Texas takes it in the ass again, Brantley to Gators

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:26 am

Well it looks like Texas has lost another 5-star QB late in the recruiting process, Brantley has decommitted and chose florida. I guess his word is not as solid as a oak after all. I hear the big selling point is his HS piece of ass. Texas has gone from 5 badass QBs to 3 in a matter of weeks.

http://www.texas.rivals.com

campinfool · Post by **campinfool** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:22 am

QB won't mean jack shit unless someone rediscovers an OL and somewhat of a running game. And don't forget a secondary that can cover and a half ass pass rush too. Other than those few issues there is no reason Texas can't win it all next year.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:27 am

To tell you the truth, I'm not that upset over it, atlease he didn't wait til signing day to drop the bomb, though, I doubt Texas goes after another QB this late in the process.

Like I said, we have 3 young guys still, and Colt is now a proven starter. Since November I have considered Brantley to be Icing, now that he is gone I think this just opens things up for us to recruit a top QB in 2k8.

Chiles might be the QB of the future for Texas but the guy I think is going to be really hard to keep off the field is Sherrod Harris, the reports I hear from camp already have him on even par with Colt. Texas will not pull his redshirt even if Colt can't go in the Alamo bowl, mostly because they want him to be a redshirt freshmen when colt is a soph. I'm looking forward to seeing the two battle in the spring.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:45 am

You can never blame a kid for staying closer to home, had Brantley been from Austin and then they lose him, well that would suck

Looks like USC lost one of their 5 star DBs from last seasons class, Antwine Perez has decided to stay home in New Jersey and is looking at transfering from USC

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:36 am

I hope he likes to ride the pine. Tebow is their starter for 3 years. Brantley isn't a good fit for Myer's offense IMO. Urban is quite a salesman.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:59 pm

Urban is probably a bit more interested in a couple of the WR's that played at Trinity.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:44 pm

Cicero wrote:I hope he likes to ride the pine. Tebow is their starter for 3 years. Brantley isn't a good fit for Myer's offense IMO. Urban is quite a salesman.

As I understand it there was considerable pressure on his HS coaches from big Florida alumni to help turn this kid around. The big turning point was a meeting his coaches had with him and meyer where they sat down and watched game film of Leak. Well that and the fact that his girl friend was given a full ride scholarship to Florida. Never under estimate the effect a piece of ass can have on a guy.

The main reason it didn't surprise me is that Chizik is now gone and he was the main guy that got Brantley to Texas in the first place.

Like I said, all this really does is put Texas back on the market in next year for a QB, McCoy is still our proven starter and will likely be for the next few years.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:59 pm

Cicero wrote:I hope he likes to ride the pine. Tebow is their starter for 3 years. Brantley isn't a good fit for Myer's offense IMO. Urban is quite a salesman.

Right now, Tebow is a glorified fullback. He has to throw the ball effectively to be a good QB. That is still up for debate.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:58 pm

^^

Oh I agree w/ you on Tebow. It's just, that school is infatuated w/ that kid. I dont think he is that great of a passer but he fits Meyer's sytem better than Leak. Tebow is a god there already.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:19 pm

Is Florida in love with Tebow because he has been one of the few Florida prep QB's to be worth a damn at the major Fla schools?
Kelly was from PA, Kosar from OH, Testaverde from New York, Dorsey and Toretta from CA, Ward from GA, Willis from AL, Grossman from IN, Leak is from NC, Weinke from MN. How does a state that produces so many great players produce so few QBs?

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:07 am

Great question. What a lot of schools in Fla do is put an athlete back there i.e. Peter Warrick and let them run an option/spread attack. They basically put their best athlete back there and let him run the show. Then that athlete gets recruited as a Safety or WR in college. For example, my HS is a perennial playoff team in Class 4A and last year our all-State QB was recruited and signed by UF to play WR. The state has had some good ones:

Daunte Culpepper
Tommy Frazier
Danny Wuerffel

There are two quality QB's coming out of Tampa this year in Stephen Garcia (South Carolina) and Robert Marve (Bama). Both are drop back QB's w/ good arms and Marve broke Tebow's single season TD record this year w/ 46 TD's.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:19 am

What's the low down on Nease's James Wilson?

