Oversigning

[SoCal]

http://oversigning.com/testing/

The Oversigning Cup - 2011

School SPES Departures Budget # Verbals Cup Points

Alabama 85 11 (8sr+3jr) 11 21+2gs=23 +12
Ole Miss 85 15 15 26 +11
LSU 85 12 (11sr+1jr) 12 21 +9
Florida State 74 9 20 22 +2
South Carolina 77 18 26 26 0
Florida 84 18 19 16 -3
Nebraska 85 23 (20sr+2md+1tr) 23 16+1gs+1ms=18 -5
Iowa 85 29 29 19 -10

[TUSooner]

http://oversigning.com/testing/

The Oversigning Cup - 2011

School SPES Departures Budget # Verbals Cup Points

Alabama 85 11 (8sr+3jr) 11 21+2gs=23 +12
Ole Miss 85 15 15 26 +11
LSU 85 12 (11sr+1jr) 12 21 +9
Florida State 74 9 20 22 +2
South Carolina 77 18 26 26 0
Florida 84 18 19 16 -3
Nebraska 85 23 (20sr+2md+1tr) 23 16+1gs+1ms=18 -5
Iowa 85 29 29 19 -10

At first glance, I kinda like the attitude of that site. We recently had a thread about oversigning (which I won't look up). It was an ESPN piece that focused on LSU and confirmed that Leslie Miles is a two-faced, four-flushing, lying sack of squirrel turds, who happend to recruit tons of talent. But Les will have to pay the devil eventually, and I hope it's very soon.

PS- a layman's translation of the post would be nice. Just sayin' ;)

[badger]

They should rename it the SEC Oversigning Cup, much like the off-field issues one is the Fulmer Cup. Amazing how the SEC can do so many things wrong then win so many games :rolleyes:

[agoo758]

Now, of course, I want to say how oversigning and cutting players as a result of oversigning wouldn't nearly be as big of an issue if there wasn't such a limit on schollies one could pass out, but then that means leroid would show up.

[Leroy Lizard]

Now, of course, I want to say how oversigning and cutting players as a result of oversigning wouldn't nearly be as big of an issue if there wasn't such a limit on schollies one could pass out, but then that means leroid would show up.

I'm here!

[85sooners]

:rolleyes:

[SoonerOX]

I'm here!

Of course you are. What's your take?:D

[Sooner70]

Interesting thread, but I'm kinda ignorant on this subject.

Why do coaches oversign? Do they expect attrition or what?

If coaches do oversign & all come, do they have to renege to some of the kids? If so, does that let the kid off the hook (if the school can't live up to scholarship committment) and he can transfer, no problem?

Do they tell a kid up front that if he commits, he may/may not get scholarship?

Wonder how OU handles this?

[jkjsooner]

Interesting thread, but I'm kinda ignorant on this subject.

Why do coaches oversign? Do they expect attrition or what?

Yes and no. They do have to plan for attrition but some have been so aggressive about it that the numbers go well beyond any players that they may lose due to normal circumstances.


If coaches do oversign & all come, do they have to renege to some of the kids? If so, does that let the kid off the hook (if the school can't live up to scholarship committment) and he can transfer, no problem?

Yes, they will either reneg on a scholarship just offered to an incoming player or they wil drop a scholarship from a player coming back.

No, the kid is not off the hook. If he goes elsewhere in division 1 he will have to sit out a year - even if he never set foot on the campus.


Do they tell a kid up front that if he commits, he may/may not get scholarship?

I doubt the guys like Saban and Miles do. I'm sure it's in the paperwork that the kid signs.


Wonder how OU handles this?

I'm curious as well. I'd bet we will sign up to the point where we expect attritition but I don't know if we cut scholarships for underfperforming players. (I'd suppose we'd have to if we didn't have the attrition that we expected.) It doesn't seem like we abuse the system like some in the SEC West.

[pphilfran]

Schollys are issued on a yearly basis...probably shouldn't be that way but it is what it is...

Every kid coming in should know that if they do not perform to standard or expectations they could lose their free ride...

It is tough in the real world and they recruits should get used to to possible future job loses due to under performance issues...

[jkjsooner]

Here's some possible ideas to reduce this problem.

1. Give two different levels of scholarships. One is guaranteed for four years (A). The other is year-by-year (B). Coaches must clearly state to the player if his scholarship is an A or a B.

If you sign a kid with an A scholarship, you are stuck with him (moral and practice attendance clauses aside). That scholarship slot is taken for four years.

