- 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: Is the practice of "oversigning" a way to cheat, or morally wrong?
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:25 pm to Alahunter
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:25 pm to Alahunter
Ok, so what you are saying is you cannot name a single player NOT ONE that AU cut last year to make room as you claim?
Not a single one of those players left the team last year.
Would you like to try again?
Not a single one of those players left the team last year.
Would you like to try again?
1
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:27 pm to nolacoastie
quote:
If the kids aren't obligated by rules to complete all four years of eligibility then the school shouldn't be forced to honor the bad performers
+1
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:28 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
I'm sure all those cuts listed that opened up scholarships didn't help keep Auburn under the limit. 
Nor does the fact that 51% of your AA athletes not graduating end up leaving scholarships open before their eligibility is up.
Nor does the fact that 51% of your AA athletes not graduating end up leaving scholarships open before their eligibility is up.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:33 pm to Alahunter
quote:
I'm sure all those cuts listed that opened up scholarships didn't help keep Auburn under the limit.
AU was already under the limit, so no, none of those helped keep AU under the limit. In fact if nothing else, they just helped us keep a full roster.
Also, we were still under the limit last year and gave out walk on schollies.
What exactly is your point?
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:34 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
The Tigers currently have about 75 players on scholarship, 10 below the 85 allowed by the NCAA and the 85 that most Bowl Championship Subdivision schools more often flirt with exceeding rather than coming up short.
That was in 2008.
In 2009, we were still under the 85 limit with ZERO "cuts" over the summer. None.
Now again, explain how AU is relevant here when we are discussing cutting players to get UNDER the 85 LIMIT.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:36 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Your open plus the cut would put you over. 75 plus 13 is 88. Then you still had several medicals on top of that. Face it. Auburn cuts their players when they can't go anywhere else. Other schools have filled theirs by that time and Auburn makes sure they can sign what they want the following year by being under what they need.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:40 pm to Alahunter
Again, I would like you to list 1 player just 1 that we cut last year.
If you cannot do so, admit it.
Of course you cannot list 1, because there was not one.
Therefore, as always, you have no point.
If you cannot do so, admit it.
Of course you cannot list 1, because there was not one.
Therefore, as always, you have no point.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:41 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Your open plus the cut would put you over. 75 plus 13 is 88.
Also, what does this mean?
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:43 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Again, I would like you to list 1 player just 1 that we cut last year.
I see. We're going to go the in my lifetime route, except, last year. Nevermind the previous 3 yrs where you cut 13 and are under by 10 right now. That wouldn't fit your argument, would it. It's obvious you don't want to see that your own school does the very thing you accuse other schools of being guilty of. It's a business. Kids are given scholarships to do a job and they get a $100 grand plus education for it.(unless it's au and you're aa). If you don't do your job and earn your scholarship, you shouldn't get it renewed. It's that simple. These aren't 14 y.o. kids. They're adults and many of their friends are hired and fired every week in the real world. If they don't want to live in it, then play and earn their scholarship.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:44 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
It means.. if your school had not cut those 13 players, you'd be over the limit. Auburn cuts kids as much as any other school so that they can have scholarships for those that produce.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:46 pm to Alahunter
So, I take it you cannot name a single player we cut last year, as YOU claim we do to get under the 85 limit each year.
How about this coming year? When our class is done, we will not have to cut anyone. Why? Because we will not sign more than we have room for. Therefore, we are not oversigned like bama.
Period. Thanks for coming out, hope you enjoyed the show.
How about this coming year? When our class is done, we will not have to cut anyone. Why? Because we will not sign more than we have room for. Therefore, we are not oversigned like bama.
Period. Thanks for coming out, hope you enjoyed the show.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:48 pm to Alahunter
thanks for screwing up a perfectly good thread. appreciate it 
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:49 pm to Alahunter
quote:
It means.. if your school had not cut those 13 players, you'd be over the limit.
Is that a JOKE???????
Those 13 you listed go back over 4 signing classes. Some of those you listed would be seniors THIS year!
An average of 3 player lost per season to natural attrition, especially when the entire coaching staff changes is a low number and in no way shape or form implies roster cuts like bama.
You just helped prove my point.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:52 pm to lsu777
I RA'd it
This guy needs to get banned and soon
This guy needs to get banned and soon
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:53 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
The SEC is far ahead of the other conferences on this learning curve. And it is one of the reasons the SEC is destorying the other teams in the BCS championship games.