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:41 am

Cicero wrote:There are two quality QB's coming out of Tampa this year in Stephen Garcia (South Carolina) and Robert Marve (Bama). Both are drop back QB's w/ good arms and Marve broke Tebow's single season TD record this year w/ 46 TD's.

Marve is very good. he won't end up at 'Bama now that Shula is gone.

Not sold on Garcia. He didn't show up in the big games for Jefferson this year and he seems very non chalant.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:28 am

^^^^

Now that Shula is gone you might be right. I think that Spurrier will make a player out of Garcia. He was being heralded as Tampa's best HS QB ever until Marve showed him up this season.

Socal,

I dont know much about Wilson. He only started one year, yet he did take them all the way to the 4A Final before they lost to Marve and Tampa Plant HS.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:17 am

Looks like Lemming is up to his old tricks and this time screwed over Everson Griffen telling him that he would carry his announcement live. After finding out ND was ruled out, Lemming airs the thing 2 days after posting Griffens decision on his website taking away the kids moment in the sun.
Why does someone like Lemming with am obvious agenda still have that job?

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:31 pm

I dont understand how Lemming still is given as much credit as he is. He is an obvious ND homer. I have nothing against the Irish and I know they have nothing to do w/ what Lemming says but his bias is unreal.

Nice pick up in Griffin. Nice future 1st Round pick you got there.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:26 pm

yup, No 1 DE and No 1 C in the Nation in one week

now we need Griffens buddy Marvin Austin to come in as well.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:30 pm

Nope. We need him

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:37 pm

I think he turned his trip to USC for the ND game in to a 3 day party, he was in Heritage Hall for the ralleys, did the Trojan walk through the crowd with the team before the game and apparently got real chummy with Griffen. Hopefully theyre a package deal

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:51 pm

SoCalTrjn,

I thought you were opposed to recruiting out of state?

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:04 pm

I think the NCAA should regulate it and tie it to title ix. Whatever percentage of instate "paying" students a school has, they must also have that percentage of instate scholared athletes.
or
If an out of state student has to pay twice as much as an instate student to go to the school, an out of state athlete should count as 2 scholarships towards the 85 allowed. Same with religous schools, if a student of that religion pays less than a student not of that religion, than the scholarship for an athlete not of that religion should count as the same percentage. ( I dont know how that would apply to Notre Dame and catholics, I do know that non Mormons pay more than twice as much as Mormons do to go to BYU)

As long as other schools are going to come to California and steal California's players, than the California schools have every right to go to other states and steal that states players as well.
Players are commodities, large amounts of state and property tax dollars have gone to the development of these players through school and subsidized youth programs, those states should be able to reap the benefit of that by having those players represent them, not some other state that didnt contribute anything on the players development

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:01 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:I think the NCAA should regulate it and tie it to title ix. Whatever percentage of instate "paying" students a school has, they must also have that percentage of instate scholared athletes.

I could get behind this, but then again, I root for a school that wouldn't be hurt by this. Only about 10% of Notre Dame's student body comes from in state. That having been said, with only 85 scholarships, it would be awfully tough to match up those numbers without at least some margin for error.

or
If an out of state student has to pay twice as much as an instate student to go to the school, an out of state athlete should count as 2 scholarships towards the 85 allowed. Same with religous schools, if a student of that religion pays less than a student not of that religion, than the scholarship for an athlete not of that religion should count as the same percentage. ( I dont know how that would apply to Notre Dame and catholics, I do know that non Mormons pay more than twice as much as Mormons do to go to BYU)

That doesn't affect ND in the least. Tuition is the same for everybody, regardless of where you come from or your religion.

Players are commodities, large amounts of state and property tax dollars have gone to the development of these players through school and subsidized youth programs, those states should be able to reap the benefit of that by having those players represent them, not some other state that didnt contribute anything on the players development

This argument hurts the team you root for as well. USC is a private school, not state-affiliated.