If you sign a kid with a B scholarship then you can renew it year-by-year.

Everyone will offer Adrian Peterson a class A scholarship. For a lower level player, you have to make a decision - A or B. If, say, OU offers a B but Tulsa offers the guy a level A scholarship he might choose Tulsa.

This would force coaches to be a little more transparent. No longer could you deceive a kid into believing you will stick with him when you know that he's a stretch and you may easily choose to cut his scholly later.

2. You can only sign 25 players per year. When you sign a player he's guaranteed for that year (whether on an A or B scholarship).

[jkjsooner]

Actually, I had an idea that may give the coaches a little more flexibility with incoming freshmen. Create a third class - class C - scholarship for oversigned freshmen. A class C scholarship is not guaranteed - even for the first year. This is transparent as the student knows what the designation means.

A school can only give out a maximum of 25 A&B scholarships to incoming freshman. Anything above 25 would require a class C designation.

Schools also can't give incoming freshman more class A&B scholarships than are available under the 85 scholarship limit. To determine availability you only consider returning class A scholarships.

So let's say a team has 70 returning class A scholarships and five returning class B scholarships.

They can only offer 15 class A&B scholarships to incoming freshmen (85-70). Anything above 15 would be class C.

All class C scholarships become class B once the kid is actually on scholarship. If you oversign you must cut your roster from class B players or incoming class C players.

This would make the whole system completely transparent. Kids know where they stand. It would also maximize flexibility for the coaches - mainly due to unforseen circumstances not designed for cutting non-productive player's scholarships though it could still be used that way.


Let's say a player is offered a class C scholarship from Alabama (not guaranteed even for the first year), and class B scholarship from OU (guaranteed for the first year and renewed year by year), and a class A scholarship from Tulsa. The player knows exactly where he stands and can make a more informed decision. If his parents don't have a lot of money and education is important to him, he may choose Tulsa which guarantees him a full four years even if he doesn't pan out as a division 1 player.

[batonrougesooner]

If a player gets his scholarship revoked by the school for other than disciplinary reasons they should be eligible immediately at another school of their choice.

[CrimsonCommando]

So Q. Griffen and M. Iglesas would have been C scholarship players for being signed last in their respective classes?

[jkjsooner]

So Q. Griffen and M. Iglesas would have been C scholarship players for being signed last in their respective classes?

Not necessarily. The designation wouldn't have to follow the signing order and if you don't oversign you could give every player as a class A scholarship if you want. If you do oversign you just have to be upfront and honest to the players that may risk losing their scholarship. I mean, when a coach revokes a scholarship before the player ever sets foot on campus he knows at the time he signed the player that that player is at risk. This just forces the coach to be honest with the player.

If OU wasn't willing to give Q a guaranteed four years (level A) or maybe not even guaranteeing the scholarship for the freshman year (level B) then Q would have every opportunity to reevaluate his decision.

If that were the case, maybe Q would choose differently or maybe not. Either way, he is well informed.

If OU already had 25 class A or B scholarships and we signed Q late then, yes, he would have to be a class C scholarship. If a coach wants to keep his options open he could, say, sign a few guys as class C even though he's not yet over the limit. Then if a guy like Q comes along late you would still have the option to sign him as an A or B.

Also, there would be no reason a coach couldn't upgrade a scholarship from B to A. Heck, once you have your 85 scholarships you could upgrade all 85 to class A. If you have a guy like Q that you know will never have his scholarship revoked then you might as well upgrade it. The coach would lose a little flexibility but it's flexibility that he never planned to exercise anyway.


This could make signing day a little chaotic. Let's say stud RB that we thought would sign with OU didn't. If we oversigned we might at the last minute fax another player a class A or B offer that was originally a class C offer in an attempt to sweeten the pie.


What I don't know is if scholly offers are all standardized (year-by-year renewals) or if a player can negotiate a guaranteed four year scholly now. If they already do this then much of what is in my plan already happens but having uniform designations just makes it more clear.

[Sooner70]

Thanks for reply jkjsooner. Informative info on this. Seems like borderline unethical practice. Wonder why NCAA doesn't have rules against this?

I agree with batonrouge. Dangit, if a school reneges on a kid they've led to believe will get a scholarship, the kid should be free to go to another school of his choice & not have to sit out a year. Heck, that only seems right.

[royalfan5]

I think the only fair thing to do is eliminate scholarship limits. If a school wants to spend more on scholarships, I say we let them.

