The Ranking a Banned Program Debate

October 3, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

Earlier this summer the BCS brought the pain when it punished the University of Southern California for its lack of institutional control. As a result of a four year investigation into inappropriate benefits received by USC players, the BCS stripped the school of several scholarships, demanded forfeiture of previous wins, and, among other things, banned the university’s football program from BCS bowls for two years. The punishments doled out as a result of this process got us here at The Sports Debates thinking – “If the Trojans are banned from a BCS bowl game, then should the team not also be banned from the rankings?”

As of this weekend the Trojans were ranked in the top twenty teams, but the question at hand is, “Should USC be ranked at all?” It is not a matter of whether the Trojans are one of the most competitive programs in the nation, but whether they still warrant a ranking because of their bowl ban. No matter how well USC performs or who they beat, they will still not participate in a BCS – or any other – bowl at season’s end.

Which leads us to today’s debate: Should a ban from bowls include a ban from the rankings?

Loyal Homer believes it should. Obviously there is logic supporting this argument, but to win this debate he will have to prove that the team deserves a ranking ban.

Bleacher Fan, on the other hand, believes a bowl ban is not a good idea. He believes that although bowl bans are a punishment it does not actually change how well a team is playing.

Whoever wins this debate will be number one in my book, but their poll ranking may be a different story.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Ranking a Banned Program Debate… Post-season Ban Applies Post-Season Only

October 3, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Six years ago, Reggie Bush (while playing at Southern Cal under then-head coach Pete Carroll) violated an NCAA eligibility rule by accepting money from a professional sports agent.

The NCAA unfortunately has a very difficult task when it comes to situations such like this, where the infractions are being addressed several years after they actually took place. The people guilty of committing infractions are no longer under the governing body’s rule. Therefore, there is very little that can be done to hold the actual guilty parties accountable.

While the NCAA does still retain the authority to penalize a program, the NCAA must also be very careful about the way punishments are implemented because the people who will be most greatly affected by the punishment are those currently in the program, who had nothing at all to do with the infractions that took place.

To avoid a situation where the children must pay too greatly for the sins of the parents, the NCAA has stripped away any recognition for what the football program did during the season infractions take place, and has banned the program from participating in post-season football for the two years following the discovery of infractions.

Although I would like to see a more aggressive partnership between the NFL and the NCAA so that guys like Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll don’t get to walk away virtually unscathed (don’t forget, Bush gave back his Heisman Trophy, it wasn’t taken from him), this is actually a very fair and just punishment to be levied on the program.

The institution suffers by missing out on the exposure and profits of playing post-season football, but the impact to the athletes and coaches CURRENTLY within the program will be extremely minimal. They will not get to play in a bowl game for the next couple of years, which is unfortunate, but they will retain every other benefit that comes from playing at a major university.

So, why take the punishment a step further by banning the program from consideration when ranking the top 25 teams in the nation?

Rankings and Bowls are Independent of Each Other

If there were only 25 bowl invitations extended every year, and those 25 invitations were offered to the top 25 teams in the nation, I would completely agree with a ban on ranking to accompany the ban on bowl eligibility. But that is simply not the case.

The national rankings serve as a gauge of which are the best 25 programs in the nation, not the best 25 bowl eligible programs. Last season there were 43 teams that played in bowl games and were not ranked in the top 25. What does USC being considered for a national ranking now have to do at all with bowl eligibility?! Absolutely nothing!

Just because a team is ineligible to play in the post-season does not mean it does not deserve consideration as being one of the best teams in the country.

If Alabama was banned from 2010 bowl eligibility it would not change the fact that it is the best team in the nation right now. Why try to ignore, cover up, or alter that fact by producing a fraudulent ranking written as though Alabama did not exist? It would completely devalue the entire ranking process.

Southern Cal, bowl eligible or not, is going to remain in contention as one of the 25 best football programs in the country. Any attempt to disregard or ignore that fact is pointless.

You Can’t Penalize the Wrong People!

It is important that the current active members of the USC organization are not penalized too harshly for the rule-breaking of the predecessors. But, there is another group that would also be unfairly punished if USC were to be banned from ranking eligibility – opponents.

That’s right. Banning USC from consideration for a national ranking is actually penalizing every single team that USC would play while they were under that ban. Why? Because there is greater prestige associated with playing and potentially beating a ranked team.

