Post the link, this is not correct information. "4 players over the last 10 years (11 years now) have been placed on medical hardship scholarships at Ohio State: Devon Jordan, Richard mcNutt, Aram Olson, and Curt Lukens. None of them were forced to take a medical hardship to make room for oversigned recruits. Their scholarships were given to other players, but not until the next recruiting class." The above courtesy of oversigning.com.
Florida had a pretty decent recruiting class given the circumstances. Losing Urban probably lost us Jernigan, Grant and Stephone Anothony and Stan Drayton spending time interviewing with OSU instead of calling recruits probably hurt some as well. Then again, Drayton going to OSU was a major reason we kept Story. I still thought UF had a good chance at Grant, but we picked up Roberson from Texas Tech and stole Graham Stewart from Boston College so those were big pick ups. Driskell was a HUGE pick up and he has already been annoited the savior of the Florida football program. All in all, I would grade the Gators 2011 class a B. They signed some quality recruits, but lacked quantity in areas where they needed to add some depth (OL, DL and LB). Still, I think Muschamp and staff did a solid job holding this class together for the most part, while picking up some solid names as well.
The above is from oversigning.com, also. I figured there was a reason they mentioned them. BTW....it looks like OSU is +2-3, for 2011 (again...according to oversigning.com.
Read the quote again, they are saying tOSU has in 10 years had as many medical hardships as Saban has had in 2 years.... AKA good light, tOSU... Bad light, Bama. tOSU is not oversigned, they are currently sitting at 0 scholarships with two transfers yet to leave. That will put them at -2 and one potential WR leaving the program. Go to this chart. Scroll to the last graph... Titled "All BCS SCHOOLS" and tell me who does and who does not over sign. http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
I think everyone knows that the SEC is main culprit for oversigning. It's whether or not one deems it ethical is the debate. Apparently some people think it's wrong to cut a kid from a college team. I've stated that I have no problem with it. I don't see what is so wrong with a coach telling a junior who will never see the field that maybe he should look to transfer if he still wants to play football.
I'm opposed to oversigning.....and I have no issues (under certain circumstances) with a kid being cut. And Scott.....apparently, I did read the info on the oversigning site incorrectly (where OSU was/is concerned). My apologies. Back to cutting kids..... It's one thing to cut a kid that isn't performing. It's another (again, IMO) to cut him and use a medical hardship to cover your tracks. It's just "shady". I played ball in college with a guy who got cut from the team, following his sophomore year (he didn't make the team his junior year). He was beat out by a walk-on. He got his scholarship (this was NAIA at the time....and I have no idea if the medical hardship existed or was an option) for his remaining two years. But, he never played again. I have no idea if the walk-on ever received a scholarship. It's not like they're individual. That's another thing....How many FULL scholarships do these D1 teams have to offer? If you're over-signed......why not just offer 1/2 or 3/4 scholarships to balance your books? I don't know the answers. I just find this interesting. I've already learned a lot. GREAT THREAD.
Using a medical hardship that isn't truly "medical" should be an incident that the NCAA should crack down on immediately. Teams/school should be warned, then drop the boom on them the first chance you get next year.
Right or wrong it happens. One thing to consider (Jeff, you know this) when I signed my JUCO scholorship (baseball) you have the advantage of getting drafted after 1 year, playing against the cream of the crop so to speak etc...you also have the chance to get your tail cut after 1 year since you must resign each year there. At least these kids still get the education if it does not pan out. They (most) know the odds going in, as did I. I could have went to many D-1 schools, but rolled the dice and made my decision. They are doing the same. As far as fairness between schools, or a competitive edge, IE stockpiling players at their own risk...as a fan of BAMA I will stay away since we obviously lead the pack.
Here's something..... Why can't the schools declare the medical hardships for the players they wish to......immediately following the season last concluded? At least then, the players could seek other schools, also immediately. I'm also assuming the players would be released from their commitments without having to sit a year. If the school's unwilling to do this.............then the system sucks (system currently in place). THAT is the type of oversigning that I don't like. Don't wait to declare the hardship, until you've signed another player. "Bigger name on the other line".......I can't stand that.
True medical hardship waivers are hard to come by in college. A guy has to play less than 25% or so of the season and have an injury that is substantial. So if a lot of guys are getting those medical waivers then something is fishy and should be investigated.
There are 85 scholarships for each D1 school. Unless they have some taken away for recruiting violations, like LSU, USC etc etc. If a student athlete accepts a medical hardship, they are not allowed to play that sport or take part in any team activities in that sport again.
You are speaking of a medical red shirt that is different from a medical hardship waiver. A medical red shirt preserves a year of eligibility for a player who was injured and unable to compete due to that injury. Once a medical hardship is accepted, it is all over for that student athlete and that sport.
Well....I'm thinking the OFFER and the ACCEPTANCE are two different things, right? Why can't the schools OFFER (or, declare that player isn't going to be on the team the next season), when I stated. Seems like a win-win for everyone. School saves the money it would be paying for the hardship case, if the student athlete finds another school.
I am not following your last reply as it is worded... Not saying you worded it wrong, I just I do not understand what you are saying.
Bottom line.... Why do the schools wait until they do or don't sign a player......before basically cutting players on the team? That's what I have a problem with. If they'd just tell the kid, right after the season, that he isn't gonna be on the team next year......I'd feel better about it. And, if they'd allow him to look elsewhere with no sit-out season (the NCAA)......I'd feel even better about the practice.
Because they have no intention of cutting the player and depleteing their depth until they have someone to take that spot on scholarship. A program needs "x" amount of players to fill out their practice squads. If they do not carry as close to the maximum amount of scholarship players (85) as possible they do not have enough bodies to fill out all practice assignments.
That's what I have a problem with. They'll take him......until something better comes along. He signed a commitment. Where's the school's? Don't fool yourself, either. There's plenty of guys who could act as practice dummies that don't have the skills to actually play at other schools. Would this make their practice squads less talented? Conceded. Small price to pay (IMO) to retian your dignity.
I agree about honoring the commitment 100%. As for the second part, the better talent that the first and second teams face everyday in practice and for game prep the more it will prepare them for gameday on Saturday. They have no time to worry about dignity as they are to busy trimming the fat off of their rosters to bring in the next big things.
You really believe that? I don't. At least that's an honest take on the situation. "Fat off their rosters".......is that what these kids are? These are the same kids who had these same coaches sitting in their living rooms....making promises to their parents. I'm not arguing with you, Scott. You just seem to look at it more business-like. I can't go there.