[texaspokieokie]

i think they tried it that way.

[Leroy Lizard]

Schollys are issued on a yearly basis...probably shouldn't be that way but it is what it is...

Every kid coming in should know that if they do not perform to standard or expectations they could lose their free ride...

It is tough in the real world and they recruits should get used to to possible future job loses due to under performance issues...

But this is not like the free world. If IBM fires me for underperforming, I can go to Apple if they want me.

These athletes are told that if they lose their scholarship, they don't get to sign with any other FBS teams for another year, even if an FBS team wants them.

There's another reason why this is unlike working for IBM. At IBM, if I am hired I get an opportunity to show what I can do. Sure, if I don't work out they can fire me. But these athletes' schollies are often cut before they even take the field and they are fired simply because the university handed out more schollies than they should have. IBM doesn't hire 30 people to fill 20 slots.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think the only fair thing to do is eliminate scholarship limits. If a school wants to spend more on scholarships, I say we let them.

No, you take away the total scholly limit, but put in place the yearly limits. Then you change the rule allowing players to transfer to another university with no penalty if their original choice is no longer willing to issue them a scholarship.

So on National Signing Day, LSU gets to sign (say) 20 recruits. No more; no less. Yes, there will be attrition, but this affects all teams, not just LSU. So if LSU loses 10% of their class due to injuries or homesickness, most likely Alabama is as well.

And if the athletes fail out of school, that is LSU's tough luck. Next time don't sign idiots and you won't have that problem.

As soon as you allow schools to make up attrition losses, the abuses set in and you have Darrell Royal all over again. And we don't want that.

[Leroy Lizard]

Actually, I had an idea that may give the coaches a little more flexibility with incoming freshmen. Create a third class - class C - scholarship for oversigned freshmen. A class C scholarship is not guaranteed - even for the first year. This is transparent as the student knows what the designation means.

A school can only give out a maximum of 25 A&B scholarships to incoming freshman. Anything above 25 would require a class C designation.

Schools also can't give incoming freshman more class A&B scholarships than are available under the 85 scholarship limit. To determine availability you only consider returning class A scholarships.

So let's say a team has 70 returning class A scholarships and five returning class B scholarships.

They can only offer 15 class A&B scholarships to incoming freshmen (85-70). Anything above 15 would be class C.

All class C scholarships become class B once the kid is actually on scholarship. If you oversign you must cut your roster from class B players or incoming class C players.

This would make the whole system completely transparent. Kids know where they stand. It would also maximize flexibility for the coaches - mainly due to unforseen circumstances not designed for cutting non-productive player's scholarships though it could still be used that way.


Let's say a player is offered a class C scholarship from Alabama (not guaranteed even for the first year), and class B scholarship from OU (guaranteed for the first year and renewed year by year), and a class A scholarship from Tulsa. The player knows exactly where he stands and can make a more informed decision. If his parents don't have a lot of money and education is important to him, he may choose Tulsa which guarantees him a full four years even if he doesn't pan out as a division 1 player.

So how would a kid on a Class C scholarship be different than a walk-on?

[jkjsooner]

So how would a kid on a Class C scholarship be different than a walk-on?

In my scenario, class C isn't really a scholarship just a designation for some incoming players who are at risk due to oversigning. Once you have the 85 kids on scholarship the class C designation would cease to exist. At the point where the scholarships are actually activated, the kid either gets a full 4 year scholarship (A) or a year-by-year scholarship (B) or his offer is revoked and he either becomes a walk-on or goes elsewhere.

It's not perfect but it's no worse than we have now. I think coaches are going to demand some flexibility including the ability to slightly oversign to cover unforseen events. This would give them that ability while being fully transparent about it and would give the potential signee plenty of opportunity to pursue a more guaranteed deal prior to signing.

[jkjsooner]

Thanks for reply jkjsooner. Informative info on this. Seems like borderline unethical practice. Wonder why NCAA doesn't have rules against this?

I agree with batonrouge. Dangit, if a school reneges on a kid they've led to believe will get a scholarship, the kid should be free to go to another school of his choice & not have to sit out a year. Heck, that only seems right.

Just wanted to point out the whole A/B/C stuff was my creation. I think you know that but just wanted to make it clear...

Also, apologies for taking this thread on a tangent.

