- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did we overcommit?
Posted on 12/31/17 at 8:41 am to Indiana Tiger
Posted on 12/31/17 at 8:41 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:That's why I was asking the question. In regards to this, and over the last couple of years, it seems the NCAA is deferring to conferences more and more to enforce/decide such things. I love a "SEC screwing us" story as much as anybody, but I was leaving that out of this one.
However, the NCAA could have been indifferent to the starting point and left it up to the conferences to decide.
quote:I agree. And I see it in terms of "contracts". We had a "contract" with Stewart, whether that is LOI, enrollment, or signing scholarship papers, and the new rules basically say that contract is still valid. At least for a year under the way LSU and most schools offer scholarships anyway.
But honestly, using the new rules makes the most sense to me because it keeps things clean, and not mixing apples and oranges.
I remember when the new FA rules came out a couple years ago and schools began offering 3 & 4 year scholarship offers. Bet that doesn't happen anymore. If the mindset or spirit of the rule is as I described, then someone may just rule that a 3 year "contract" just might go as a counter each year of the kid pulls a Stewart. After all, he could show up and enroll and thereby be receiving that financial aid in year 2 or 3.
If I was LSU I'd start including a clause that gives them an out as far as a situation like Stewart's; basically one that says non-enrollment equals termination of contract and THEN go argue the case to the NCAA or SEC, whichever the case may be, with that as the basis. Non-enrollment = invalidation of 1 yr offer = never happened = don't count it bitches.
1
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:24 am to I20goon
quote:
If I was LSU I'd start including a clause that gives them an out as far as a situation like Stewart's; basically one that says non-enrollment equals termination of contract and THEN go argue the case to the NCAA or SEC, whichever the case may be, with that as the basis. Non-enrollment = invalidation of 1 yr offer = never happened = don't count it bitches.
These things are done under the auspices of governing bodies like the NLI, NCAA, and SEC. You can't arbitrarily change the rules and be a member. As long as there are no rules limiting stricter standards, you can impose stricter standards like high academic requirements. But you can't violate the minimum like once you sign, you count.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 11:53 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:So they can't protect themselves from such incidents. That's just poor design.
These things are done under the auspices of governing bodies like the NLI, NCAA, and SEC. You can't arbitrarily change the rules and be a member. As long as there are no rules limiting stricter standards, you can impose stricter standards like high academic requirements. But you can't violate the minimum like once you sign, you count.
However, with the new rules one could argue that another kid, more than likely in-state, is losing a scholarship because of that. LSU isn't losing a player... a player is losing financial aid "taken" by another player who can not be required to hold up to certain terms.
Without these new rules, that would not be the case.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 1:27 pm to I20goon
quote:
So they can't protect themselves from such incidents. That's just poor design.
The protection is don't send a kid paperwork to sign unless you're either really sure about him, or you're willing to take the chance.
I think it's a net positive. First of all, it's a lot cleaner from an administrative perspective. Secondly, if teams are more selective about signing kids who are grade risks, I believe that will only help to emphasize to kids that they need to keep their classwork in order early and maintain it. I think often times, kids might not start to take classwork seriously until later in high school. Then work to get qualified starting in the spring and summer of their junior year. But if teams are less willing to take chances on these kids, then it's going to more clear how important out is to stay on the path to qualifying.
For example. Hopefully there's sophomores on Hahnville that saw what happened with Pooka this year and will be more inclined to get their assess in gear now rather than waiting until next year.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 1:46 pm to whitefoot
quote:I agree, but I also do think that's a matter of perspective. From the perspective of for overall CFB, yes. The idea of being cleaner and, frankly, removing some of the drama are indeed a net positive. From the perspective of the 3* player who wants to play for his home state and thinks he can earn a spot. Maybe not so much.
I think it's a net positive.
What comes out of this is no more projects. As you and Indiana Tiger have pointed out, which many have overlooked, if you have enough EE's one year you CAN back count. So why even offer a project if you can replace with a likely starter the next year (assuming you have a couple of EE's). Yes, I've often questioned that philosophy anyway; but you can't afford it now. Most projects are on the lines. I've often thought that was the last place you want a project. I never got the logic.
So is it better from a Provens or Washington's perspective if you consider a Seth Stewart is "sitting on their scholarship"? Because the kid isn't playing anywhere, and if a Washington wants to come to LSU, he can't not because of LSU's or his own decision... but because of Stewarts.
If the NLI & NCAA rules are interpreted by the SEC in a way that causes a kid to lose free college I have some issues with it. In this case, albeit a rarity, that kid is a Provens or Washington. The only entity in this [rare] case that should lose something is Stewart. Not LSU and certainly not a Washington. It's the opposite. LSU loses a player and a player loses a scholarship; Stewart sits in WV with "Washington's scholarship" in the kitchen utility drawer.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 1:57 pm to I20goon
Yeah. The Stewart situation was very weird and pretty rare though. Also, I think he attended class for a couple of days, so he even would have counted under the old system. I could be wrong about this though. I know he was in Baton Rouge for a few days at least, but it's possible it was before classes started.
Either way, you're right that it's a crappy situation.