Think about what the Washington Huskies accomplished last weekend. Which sounds better – beating USC, the team banned from bowls AND rankings, or beating USC, the team ranked as the 18th best in the nation?

When the BCS rolls around, and a team that beats USC is potentially jockeying for position within the BCS standings, should they not be given full credit for defeating one of the 25 best programs in the nation? It is not their fault (nor is it their concern) that USC is banned from bowl games. But if you take away USC’s ability to be ranked, you essentially rob their opponents of the credit they deserve for competing against one of the best teams in the nation.

A Rankings Ban Adds No Value

What could possibly be gained by stripping a ranking away from USC this season?

Whether they are bowl eligible or not, they are still potentially one of the best football teams in the nation. The ONLY benefit gained by removing the ranking is that the team that is ACTUALLY the 26th best could be artificially bumped into a ranking they did not earn, nor deserve. That minor, arbitrary alteration would come at a far greater cost to USC players today (who were only 13 and 14 years old when Reggie Bush broke the rules) and their opponents (who deserve full credit for beating a major football program).

Taking away USC’s ability to earn a national ranking is the same as banning them from playing at all this season. Their opponents gain nothing by playing them, and their current athletes would have absolutely nothing to show for all of their hard work this season.

They were banned from the POST-season, not the REGULAR season. Let the regular season play out as it should, and when bowl season rolls around USC will serve its punishment accordingly.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Fire Mark Richt Debate… Expectations Outpace Mark Richt

September 28, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

Mark Richt is no longer able to compete in the SEC.

Yes, he HAS led the Georgia Bulldogs to nine consecutive bowl appearances, and boasts a bowl record of 7-2 in those nine games. He has maintained exceptionally strong recruiting classes during his tenure, and has twice been named the SEC Coach of the Year. And if he were head coach of a Big East or ACC program, that would be considered a wildly successful performance, and Richt would be at the front of the line for the next “elite” coaching job in college football.

The only problem is he already HAS that elite coaching job in the nation’s top football conference. And when you look at his performance, specifically over the past four years as the SEC has completely dominated college football, Richt has actually UNDER-performed.

BCS Shortcomings

In the nine full seasons since Richt became head coach at Georgia, he has coached his squad to a 2-1 BCS record, with no national championship game appearances.

Now, let’s compare that to some of his SEC colleagues:

Les Miles is 2-0 in BCS games since 2005, including a national championship with LSU.

Nick Saban is 3-1 in BCS games, with two national championships for two different SEC programs (LSU and Alabama).

Urban Meyer is 3-0 in BCS games, with two national championships.

Pop quiz, what is Mark Richt lacking? That’s right! A national championship, DESPITE being at the head of one of the supposed powerhouses in the SEC.

As for those two BCS wins, one came in 2002, back before the SEC had really developed into the conference powerhouse it is today, and the other came in 2007 against a Hawaii team that had no business being in the BCS, DESPITE an undefeated regular season record (don’t forget that Hawaii earned their record by playing the WAC, two different FCS teams, and the only team they played from a BCS-caliber conference was the 4-8 Washington Huskies).

While the SEC has improved, Georgia has declined

There is clearly a gap in talent between Mark Richt and the other premier coaches of the SEC. And with each passing year the irrefutable evidence indicates that the gap is widening.

Since Georgia’s last BCS win in 2007, while the SEC has improved as a conference, the Bulldogs have been on a steady and sharp decline.

Entering into the 2008 season Georgia was ranked as the top team in the country. How did Richt respond to that ranking? By losing not once, but THREE times that season.

Again, a 10-3 record (with a win in the Capital One Bowl) is not bad, but as the pre-season favorite to win the national championship, three losses equals to a HUGE disappointment.

Then in 2009, Georgia (who still managed a top-ten recruiting class) was ranked in the pre-season as the 13th best team in the nation, and they played on to a record of only 8-5… falling COMPLETELY out of the top-25 by season’s end.

Somehow, despite that slide even deeper out of SEC relevance, Georgia managed ANOTHER solid recruiting class and found itself once more ranked in the 2010 pre-season as one of the 25 best teams in the country.

And once again, Richt has failed.

So far this season he has managed to win only one game (against Louisiana-Lafayette), and his three losses (all of which have come against SEC competition) have him sitting in dead last as the worst team in the conference.