Is it wrong to let the players go, case by case is different. Some do not want to put the work in they they should. Grades, workouts, team mettings, etc all play a part in a ship; thos that do not do the work should not get a free ride.
The ship issue is starting to hit the Big 10, and Pac 10; so this is not just a SEC issue.
The issue is at the heart of the failure of the NCAA to address the real issues, when the voting block of the small schools is much larger than the big schools.
The small schools pushed for the ships to be a 1 year deal, not the large schools. Has it made the smaller schools better? Not really it was all about a money issue to them and money will always be a problem at the smaller schools.
The larger school have found a God send to recruiting, this will not be a SEC problem; but a nation wide issue in the future given time.
Is it wrong to let the players go, case by case is different. Some do not want to put the work in they they should. Grades, workouts, team mettings, etc all play a part in a ship; thos that do not do the work should not get a free ride.
The ship issue is starting to hit the Big 10, and Pac 10; so this is not just a SEC issue.
The issue is at the heart of the failure of the NCAA to address the real issues, when the voting block of the small schools is much larger than the big schools.
The small schools pushed for the ships to be a 1 year deal, not the large schools. Has it made the smaller schools better? Not really it was all about a money issue to them and money will always be a problem at the smaller schools.
The larger school have found a God send to recruiting, this will not be a SEC problem; but a nation wide issue in the future given time.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:56 pm to tigger1
quote:
The issue is at the heart of the failure of the NCAA to address the real issues, when the voting block of the small schools is much larger than the big schools.
The small schools pushed for the ships to be a 1 year deal, not the large schools. Has it made the smaller schools better? Not really it was all about a money issue to them and money will always be a problem at the smaller schools.
This, along with them wanting a reduction in scholarship limits for bigger schools, in an attempt to try to even out the playing field.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 6:58 pm to tigger1
quote:
The SEC is far ahead of the other conferences on this learning curve. And it is one of the reasons the SEC is destorying the other teams in the BCS championship games
Fact. It gives schools that do it an advantage, no way around that.
quote:
The larger school have found a God send to recruiting, this will not be a SEC problem; but a nation wide issue in the future given time.
Unless the NCAA does something to prevent it. Face it, the NCAA wants the 85 limit. This is simply a way to get around it.
I think the NCAA will address it this summer personally. There have been somewhat viable solutions presented on the oversigning websight. None are perfect since medical redshirts do serve a purpose at times. It is a grey area when it is abused though. I am not sure greyshirting has anyplace in college football though.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 7:00 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
It gives schools that do it an advantage, no way around that.
Sure there is. Take advantage of the SAME rules that allow it. If your program doesn't then it's your programs fault.
quote:
There have been somewhat viable solutions presented on the oversigning websight.
This site skews it's numbers and is done by an OSU grad that lives in Birmingham.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 7:09 pm to Alahunter
Scholarship limits was started after they let freshmen play.
Before that LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama etc all signed up to 50 a year. You need that many to field the fr. football teams.
But like today it was a means to the end of fielding the best team a University could field.
The 85 man limit is to low, as it did not take into account injuries, off field issues etc, and rules were made to get around the 85 man limit. The limit was 100 at one time and should be moved back to that level.
But should the 1 year ship stay in effect is the question, and the answer is no. It should be for 4 years like the old days, and keep the old built in rules for transfers, injuries, etc.
Classes by law should never be limited, things happen that one can not account for and the need to sign over 25 can happen to any team any given year.
Before that LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama etc all signed up to 50 a year. You need that many to field the fr. football teams.
But like today it was a means to the end of fielding the best team a University could field.
The 85 man limit is to low, as it did not take into account injuries, off field issues etc, and rules were made to get around the 85 man limit. The limit was 100 at one time and should be moved back to that level.
But should the 1 year ship stay in effect is the question, and the answer is no. It should be for 4 years like the old days, and keep the old built in rules for transfers, injuries, etc.
Classes by law should never be limited, things happen that one can not account for and the need to sign over 25 can happen to any team any given year.
Posted on 1/11/11 at 7:12 pm to tigger1
quote:
The limit was 100 at one time and should be moved back to that level
I agree with that.
quote:
But should the 1 year ship stay in effect is the question, and the answer is no. It should be for 4 years like the old days, and keep the old built in rules for transfers, injuries, etc.
So long as they keep their grades up, I'd agree with this, with increased scholarships. Universities wouldn't be at a disadvantage athletically if someone didn't perform or pan out in this instance.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News