[Leroy Lizard]

In my scenario, class C isn't really a scholarship just a designation for some incoming players who are at risk due to oversigning. Once you have the 85 kids on scholarship the class C designation would cease to exist. At the point where the scholarships are actually activated, the kid either gets a full 4 year scholarship (A) or a year-by-year scholarship (B) or his offer is revoked and he either becomes a walk-on or goes elsewhere.

It's not perfect but it's no worse than we have now. I think coaches are going to demand some flexibility including the ability to slightly oversign to cover unforseen events. This would give them that ability while being fully transparent about it and would give the potential signee plenty of opportunity to pursue a more guaranteed deal prior to signing.

So what you have is essentially a waiting list, with no guarantee that you would ever be chosen for a scholarship.

That's a bad deal from the player's standpoint. It's certainly more honest, but I doubt many players would take a Class C scholarship offer unless they had absolutely no other offers to consider (or they come from a well-to-do family).

[jkjsooner]

So what you have is essentially a waiting list, with no guarantee that you would ever be chosen for a scholarship.

That's a bad deal from the player's standpoint. It's certainly more honest, but I doubt many players would take a Class C scholarship offer unless they had absolutely no other offers to consider (or they come from a well-to-do family).

So be it. It's better to know you're on the waiting list than not to know. In today's situation, when Miles, Saban, or Nutt oversign they probably have a good idea which kids won't actually get a scholarship.

The fact that most kids wouldn't take the non-guaranteed offer would be a good control on oversigning. The kids who take these offers now are simply being mislead. The at-risk kids probably think they're the next coming of Adrian Peterson anyway so the fact that scholarships can be revoked hardly comes into play. If the coach designates them as one of a few who are at risk then that's a wake up call to the player.

There might be cases where kids would accept a class C offer. Let's assume the team has 24 openings. They give out 21 guaranteed scholarships and 6 non-guaranteed scholarships. The coach tells the kids that he expects at least one returning player to become academically ineligible (moving available scholly to the 25 limit) and a couple of new signees to not make it to campus. They might be able to convince the kid that there's a 99% chance that all six of the class C players will get a scholarship and 100% chance that 3 of the 6 will get one. The player then weighs his options - 99% of getting a scholly at OU or 100% at OSU.


I'm a big fan of controlled capitalism. I like capitalism but think it needs slight controls (insider trading laws / fraud laws / etc.) to prevent abuses. The controls should be minimal. This scheme in many ways is more capitalistic as it allows schools more options on what they can offer and allows students the chance to weigh different options. It is slightly controlled in that the offers must be stated in a standardized form using standardized definitions for transparency. (Obviously the 85/25 limit is another control but is out of scope here.)

[Leroy Lizard]

So be it. It's better to know you're on the waiting list than not to know. In today's situation, when Miles, Saban, or Nutt oversign they probably have a good idea which kids won't actually get a scholarship.

Not necessarily. They may not care. It's like drawing cards in poker. If you can draw seven cards, look them over, and discard two, while your opponents cannot, that gives you an advantage.

If the coach doesn't think the kid can compete, he probably wouldn't sign him.

Keep in mind that coaches can create such a waiting list now. There is nothing to stop a coach from telling a recruit that he can sign on and wait for an opening. Coaches don't like telling recruits that because they know that such an offer isn't very enticing. It is much better in their eyes to lie; if the kid's dreams are destroyed it's no skin off their back. People like Les Miles truly don't care. Read "Meat on the Hoof" sometime. That's the type of coach we're dealing with here.

There is one major problem with your idea: Either coaches are going to be strictly limited on how many recruits they can sign or they are not. If they are, they won't go for it. If they're not, then we have the same system we have now because these coaches are patently dishonest.


The fact that most kids wouldn't take the non-guaranteed offer would be a good control on oversigning. The kids who take these offers now are simply being mislead. The at-risk kids probably think they're the next coming of Adrian Peterson anyway so the fact that scholarships can be revoked hardly comes into play. If the coach designates them as one of a few who are at risk then that's a wake up call to the player.

There might be cases where kids would accept a class C offer. Let's assume the team has 24 openings. They give out 21 guaranteed scholarships and 6 non-guaranteed scholarships. The coach tells the kids that he expects at least one returning player to become academically ineligible (moving available scholly to the 25 limit) and a couple of new signees to not make it to campus. They might be able to convince the kid that there's a 99% chance that all six of the class C players will get a scholarship and 100% chance that 3 of the 6 will get one. The player then weighs his options - 99% of getting a scholly at OU or 100% at OSU.