It is time for Richt to go

During his tenure, Richt’s performance at the University of Georgia has been good, but as far as the University of Georgia’s expectations are concerned, “good” in the SEC simply isn’t good enough. This is a program that has recruited some of the top talent in the country, but has failed miserably on the field.

Since 2007, Mark Richt has had top-ten caliber talent coming into each season, and has progressively dropped further and further out of contention. He has lost 11 times in the SEC during that time (compared to only four losses each by Florida and Alabama during that same period). This season, he has the Bulldogs off to their worst start in 20 years (they also started at 1-3 during the 1993 season).

The SEC has progressed to a level at which Mark Richt can no longer compete.

Three different head coaches have won national championships in the SEC over the last four years. Each one has progressively improved their program’s stature, elevating the conference in the process. All the while Georgia fans have been left on the sidelines with nothing but disappointment.

Mark Richt has had all the tools, and every opportunity, to improve his program right alongside the likes of Saban, Miles, and Meyer. But unlike those three, Richt has failed to capitalize on his opportunities.

While the SEC has gotten better, Mark Richt has gotten worse. The only way that Georgia can progress as a football program is if they leave Richt behind.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Best Game of THIS Weekend Debate… Enter the Gauntlet

September 23, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Babe Ruthless.

Boise State is ranked as the third best team in the nation right now.

Is it deserved?

Sure after beating a ranked Virginia Tech team, but that is the same team that lost to FCS James Madison one week later, too.

Even if they beat Oregon State this weekend (who is grossly over-ranked at 24th in a fraudulent attempt to try and justify Boise State’s own over-ranking on the assumption the team will beat the Beavers), it does not truly validate the projection that they are the third best team in the nation.

Then you have the Alabama Crimson Tide. Now THERE is a team that has earned their ranking.

And if they are able to survive the next three weekends – arguably the toughest stretch in all of college football (they are scheduled to play the ninth, tenth, and twelfth ranked teams in the nation on back-to-back-to-back weekends) – then there will be no first place votes left to share with Ohio State, Boise State, or whatever other pretender to the Crimson Tide throne may step forward.

So, tomorrow, Alabama will embark on the first of its Herculean labors by traveling to Fayetteville to take on the Arkansas Razorbacks. The matchup between these two SEC powerhouses at Reynold’s Razorback Stadium will feature several of the most talented players in college football, and unlike the Boise State games, this one has REAL national championship implications.

Arkansas, led by Heisman hopeful Ryan Mallett, is currently ranked tenth in the nation by the Associated Press, and is cruising into this weekend after an impressive win on the road against the Georgia Bulldogs.

Mallett, who leads the nation with 1,081 passing yards, will provide Alabama’s relatively inexperienced defense with its toughest test of the season as the Razorbacks look to end Alabama’s reign at the top of the SEC’s west division. If Mallett wishes to continue his candidacy for college football’s highest individual honor, he will have to play nearly flawless football. Otherwise, he can pull up a chair next to Jake Locker and kiss his hopes of becoming the next Heisman Trophy winner goodbye.

And speaking of Heisman winners (how’s that for a segue?!), Mark Ingram seems to be back at full strength after rushing for more than 150 yards and two scores on only nine carries for the Crimson Tide last weekend. And now that he is paired in the backfield again with Trent Richardson (who is just as explosive as Ingram), Alabama once more boasts the most formidable rushing offense in college football.

This game will feature arguably the two best teams in the SEC, one of whom will be making a statement this weekend that they legitimately deserve a shot at the national championship.

Yes, I know that there are still teams like Florida, LSU, and even South Carolina who have started the season strong. But it will be the winner from this game who becomes the de facto team to beat, not just in the SEC, but in the entire nation.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Next NCAAF Head Coach Debate… Hook Him While You Can

September 1, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.

There is no doubt that Will Muschamp will become a successful head coach in the college football ranks. The real questions are “When?” and “For whom?”

His resume speaks for itself, as success follows him wherever he goes.

Over the last decade Muschamp has been defensive coordinator for some of the most dominant defenses in the nation. He signed on at LSU under Nick Saban in 2001, and in 2003 his top-ranked defense led the Tigers to a national championship.