Either way, you're right that it's a crappy situation.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 6:19 pm to whitefoot
Stewart didn't make it to campus
Posted on 12/31/17 at 11:11 pm to Blktiger
quote:
Stewart didn't make it to campus
What does that mean? This is a quote from Orgeron.
quote:
"He spent a couple days here, and he decided he wanted to move on," Ed Orgeron said. "We tried to get him to come back, but it's something he decided he wanted to do.
"We wish him the best."
Posted on 1/1/18 at 7:45 am to whitefoot
quote:Well, he wasn't an EE and the decision to leave was made in late July. So we know he didn't attend classes; Early August is the summer intercession and late Aug is the fall session. He did probably start the registration period, but this would have been during the purge and/or drop/add period.
quote:
Stewart didn't make it to campus
What does that mean? This is a quote from Orgeron.
quote:
"He spent a couple days here, and he decided he wanted to move on," Ed Orgeron said. "We tried to get him to come back, but it's something he decided he wanted to do.
"We wish him the best."
He was on campus, we know that. So he accepted financial aid, showed up for summer camp, likely registered for classes... and then promptly left after 2 days somewhere around July 29th.
So when we say he "was on campus" it causes confusion. He was physically on campus, but he could not have been attending classes. Worth noting he never participated in practice or drills it seems.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 11:59 am to Croozin2
quote:
And, as someone pointed out in another thread, does everyone realize what an extra 7 ppg would have done for our scoring offense ranking? Would have made a significant difference.
It puts LSU at 10-2 ranked inside the top ten and prevents the debacle that was Troy!
Posted on 1/1/18 at 1:20 pm to whitefoot
Not needing a kicker ? Zero for 2 already , and it's not even half time. 
Posted on 1/1/18 at 1:22 pm to irnfan
quote:
There have been numerous discussions about the kicker
For good reason, any more questions?
Posted on 1/3/18 at 6:00 am to irnfan
Really. If LSU had a kicker that could make easy field goals---- they would have beat Notre Dame. One kicker this year missed 3 extra points. The other is less than 50% in making easy field goals. Think about that!
Posted on 1/3/18 at 6:55 am to edsimms2000
quote:
I just think we didn't get all the facts correct with the kicker. I don't think they knew he would count towards the 25 number
Yep, and that's at the heart of the matter. When the rules changed Saban probably had a brainy lawyer scrub through them and put together a one page list of how it would affect his program. Orgeron probably read the Morning Advocate's summary.
This was the reason for not hiring Orgeron in the first place. He just does not have the bandwidth to run LSU's football program.
Right now, Nick Saban probably has 20 or 30 processes running in the background. How many can Orgeron keep running? I'm sure some posters will say to quit blowing Saban, blah, blah. But that's who is kicking our arse every year - 7 IN A ROW - and if we can't keep up with him we're doomed to the second tier.
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:16 am to Captain Crown
quote:
I mean we really do need a good kicker
Good kicker is 1 or 2 more wins in 2017. That's not spin, that's provable fact.
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:19 am to Ace Midnight
Exactly. To me it is worrisome that the staff believed that Cole Tracy wasn't going to be counted in this class. I am happy that they have him but they should have done their homework.
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:27 am to Captain Crown
quote:Yeah, somebody fricked up. Likely on LSU's side. It is a possibility, remote, that the NCAA was asked for clarification and the answer steered them wrong.
Exactly. To me it is worrisome that the staff believed that Cole Tracy wasn't going to be counted in this class. I am happy that they have him but they should have done their homework
But at the end of the day whether the kicker counts or not is unrelated to the rejected appeal on Seth Stewart. Related, but seperate incidents. It is important to remember it is the SEC that rejected the appeal on Stewart, not the NCAA. Keeping my remote possibility above in mind it's possible the SEC steered somebody wrong, not NCAA. Still a remote possibility of that too however.
I'm sticking with the assumption that somebody on the LSU fricked this up by not doing their homework. And I put that blame on our nazi compliance department. They are known to act as police (after the fact) rather than an integral part in planning (before the fact). There is a definite history of that with them.
Posted on 1/3/18 at 9:31 am to Captain Crown
quote:
Exactly. To me it is worrisome that the staff believed that Cole Tracy wasn't going to be counted in this class. I am happy that they have him but they should have done their homework.
This confusion + no Austin Thomas at the time of commitment....coincidence? I think not.
Posted on 1/3/18 at 10:22 am to irnfan
LSU better be confident in the guys they think they are getting. LSU basically pushed away highly rated guys in Joiner and Watkins. For Watkins it was between LSU and Bama. Now Bama doesn't have room as he isn't committing at the Army game now. Watkins looks to be backing into Florida's class now.
Posted on 1/3/18 at 10:22 am to Captain Crown
quote:
To me it is worrisome that the staff believed that Cole Tracy wasn't going to be counted in this class
Guys. There is zero chance this is true. There was no frick up. They knew he would count before signing him. They signed him anyway.
They HOPED to get a counter back from Seth Stewart, but that appears unlikely. The appeal to the SEC was not about Tracy counting or not. It was about getting Stewart to not count on last year's number so they could back count an EE.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News