But that isn't what will happen. Coaches like Randy Shannon will tell the kid that he expects 3 players to become academically ineligible, not 1. Why? Because it keeps the player on campus and not heading into the waiting arms of Florida State.

Yes, it's all a lie. Yes, the player will find out eventually. Yes, he's screwed.

They

don't

care.


I'm a big fan of controlled capitalism. I like capitalism but think it needs slight controls (insider trading laws / fraud laws / etc.) to prevent abuses. The controls should be minimal. This scheme in many ways is more capitalistic as it allows schools more options on what they can offer and allows students the chance to weigh different options. It is slightly controlled in that the offers must be stated in a standardized form using standardized definitions for transparency. (Obviously the 85/25 limit is another control but is out of scope here.)

I like your sentiment. But we are not dealing with an honest clientele here.

It comes down to this: The NCAA wants schools to only have 85 on scholarship per year. The attrition rates are well known, so it could be that a school needs to sign (say) 100 over four years to maintain 85. If they sign more (and they will), someone is going to get burnt. Creating special classifications of scholarships does nothing to diminish this harsh reality.

If honesty cuts down on the coach's ability to sign as many players as possible, then they'll revert to dishonesty. "Yes, that's what it said on the paper, and I realize I signed it, but Coach Miles told me..."

This is why I think it's nuts to turn the NCAA over to coaches. They are the last ones you want guarding the hen house.

To me, the number of players signed into any one year should be capped with no exceptions whatsoever. If five of your players leave for the NFL, you get 25 per year. If a coaching change wipes out half your squad, you get 25 per year. If your team all dies in a plane wreck, you get 25 per year.

Just as importantly, get rid of the whole-team cap of 85. A school with exceptionally low attrition will end up with a bigger squad than one with high attrition. Gee, life's tough.

[jkjsooner]

Not necessarily. They may not care. It's like drawing cards in poker. If you can draw seven cards, look them over, and discard two, while your opponents cannot, that gives you an advantage.

I'm talking about kids who have their scholarship revoked before their frosh year even starts. At most the coach can see the kid during summer but I think that is very limited. In those cases he kinda has to have an idea of which kids are at risk early on.

[Sabanball]

This goes on at most elite programs and when done the right way there's no violation of rules. Move along, people, there's nothing here to see.

[FtwTxSooner]

There's another reason why this is unlike working for IBM. At IBM, if I am hired I get an opportunity to show what I can do. Sure, if I don't work out they can fire me. But these athletes' schollies are often cut before they even take the field and they are fired simply because the university handed out more schollies than they should have. IBM doesn't hire 30 people to fill 20 slots.

Works the same way in the real world too. I've known people fresh out of college that gets hired and fired after a company ramps up staffing, only to find themselves way overstaffed due to a downturn in the economy. Those guys never got a chance to "prove themselves".

In any organization, you need to be regularly firing your bottom 10% anyway. Whether that means sending an underperforming worker to the unemployment lines, or not renewing a scholarship for a player that has failed to make a name for himself and is getting passed up by underclassmen.

[Leroy Lizard]

This goes on at most elite programs and when done the right way there's no violation of rules. Move along, people, there's nothing here to see.

Watch the "no violation of the rules" crap. No one here is saying that these coaches violated NCAA rules. In fact, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

And there is a lot to see here. When a kid thinks he's going to play for a team, is told to go **** himself, and then can't even transfer to another FBS team, that's a problem.

Coaches need to be told through explicit NCAA legislation: Don't sign more than you can actually accommodate.

It's a shameless practice.

[Leroy Lizard]

Works the same way in the real world too. I've known people fresh out of college that gets hired and fired after a company ramps up staffing, only to find themselves way overstaffed due to a downturn in the economy.

But that's not by design. Here, coaches are signing more than they can accommodate.

It would be more analogous if the NCAA drafted up new rules that only allowed 20 signings and did it right after National Signing Day. The NCAA would never do that, of course.


In any organization, you need to be regularly firing your bottom 10% anyway. .

Does Stoops follow this management model? How many of his coaching staff has he fired since he took over?

[jkjsooner]

In any organization, you need to be regularly firing your bottom 10% anyway. Whether that means sending an underperforming worker to the unemployment lines, or not renewing a scholarship for a player that has failed to make a name for himself and is getting passed up by underclassmen.

I think your analogy with the workplace is misguided. These are STUDENT athletes. They are students first. Isn't that what we hear from college presidents all the time?