The biggest argument in favor of allowing out-of-state recruiting is from the standpoint of the players. The high school players are not the property of the teams that play in that state. And from even a cursory glance at this board, it's quite clear that a number of college football fans grow up rooting for a team that is not located in their state.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:55 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:
Vito Corleone wrote:Texas takes it in the ass again

Vito Corleone wrote:To tell the truth, I'm not that upset about it.

Ok I admit I laughed.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:38 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote:I think the NCAA should regulate it and tie it to title ix. Whatever percentage of instate "paying" students a school has, they must also have that percentage of instate scholared athletes.
I could get behind this, but then again, I root for a school that wouldn't be hurt by this. Only about 10% of Notre Dame's student body comes from in state. That having been said, with only 85 scholarships, it would be awfully tough to match up those numbers without at least some margin for error.

whatever the allowable margin is for title ix
Oklahoma didnt show their percentage of in state to out of state
at Oregon 73% of their students are from the state of Oregon, that would mean that 62 of their 85 scholarships should go to Oregon based players

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote:or
If an out of state student has to pay twice as much as an instate student to go to the school, an out of state athlete should count as 2 scholarships towards the 85 allowed. Same with religous schools, if a student of that religion pays less than a student not of that religion, than the scholarship for an athlete not of that religion should count as the same percentage. ( I dont know how that would apply to Notre Dame and catholics, I do know that non Mormons pay more than twice as much as Mormons do to go to BYU)
That doesn't affect ND in the least. Tuition is the same for everybody, regardless of where you come from or your religion.

It never was about Notre Dame, look at schools like Oregon, Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, those are state funded schools that always seem to have the majority of their football teams made up of players that were developed by other states funds. an example University of Oklahoma has a tuition fee of $4,580 per year for instate students, out of state students $13,155, roughly 3 times as much.... every non Oklahoma resident on the football team should count as 3 of the 85 allotted scholarships
Oregons instate student tuition is $5,970, their out of state tuition $18,768... again every out of state player should be worth 3 of their 85 allowed scholarships.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote:Players are commodities, large amounts of state and property tax dollars have gone to the development of these players through school and subsidized youth programs, those states should be able to reap the benefit of that by having those players represent them, not some other state that didnt contribute anything on the players development
This argument hurts the team you root for as well. USC is a private school, not state-affiliated.

The biggest argument in favor of allowing out-of-state recruiting is from the standpoint of the players. The high school players are not the property of the teams that play in that state. And from even a cursory glance at this board, it's quite clear that a number of college football fans grow up rooting for a team that is not located in their state.

I dont see it hurting USC, USC is a private school but the property tax and taxes that the school, its students and the majority of its fans pay goes to California schools and the development of Californians in football.
No the players do not belong to the schools within that state, but the money their state has invested in them is what made them the football player they are.

I always wanted to go to the large non California schools stadiums on game days and walk around with the video camera filming the fans of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame wherever... and ask them stuff like "How do you feel about California and its people?" Then film all their "fruits and nuts"," soft", "queers..." anti Californian rhetoric (would work best on game days vs Califoria based schools) and then make sure that every top recruit in the state of California received a copy of the film every year and saw what other states thought of them and where they're from. I doubt the kids would take kindly to phone calls from those schools coaches when they saw what kind of hatred the people of that state have for them, their friends and their families

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:45 am

I always wanted to go to the large non California schools stadiums on game days and walk around with the video camera filming the fans of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame wherever... and ask them stuff like "How do you feel about California and its people?" Then film all their "fruits and nuts"," soft", "queers..." anti Californian rhetoric (would work best on game days vs Califoria based schools) and then make sure that every top recruit in the state of California received a copy of the film every year and saw what other states thought of them and where they're from. I doubt the kids would take kindly to phone calls from those schools coaches when they saw what kind of hatred the people of that state have for them, their friends and their families
_________

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:00 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:
I always wanted to go to the large non California schools stadiums on game days and walk around with the video camera filming the fans of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame wherever... and ask them stuff like "How do you feel about California and its people?" Then film all their "fruits and nuts"," soft", "queers..." anti Californian rhetoric (would work best on game days vs Califoria based schools) and then make sure that every top recruit in the state of California received a copy of the film every year and saw what other states thought of them and where they're from. I doubt the kids would take kindly to phone calls from those schools coaches when they saw what kind of hatred the people of that state have for them, their friends and their families

that's some great social science right there. in addition to being just plain stupid, that's a post that mixes paranoia and false self-flattery.

