Alabama for overcommitting and basically cheating. This should be a SERIOUS recruiting violation. As pointed out, you have a guy who has been committed for over a year and he's pushed aside like a piece of trash. Les Miles KNEW that he had too many players and, forget that he waited until the last minute, he went ahead and told recruit #28 that there was still a spot available. That is a blatant misrepresentation and should result in the loss of, not just one scholarship, but like 10 scholarships...
L
Lawboy
scott715 wrote:
The kid should sue for damages. He is losing a year of a promised education and he lost chances to go else where. The LOI is a contract with promised from LSU.




I agree with this. A lawsuit would do wonders for the process. Same with all the Bama kids. Slap those SEC teams around some. I would take a case like that and laugh all the way to the bank. Slam dunk contract case, just need to put a value on damages.
T
tmoney35
Lawboy wrote:
Slam dunk contract case, just need to put a value on damages.


Agreed. With the way lawsuits go in this country and the amount of money bigtime schools like Alabama and LSU have, I bet he could walk away with a nice chunk of change
C
CougarClaw
Lawboy wrote:
The kid should sue for damages. He is losing a year of a promised education and he lost chances to go else where. The LOI is a contract with promised from LSU.




I agree with this. A lawsuit would do wonders for the process. Same with all the Bama kids. Slap those SEC teams around some. I would take a case like that and laugh all the way to the bank. Slam dunk contract case, just need to put a value on damages.


But what about all the poor athletic program who'd have to pay for damages.



Poor, POOR BC$ schools. How will they survive? :sulk:
Advertisement
S
snoscythe
LOL. I guess no one here has ever seen an NLI before. There's no breach of contract case here, because the schools are exercising their right under the contract:


Letter Becomes Null and Void. This NLI shall be declared null and void if any of the following occur:



* This NLI shall be rendered null and void if I am eligible for admission, but the institution named in this document defers admission to a subsequent term. However, this NLI remains binding if I defer my admission.


Until the NCAA comes up with a new NLI form, the schools can pull these shennanigans all they want. It's also worth noting that the NLI has a provision where the athlete acknowledges he is committing to the school and not to the coach and recognizes that coaching changes are common place, so the NLI cuts off that complaint from the athletes as well.



I think it's time the NLI underwent a revision that recognizes the athletes interests as well. These things are very one-sided deals.
B
blue42
snoscythe wrote:

Until the NCAA comes up with a new NLI form, the schools can pull these shennanigans all they want. It's also worth noting that the NLI has a provision where the athlete acknowledges he is committing to the school and not to the coach and recognizes that coaching changes are common place, so the NLI cuts off that complaint from the athletes as well.



I think it's time the NLI underwent a revision that recognizes the athletes interests as well. These things are very one-sided deals.


I don't think this issue has anything to do with the NLI, it is nothing more than a land grab, take as much as you can even if you don't need it and let what you don't use go to waste. I think the NCAA football office, (or lack of it) is sackless, it must be filled with a bunch of frute alums.



Bottom line schools should not be able to offer more than available schollies open, and each commit they get they mark it off until full. I understand things happen, kids quit, become academically ineligible, etc and if that happens then they get the schollie back and can either try to find another kid who is still out there, or award someone on the team who is grey shirting or even a walk on. It's a joke these kids are getting jerked around and these schools are nothing more than a big piece of dog crap.
A
ABYUFAN
snoscythe wrote:
LOL. I guess no one here has ever seen an NLI before. There's no breach of contract case here, because the schools are exercising their right under the contract:


Letter Becomes Null and Void. This NLI shall be declared null and void if any of the following occur:



* This NLI shall be rendered null and void if I am eligible for admission, but the institution named in this document defers admission to a subsequent term. However, this NLI remains binding if I defer my admission.


Until the NCAA comes up with a new NLI form, the schools can pull these shennanigans all they want. It's also worth noting that the NLI has a provision where the athlete acknowledges he is committing to the school and not to the coach and recognizes that coaching changes are common place, so the NLI cuts off that complaint from the athletes as well.



I think it's time the NLI underwent a revision that recognizes the athletes interests as well. These things are very one-sided deals.

I think an enterprising attorney would take this case if La has a "good faith and fair dealing" presumption in thier contracts like California does. In other words, even if the terms of the contract were not technically violated, the actions of the school clearly violated the presumed term of good faith and fair dealing in that the athlete wasn't directly apprised of the fact that he would be one cut off if all of the others didn't come along. Again, he could get some money out of the school,a nd the school would certainly have a black eye to have people testify under oath that they owe no duty to disclose this information to the kids.
M
Mars
redneckjedi wrote:
If I remember right, there was some sort of new rule related this exact thing, but I can't remember the details about what it is and when it goes into effect.

The scholarship limit is 85. The team limit is 105.



The maximum scholarship limit per year is 25. But the NEW maximum CLASS size per year is 29. This leaves room for academic non-qualifiers.



Houston Nutt of Mississippi (and formerly Arkansas) would have class sizes of 40 per year, put 10 kids in JCs, and cut 5 for no reason whatsoever. He caused the new rule. It hasn't stopped Alabama and LSU from screwing good athletes over though. And it didn't keep Nutt from recruiting Jeremiah Masoli from Oregon either.
B
Brayden Green
This is just preparing kids for the NFL. Here is your contract, IF you make the team (Unga? :blush: :~( ). And if you aren't extra special we won't keep you past your 3rd year, where we need to start paying out pensions on retirements, include you in the HC plan, etc. etc.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.