Two years later, after a short stint in the NFL where he followed Nick Saban to the Miami Dolphins, Muschamp returned to college football as the defensive coordinator for the Auburn Tigers. In two seasons with Tommy Tuberville, Muschamp quickly proved that his success at LSU was no accident. In 2006 and 2007 his defenses were ranked seventh and sixth in the nation, respectively, in points per game, and in 2007 his defense ranked sixth in the nation in yards per game.

Then, early in 2008, Muschamp was brought into the Texas Longhorns football program as their defensive coordinator. Since then he has not skipped a beat, as his defenses continue to be ranked among the best in the country.

And while his sustained success with three different major programs speak volumes about his coaching ability, it is his reputation as one of the nation’s top recruiters that really sets him apart from his peers.

In recognition for his proven success, as well has his high potential for the future, Texas saw fit to name Muschamp the “Head Coach in Waiting.”

There is only one problem – Texas’ current head coach Mack Brown does not appear ready to leave his post anytime soon, which places a heavy emphasis on the word “waiting.” That fact was magnified earlier this year when DeLoss Dodds, the Athletic Director for the Longhorns, signed a contract extension with the school.

The understood progression of events was that Dodds would soon be retiring, and Brown would assume the role of AD, creating the vacancy at the position of head coach that Muschamp would then slip into. With those events now delayed, it could seriously change the way Muschamp thinks about his current situation.

For all the expectation and promise that Will Muschamp has to look forward to, there is no timetable to set a realistic expectation for when he will actually receive his opportunity, and THAT is where the rest of the programs around the country have an opportunity to pounce.

As exciting as it may be to know that with a little patience the keys to arguably the top football program in the country will be handed over, there can also be frustration from the uncertainty of not knowing when that day will come. Especially for a guy like Muschamp who really is ready to run his own program. Today.

Tennessee has already made a play to woo Muschamp out of Austin, but his response at the time was that he was happy waiting it out with the Longhorns. That was before Dodds signed his extension, though, and with the laundry list of high profile programs whose coaches sit precariously on a very hot seat this season, the atmosphere in Austin could be very different when December rolls around.

There will be no shortage of suitors for Muschamp as the 2010 college football season plays out. Now it is just a matter of seeing how much he can resist before finally succumbing to the temptation that will be out there.

One thing is for sure. Will Muschamp absolutely deserves to be a head coach somewhere in the NCAA by this time next season.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The College Coaches Banning NFL Scouts Debate

August 19, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

It is plain to see that the NFL is creating quite a mess for college football programs these days. NCAA investigations into schools like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina – for allegations of improper contact – reveal that the problem of outside interference on college campuses is both very broad and very real.

Alabama head Nick Saban is taking matters into his own hands. He is currently refusing to allow NFL scouts to even attend practices. Other coaches like Notre Dame’s Brian Kelly don’t view scouts as the problem. Kelly has stated that the Irish won’t ban scouts, but will instead attempt to address the situation by better educating student athletes about the issue.

It seems logical that colleges would take steps to keep agents out. But scouts? These guys are not the ones offering cars and houses under the table to amateur athletes. They are the ones with clipboards and stopwatches sweating in the stands trying to earn a living by discovering the next big thing. Scouts help make college dreams of NFL success possible. Are these guys really to blame as well?

Loyal Homer believes scouts do share blame. He will argue that programs are well within their right to ban NFL scouts to preserve their programs. Bleacher Fan, on the other hand, believes scouts should be left to do their job.

One argument will prevail while the other will be shut out faster than a scout with a roll of hundreds at a Crimson Tide practice. Who has the right idea?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The College Coaches Banning Scouts Debate… Solving a Non-Problem

August 19, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Why do people go to college?

The answer is simple. They go to college to prepare for their future careers. A kid who wants to become a doctor will go to the absolute best medical school that they are able to attend. Likewise, those seeking a career in law will pursue the best law schools, those who wish to be executives in corporate America will pursue the best business programs, and so on.

Students approach college in this manner because it puts them in the best possible position for success AFTER college. Where you go to school can have an influence on the prospective employers that will take notice of you. For example, the top producer from the Wharton School of Business will in all likelihood have garnered more interest from potential future employers than would the top performing student from The University of Phoenix Online.