Academically you can lose a lot when you transfer. Some schools won't transfer many classes at all. Even schools that will transfer a lot of work, if the course descriptions don't match up well enough they won't transfer them.

If universities want to treat them like employees then feel free to pay them and quit the student athlete charade. If you do I'll stop complaining.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think your analogy with the workplace is misguided. These are STUDENT athletes. They are students first. Isn't that what we hear from college presidents all the time?

Academically you can lose a lot when you transfer. Some schools won't transfer many classes at all. Even schools that will transfer a lot of work, if the course descriptions don't match up well enough they won't transfer them.

If universities want to treat them like employees then feel free to pay them and quit the student athlete charade. If you do I'll stop complaining.

Prepare yourself for the "Our unfair treatment is justified since we're just preparing them for the real world" horse**** excuse.

[FtwTxSooner]

I think your analogy with the workplace is misguided. These are STUDENT athletes. They are students first. Isn't that what we hear from college presidents all the time?

Academically you can lose a lot when you transfer. Some schools won't transfer many classes at all. Even schools that will transfer a lot of work, if the course descriptions don't match up well enough they won't transfer them.

If universities want to treat them like employees then feel free to pay them and quit the student athlete charade. If you do I'll stop complaining.

Regular students on academic scholarships lose their scholarships all the time when they fail to uphold their end of the bargain and perform in the classroom. It doesn't matter if they try hard, or put forth a good effort. They'll have the same problems transferring credits and such.

[freshchris05]

^ You say that but, in the story mentioned earlier, a player from Miami started 18 games i believe and was essentially booted for Seantrel Henderson.

Academics is one thing. If you have to maintain a 3.0, 2.7 aint gonna cut it. But how do you grade players?

[Leroy Lizard]

Regular students on academic scholarships lose their scholarships all the time when they fail to uphold their end of the bargain and perform in the classroom. It doesn't matter if they try hard, or put forth a good effort. They'll have the same problems transferring credits and such.

We give those students opportunities to turn in their papers for a grade. Some of these players never take the field.

Besides, the purpose of an athletic scholarship is to get educated, and athletes can lose their scholarship for poor classroom performance. However, sports is merely an avocation, so to yank a scholarship for substandard performance on the football field violates the NCAA's own stated goals.

[jkjsooner]

I could not have stated it better, Leroy. (Ugh, I feel dirty.)

I wonder what criteria a coach uses when he cuts a player's scholarship. We've seen scores of players who never see playing time yet stay on scholarship for four years. Clearly most coaches aren't cutting all of these kids loose.

With the coaches on the hot seat about graduation rates, I wonder if a kid who isn't getting playing time but is clearly on track to graduate would be kept on scholarship. If this is the way it works I have a little less sympathy for the guy who gets his scholarship revoked (although by the fact we're discussing it he's kept his GPA at least high enough to otherwise retain the scholarship).

And for Sabanball, I think you're wrong. This stuff doesn't go on everywhere. I never heard of a player having his scholarship cut until I started talking to SEC guys (about 10 years ago). It's clear to me (and backed up by the ESPN story) that the SEC is by far the worst offender here.

[soonerhubs]

This goes on at most elite programs and when done the right way there's no violation of rules. Move along, people, there's nothing here to see.

Yep! Since it's common, ignore the fact that it screws up the futures of many student athletes?

It's a chicken-**** practice, and it should be stopped.

[Soonerfan88]

This goes on at most elite programs and when done the right way there's no violation of rules. Move along, people, there's nothing here to see.

I disagree. Maybe it's common in the SEC but not the entire country. Booting a guy because of repeated idiocy and rules violations should not be compared to pulling a scholarship just to make room for the next 5* recruit, especially if it is a still-developing Fr/So or a kid who hasn't even finished his first summer workout yet.

[KantoSooner]

I'd like to believe that maintaining high ethical standards, and loyalty, would result in a reputation that would attract like minded athletes (and their parents). I'd prefer to have a team built on that foundation rather than a collection of individuals with very short vision.
I believe that's what Stoops has done and I'm proud of it

[TUSooner]

This goes on at most elite programs and when done the right way there's no violation of rules. Move along, people, there's nothing here to see.

Nick, You are just plain wrong on this one. Dint ya mama ever tell ya, "just cuz everybody does it don't make it right"? It is lying to someone to get him to come to your school and then throwing him off the bus when someone better comes along. It's really simple, and simply wrong.