CU fan boards wish every off-season they could be in the Pac-10...you've got a grip on public opinion in places where you don't live with that "anti-california rhetoric".

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:26 am

Its what I have heard over 8 years of message boards and chat rooms when it comes to discussing how people feel about California

Terry in Crapchester · Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:51 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:I always wanted to go to the large non California schools stadiums on game days and walk around with the video camera filming the fans of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame wherever... and ask them stuff like "How do you feel about California and its people?" Then film all their "fruits and nuts"," soft", "queers..." anti Californian rhetoric (would work best on game days vs Califoria based schools) and then make sure that every top recruit in the state of California received a copy of the film every year and saw what other states thought of them and where they're from. I doubt the kids would take kindly to phone calls from those schools coaches when they saw what kind of hatred the people of that state have for them, their friends and their families

You'd be getting only a small sampling of people in any event, nothing close to a representative sample.

By the same token, not every Catholic football player in the country winds up at ND. If I were to employ the same logic that you employed here, that would entail me sending emails to every highly-regarded player at a Catholic high school in the country (and most of them are fairly easy to spot based on the name of the high school) imploring them not to sign with any Big Ten school due to the fact that the Big Ten previously turned ND down for membership because they didn't want a Catholic school in their conference.

King Crimson wrote:CU fan boards wish every off-season they could be in the Pac-10...

I have to confess to being just a tad confused by this. IIRC, the Pac-10 previously offered Colorado, and Colorado turned them down cold. Why would they do this if the majority of their fanbase supported it?

I ask this based on personal experience. Fan opinion is the only thing keeping ND independent right now. Kevin White is a pussy, and he'd have us in a conference in a New York minute if he thought he could pull it off without costing him his job.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:41 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
King Crimson wrote:CU fan boards wish every off-season they could be in the Pac-10...
I have to confess to being just a tad confused by this. IIRC, the Pac-10 previously offered Colorado, and Colorado turned them down cold. Why would they do this if the majority of their fanbase supported it?

i don't know if there was ever an official offer (i've never seen that confirmed anywhere).....the annual CU board take is at the formation of the Big XII CU and UT woulda/coulda/shoulda gone to the pac-whatever and OU and ATM to the SEC and the rest of what are now the North division and Texas/SWC schools to make a conference USA type deal with each other. i don't put much stock in the CU to the Pac-10 stuff (and i have lived in Boulder for 15 years). to me, it's more wish wish stuff you get here about people/CU grads who have this odd sense of inflation "about what a great school CU is" and typical to the Denver/Boulder area that would like to think it's all so cosmopolitan and not small-time college townish like Ames, Norman, Lubbock etc. and belongs more in the "cool places" like Strawberry Canyon and Seattle. don't get me wrong, i love the Denver area and plan to live here or Norman for as long as i'm breathing......and am perfectly comfortable with my own fucking hillbilliness....but some people "need more" in terms of cultural "urbane" identification to make their lives jive with the image of themselves they are working for.

and i can see some sense to outside of Boulder and Austin....a casual fan would rather travel to the Bay area or the pacific NW rather than Stillwater or Manhattan or Columbia or College Station. But, if you are going to see a football game on the road where my team is playing i personally don't need the other stuff. drink some beer with the locals and have *that* experience, and go to San Francisco or Seattle some other time when that's what you are doing. and for me, stay with friends who don't give a fuck about sports.