That doesn’t mean the top performing student from The University of Phoenix is any less equipped for success in the “real world,” but Wharton has a much more prestigious name. It has a reputation as turning out the very best and the brightest. As such, those prospective employers who are interested in hiring the elite graduates from business school tend to keep closer tabs on the students at Wharton. They will want establish early relationships with those students, and get to know them through networking opportunities.

How do colleges facilitate that relationship? Through internships, guest presenters, and work-study programs. Those are just a few of the ways that corporate America can tie itself more closely with the future workforce that will be coming out of college in the years to come.

So if every college, regardless of career path, offers that benefit to its students, why on earth should athletics be excluded?

I completely understand the need to protect student athletes from unscrupulous agents. But the notion that banning professional scouts from practice does anything to combat the problem is like putting a cast on your arm because you broke your leg. The logic is completely flawed.

If a student is attending college in hopes of parlaying that experience into a professional career, shouldn’t they be afforded the exact same benefits that a med student, or a law student receives? By allowing professional scouts in the college environment student athletes are given a unique opportunity to showcase their skills for the very people they are HOPING will hire them once their time in college is done.

That is an ENTIRELY different relationship for an athlete than when they are in contact with a professional agent who has no ties to any prospective future employer. More importantly, the relationship between professional scouts and colleges is one that is healthy, and benefits a lot of people.

Realistically, professional sports internships aren’t an option for these kids. Where a business student can establish a relationship with a professional organization WHILE still attending classes, rules are put in place that prohibit athletes from that opportunity. A college quarterback is not allowed to go practice with the New England Patriots, or dress for a game, or work out at their facilities.

This is not a situation where athletes are being provided with special treatment either, since every college student has access to professionals while they are in college, regardless of the career they are pursuing. Allowing professional scouts into colleges is the same as granting student athletes the exposure to professional America that every single other college student also receives.

And guess what – this practice is good for the universities, too!

Just like the Wharton School of Business has established a reputation as turning out the best potential executives for corporate America, certain universities have developed a reputation as turning out the best potential professional athletes.

Ohio State and Texas are two schools known for their football pedigree. Duke and North Carolina are basketball schools. Each university has established a reputation as giving students the greatest opportunity for future success.

That reputation has grown as the result of an ongoing cycle. Pro scouts flock to those programs because they know they will get to see the top athletes. As a result, the universities get to tout that reputation and higher caliber athletes will want to play for those programs because they will then get the increased exposure they so crave.

Scouts make the programs look better, and the programs make the scouts look better. It is a win-win relationship, and the only thing that would happen by banning scouts from having access to college athletes would be to negatively impact everyone involved.

The programs would lose much of their recruiting capability, which in turn would hurt the chances of sustainable success.

Professional sports teams, and their fans, would suffer because the teams would lose much of the insight that is gained from scouting athletes while they are still in college. While it’s possible to gauge a wide receiver’s speed, or a tight end’s blocking skills, simply by watching them play, it is not possible to gauge intangible qualities that are just as vital at the next level.

How does the athlete interact with his teammates? Is he a leader or a motivator? What is his work ethic like? Does he adapt and adjust well when given new techniques to practice? All of those things require much closer access to the coaches and the program than simply sitting in the bleachers on game day.

Finally, the athletes would suffer because they would have less of an opportunity to differentiate themselves from their peers, ultimately impacting their chances at obtaining top-level salaries.

The current system that provides professional scouts with access to colleges is beneficial to everyone involved, and I see no reason to change that formula for success.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The NCAAF Over Signing Recruits Debate Verdict

August 6, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

I generally do not regard myself as a bleeding heart, and I am a firm supporter of the philosophy that the buyer should beware. Any time a person enters into a contract, they need to absolutely understand the terms which they are agreeing to.

With regard to high school recruits needing to understand that their letter of intent does not “guarantee” a scholarship for them, Babe Ruthless is absolutely correct. The rules around recruiting for college football do not preclude the Universities from accepting every letter of intent they receive. Likewise, signing a letter of intent does not carry with it the right or guarantee of a scholarship.

They are called “letters of intent” for that very reason – an athlete is expressing their intention of playing for the University. Once that letter is signed by the player, and accepted by the University, a partnership is formed, and both parties have a shared obligation to support the overall goal of making the program success.

Just because a contract is legally defensible, though, that does not mean that it is without flaws. This debate was not around the legality of the over-signing practice employed by many major college football programs, but instead was about whether or not it is a practice that unfairly exploits loopholes to a very one-sided advantage.

