Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/13/12 at 4:03 pm to roadGator
quote:Before the limits he just gave out tons of football scholarships. After the limits we had the full amount of football scholarships plus some people on track scholarships who just happened to be really good at football as well.
We can thank The Bear for this and his track scholarships. No?
Posted on 1/13/12 at 4:15 pm to dapado33
quote:
Before the limits he just gave out tons of football scholarships. After the limits we had the full amount of football scholarships plus some people on track scholarships who just happened to be really good at football as well
He's the reason if you are on any scholarship it counts towards football, so if they are on academic, honors, bell honors, anything like that it counts against the 85 total.
You'll see it lowered to 80 and the NCAA is expected to push for a rule similar to the Big-10/12 where if you have 80 on scholarship 15 graduating you can only sign 20 not 25. The oversigning days are numbered, it is being too abused right now and the heat is on.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 4:23 pm to CoolHand
We'll call it the third Saban Rule. It wasn't the fact that Ole Miss got 37 verbals that started this whole topic of capping schollys at 28. It was the thought or possibility that Saban might get 35 plus verbals and they are 4 stars and above. Its another Saban rule disquised to be equal treatment. I'm not buying it at all. Just like the Bear Bryant rule of cutting scholly's under 100 player so he wouldn't lock down the state or the region, they are doing the same in in this time period.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 5:37 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
The limit should be between 100-125, not going in the other direction.
yeah...you definitely need 125 players for 22 positions.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 6:16 pm to diddydirtyAubie
I don't get why they want to give stipends to help the athletes, yet want to take away five full rides. It doesn't make sense.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 6:50 pm to CoolHand
Sounds like we have the socialist movement rearing its ugly head in all areas of life. I am sure they feel it will bring more parity by cutting 5 slots. 
Posted on 1/13/12 at 6:59 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
they could do away with scollies and Aburn would still be 4th in the west
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:01 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
Exactly. The have-nots want to achieve 'parity' by bringing the level of competition down to them.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:01 pm to Herman Frisco
quote:
they could do away with scollies and Aburn would still be 4th in the west
21-0
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:15 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
So basically some of the shittier teams are mad that good players would rather (given the free choice) ride the pine at a good school than play for their shitty arse programs? "They wont come here willingly so we'll MAKE the come, dammit!"
Sounds like a bunch of sissies trying to be fascist.
Sounds like a bunch of sissies trying to be fascist.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:18 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
45-10
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:20 pm to Herman Frisco
meh
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:20 pm to Teague
quote:
What's the point of doing that?
Spreading the wealth/talent. Helps teams like Vandy and SMU hurts LSU/Bama/Oh St.
In the 70's there was no limit an OU had over 200 kids on scholarship.
It brings parity to CF. (Not a good thing for LSU FWIW)
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:27 pm to ShermanTxTiger
Soon we'll be tearing down our facilities because they'll be deemed an 'unfair recruiting advantage'. I'm exaggerating(I hope), but I think it's in the same spirit. The whole 'if I don't have it you shouldn't either' mentality.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 8:36 pm to northshorebamaman
frick the NCAA. They are everything that is wrong with college football.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 10:12 pm to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
Only the kids who are currently getting Division III scholarships.
Division III does not give football scholarships, dumbass.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News