CU is also kind of fucked in the Denver market since it's a pro first sports media market--unless any sort of hatchet job can be drummed up that is anti-CU (the sneaky way local "sports journalists" don't come across as total free lunch shils for the Broncos and Shanny is to bash CU. I've never seen a media market that is so subtle and not so subtle anti- the state university)....so , they don't really command much "share" in the 15th biggest media market in teh US. I don't think anyone in the big XII would cry much if CU left the conference. cross country NC"s look great on commercials for the conference but aren't $$$. i don't think the Denver market gives teh Big XII that much.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I ask this based on personal experience. Fan opinion is the only thing keeping ND independent right now. Kevin White is a pussy, and he'd have us in a conference in a New York minute if he thought he could pull it off without costing him his job.

i've never heard it said quite like that. i personally don't have any real opinion about ND to a conference. i do think is some amount of national favoritism with ND that is media driven.....but i don't lose any sleep over it. ND could beat LSU and Lester Miles and shut up all the haters.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:54 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote:I think the NCAA should regulate it and tie it to title ix. Whatever percentage of instate "paying" students a school has, they must also have that percentage of instate scholared athletes.
I could get behind this, but then again, I root for a school that wouldn't be hurt by this. Only about 10% of Notre Dame's student body comes from in state. That having been said, with only 85 scholarships, it would be awfully tough to match up those numbers without at least some margin for error.
whatever the allowable margin is for title ix
Oklahoma didnt show their percentage of in state to out of state
at Oregon 73% of their students are from the state of Oregon, that would mean that 62 of their 85 scholarships should go to Oregon based players

that is the most moronic thing i've ever read. so, basically, affirmative action, local based enforced type state % quotas determine who gets schollies and where kids can go to school and play football or other sports. private schools can recruit anywhere and a hoops school like North Carolina can only have 70% NC kids, based on in-state enrollment?

and at minimum, let's reward the biggest states as such. i know it's all california homerism here (and no doubt Texas fan will chime in)....but it's a stupid suggestion that California can bear many state schools due to population density alone but a state like Nebraska should not be competitive having to recruit 8 man football player from small town out on the high plains to fit the quota. i'd love the to see the history of college sports based on the state % rule.

people pay in-state tuition to go to school, not play football.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:26 pm

King Crimson wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: I could get behind this, but then again, I root for a school that wouldn't be hurt by this. Only about 10% of Notre Dame's student body comes from in state. That having been said, with only 85 scholarships, it would be awfully tough to match up those numbers without at least some margin for error.
whatever the allowable margin is for title ix
Oklahoma didnt show their percentage of in state to out of state
at Oregon 73% of their students are from the state of Oregon, that would mean that 62 of their 85 scholarships should go to Oregon based players

that is the most moronic thing i've ever read. so, basically, affirmative action, local based enforced type state % quotas determine who gets schollies and where kids can go to school and play football or other sports. private schools can recruit anywhere and a hoops school like North Carolina can only have 70% NC kids, based on in-state enrollment?

it would be no different than title ix and the scholarship limits that were put on mens sports more than 20 years ago.
When they made the USC rule in baseball they killed the program by only allowing 11 scholarships to a sport that needs 25 players. A half scholarship to USC leaves the player owing a balance of 17,000 dollars, to Fullerton or Long Beach St., the balance on a half scholarship is 14-1500

King Crimson wrote:and at minimum, let's reward the biggest states as such. i know it's all california homerism here (and no doubt Texas fan will chime in)....but it's a stupid suggestion that California can bear many state schools due to population density alone but a state like Nebraska should not be competitive having to recruit 8 man football player from small town out on the high plains to fit the quota. i'd love the to see the history of college sports based on the state % rule.

people pay in-state tuition to go to school, not play football.

If the NCAA wants to say that athletes are no different than other students then college cost is college cost, scholarship cost is scholarship cost and an out of state student is an out of state student.
When has the NCAA ever been about fairplay? Is it fair to Montana or South Dakota or Nebraska-Omaha that Nebraska-Lincoln can stockpile foreign players?
If the state of Nebraska has contributed nothing to the development of players from other states, what rights does the state of Nebraska have to them?
What does history have to do with anything? is Princeton still winning a National title every year? do teams play local JC's (well other than in the SEC)? Are teams still taking trains for road trips?
College football is big business and the players are state commodities, Nebraska doesnt give corn to other states for free do they?