As far as the programs are concerned, I have no issue at all with the institution doing everything in its power to protect itself. As Babe Ruthless also mentions, some students will be deemed as academically ineligible, others may get injured, and more still may fail to meet the high demands necessary to support a successful program. If a program does not have the ability to protect themselves from those very real dangers, then they are being asked to absorb a great deal of risk.

College football is big business, and it would be extremely irresponsible on the part of the organization if they did not take every possible precaution to protect their best interests.

What I do have an issue with, however, is the imbalance of the system.

Universities are essentially allowed to “hedge their bets” by inviting more students than there are scholarships available. That way, after the fallout of academic ineligibility, poor performance, and injury has mostly been realized, the program can still move forward with a strong and healthy foundation.

But what about those recruits who are cast aside?

While the programs are allowed to put back-up plans in place to protect themselves from hardship, the recruits are not given that same freedom. They cannot issue back-up letters of intent to other programs, JUST IN CASE things don’t work out for them at their first choice. It is that imbalance which Loyal Homer brings up that ultimately earned the verdict for today’s debate.

As illustrated by Loyal Homer’s example of Elliot Porter, the “gray-shirted” recruit from LSU, when those recruits are denied a scholarship they have nowhere else to go. For athletes like Porter, even if they are granted a release from their initial institution (something that is not guaranteed), they must still hope to catch on at another program which happens to still have a roster spot (and hopefully a scholarship) available. Unfortunately, by the time the release and appeal process plays out, the pickings are very slim.

The likely result is that the recruit will be unable to find and sign onto a program where they have any hope of playing football in the foreseeable future.

And so it is ultimately the recruits who suffer with this process. They are asked to stake a full commitment to one single institution. And once that commitment is given, the institution essentially owns the rights to that recruit’s future, who consequently has no means to protect their own best interests. All the while, the institution is freely permitted to play the “what-if” game, and can implement any number of backups or fail-safes to protect their own needs.

Something is inherently wrong.

I am not advocating the idea that college football programs should be stripped of their right to protect their own interests. In fact, I am actually advocating the very opposite – That these programs SHOULD be allowed to take the measures necessary in protection of their own best interests. But the system as it exists today must be changed.

Any partnership in which one side is permitted to operate without obligation while the other is strictly beholden to a commitment is unfair and exploitive.

If the Universities wish to continue the practice of offering more invitations than they have scholarships available, then the NCAA MUST allow for the program’s recruits to have a similar process of protection and self-preservation. Only then will the process be balanced.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The NCAAF Over Signing Recruits Debate

August 5, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

Overbooking is a common practice in the airline industry.

Rather than risk losing money by flying with empty seats on it airlines will intentionally sell more tickets than they have seats available. Overbooking flights allows airlines to maximize profits by ensuring full flights as often as possible.

Because this practice by the airline industries almost never negatively impacts the consumer, people generally accept it without issue. But should that same practice be tolerable in the world of college football?

Major universities around the country intentionally over-commit available scholarships to new recruits. Then, over a series of grueling workouts intended to reduce roster size, excess players are “trimmed” until the headcount matches the available scholarship limit.

As far as Babe Ruthless is concerned this practice is vital and completely appropriate in order to support the development of a successful college football program. Loyal Homer, however, feels that this process unfairly manipulates and exploits the system.

And so the question for today’s debate: Is this practice of over-committing scholarships a fair way to build a college dynasty, or does it unfairly take advantage of the system (and high school recruits)?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The NCAAF Over Signing Recruits Debate… Do Homework Before Signing

August 5, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Whatever happened to due diligence? In today’s immediate gratification culture, cautious and responsible decision making seems like a thing of the past. Everywhere you look there are examples of people running headlong into risky situations. From credit card debt to the mortgage crisis and everything in between, it appears that people are no longer reading the fine print. It’s a dangerous game because when reality sets in it’s easy to be way over your head. There is no one else to blame but yourself.

That’s why I have no sympathy for college athletes who claim to be “victimized” by athletic programs that over recruit and over sign. Athletes know the risks involved with signing to play a sport in college. Or at least they should.

Let’s go back to that “due diligence” phrase I used earlier. For anyone not completely familiar with the expression, let me break it down for you. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the term as follows:

  1. “The care that a reasonable person exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property”
  2. ”Research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction”

Both definitions aptly describe the caution a student and their family should exercise when signing to play a collegiate sport. Especially when scholarship money is at stake.

Considering the amount of information about this controversial practice available on the Internet – there are even entire websites devoted to the subject (see oversigning.com) – that it stands to reason a college bound athlete would have means and the ability to research the situation they are getting into. If not, should they really be attending college in the first place?

The Blame Game

Athletes get cut all the time. The situation is unfortunate but inevitable. Whether an untimely injury or poor performance necessitates the cut, the simple fact is an athlete’s grasp on a roster spot is more tenuous than they would probably like to think. The problem is it just doesn’t sit well with the public when a player, one perceived to be a hardworking kid, loses his spot on a team and the scholarship that made college possible in the first place along with it. The public needs someone to blame for the “injustice.” But who?

Contrary to popular belief, coaches are not to blame. What is their great crime? Being proactive and planning for the future?

Coaches know that not every player they scout will turn out to be the player they hoped to get. Similarly, they would be fools to assume that no one on their team is going to get hurt. If schools don’t over recruit they unnecessarily put the program at risk.

Like it or not, college football is a business. The boss – in this case the coach – has to do what’s best for his business. Bosses make tough decisions about who to promote and who to fire all the time. It certainly isn’t easy, but it is a necessary evil. It’s an “evil” the boss does for the good of the company. Coaches are no different. They have to cut players that can’t stay healthy or don’t produce for the good of the team. Imagine the dysfunction that would ensue if an employer refused to fire underachieving workers or chronically absent employees. A football team is no different.

For all you bleeding hearts out there saying, “But Babe Ruthless, these are children. You can’t do that to them.” I say, “The kids have to grow up sometime.”

The real world is ruthless and brutal. The sooner that is learned the better. Colleges would not be doing anyone a favor by teaching athletes that there are no consequences for poor performance, or even just a bad break. Bear in mind that college football players are supposed to be student athletes, with the emphasis on the word “student.” Unlike professional athletes, they aren’t securing guaranteed money. If a student on a music scholarship could no longer perform at an acceptable level, or even at all, would anyone expect a school to continue to provide them with free tuition? Obviously not.

Regarding over recruiting, coaches are just trying to build the best program possible. To stay with the music analogy, it would be like an orchestra conductor bringing in a group of 30 musicians to compete for 20 spots. The director is simply trying to assemble the best ensemble possible. Will there be some hurt feelings? Maybe, but that is bound to happen anytime there is competition. Coaches know from experience that some guys won’t qualify academically, others won’t live up to their scouting reports, and some simply won’t pan out. So the coach is merely doing his due diligence, by protecting the team’s assets, when he accepts more letters of intent than scholarships. Sure recruiters may promise the world. But like anything else, unless a recruiting target has the promises in writing they really don’t have anything at all. There is a reason teachers and guidance counselors tell students not to put all their eggs in the athlete basket. Any number of reasons can knock an athlete off the fast track to a professional career, and college is no different.

No Foul, No Harm

Critics of over recruiting and over signing will be quick to point out the worst offenders as the norm rather than the exception, but this is an unfair generalization. While conferences like the SEC and teams like Alabama have a track record of overindulging when it comes to signing new players, they always end up complying with the NCAA’s cap of 85 scholarship players. There maybe some kids with bruised egos and broken dreams, but they will live. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. No one ever said playing sports is easy. While it may not sit well with everyone’s sense of fairness, if teams are acting within the rules, and there are no rules violations, cries of “foul play” ring hollow.

Surprisingly, the SEC is responding to criticism by imposing its own set of restrictions on over signing policies. The conference set a limit of 28 players per signing class in May of 2009. That’s three more signees than the NCAA limit of 25 players per class, establishing somewhat of a compromise. It will curb the major abuses of the past, when schools such as Ole Miss signed as many as 37 players in one year. This sort of self governance should be reassuring to those who fear the practice. It limits abuses of power while providing schools with the flexibility they need.

Programs are going to do what is in their best interests, and nothing is going to change that. Players have a duty to be well informed about the competitive scenarios they enter into when signing to play with a particular school. It is ultimately the individual’s responsibility to read contracts and understand all the fine print. The excuse of being “just a kid” only lasts for so long.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.