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:01 am

state funded training comes with a responsibility to the state, ask the military.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:41 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote: College football is big business

exactly right. but your version of it sounds like an Uncle Joe Stalin five-year plan vs. giving players autonomy in the market-place.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:47 am

I have no problem with students playing for out of state schools as long as they are treated like students from out of state who dont play football. If an out of state student pays 3 times as much as an in state student, an out of state athlete should count as 3 scholarships

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 3:59 pm

^^^^^^^^^

how can you mandate that between private and public it is no different than high school...in Ohio this was the first year in a few years that a non parcochial school won the Division title...

sure SC, ND, etc are private schools...and they I assume essentially charge the same tuition for in or out of state kids? Say a kid plays ball in texas and wants to go to FSU and has an aunt that lives in FLA...he could just get a state issued ID and get residency what a year out to get around your issue...

Fuck you can't say on the public realm that they should get 3 more schollies taken away for an out of state kid on the public and then let the private schools do whatever they want...make it all level then and the private schools lose 3 schoolies then or some multiplier that means Jarrett, Booty, and Davis are gonna cost you...

honestly this argument is so fucking stupid...do major league teams bitch and moan about a supposed stud in the farm system or something going to another team and blossoming...I mean for a while the expos where the major leagues farm system...a lot of their players went off after going from the expos to other teams...sup Randy Johnson, Larry walker, marquis grissom, etc...I don't see the expos/nationals bitching...

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:10 pm

you cant compare college to pro sports.

I wouldnt have a problem with making out of state players count as 3 scholarships at all schools, have the NCAA take a D1 average of instate to out of state costs and whatever number that is, every school abides by it.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:58 pm

the comparison that was made was a pro team trading a player to another pro team and being mad when that player develops. Apples to apples debate would have schools within states receiving compensary athletes or money for every player that state loses to another state.

A state pays to develop every player, through state and property taxes these kids play at public parks, fields, facilities. Rec leagues, Club leagues and HS team sports all use state funds to train, outfit and develop the talent. If states like Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, Oklahoma wherever want the same level of athlete they should spend the same amount of money, not wait til another state has funded a players development only so states without the local talent can come in and take that player.

Every single out of state player playing at the school in your state is the equivalent of that schools coaches telling the local kids that they are not worthy of representing their own state on a field of play. So keep supporting a school with the majority of its players from somewhere else, just know that it means your kids will never be good enough

the baseball scholarship limit is a total joke, it would be the same as limiting basketball to 6 scholarships and football to 23. Every baseball program should be allowed 27 scholarships. Its no wonder that no Private college has been able to dominate baseball the way USC did prior to that rule

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:21 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:I wouldnt have a problem with making out of state players count as 3 scholarships at all schools, have the NCAA take a D1 average of instate to out of state costs and whatever number that is, every school abides by it.

Odd that a fan of a private school would propose this. As a fan of a private school (and yes, I realize that puts me in the minority here), that's about the most ri-goddamn-diculous thing I've ever heard. It forces private schools to live by a standard that has absolutely no connection in reality to the way they operate. Effectively, it would be a death knell for private schools in 1-A. And that falls into the category of "be careful what you wish for" if anything ever did. Every BCS conference has at least one private school member, and that's by design -- otherwise, all conference meetings would be open to the public.

It would be effectively detrimental to ND. Forcing ND to recruit exclusively, or almost exclusively, in state (by way of comparison, only about 10% of ND's student body comes from in state) would effectively kill off a large portion of ND's fanbase -- just about every Catholic kid who grows up rooting for ND dreams of playing football for ND. It would force ND into becoming a regional program, much like what would happen if ND joined a conference. It would also hurt a program like USF, which is an up-and-comer at present but would have to live with the tag of being the fourth choice in state under this proposal.

The only proposal I could support along this line is a proposal to tie scholarships to the instate/out-of-state student ratio. But I also realize that this would benefit the school I root for, as well as private schools in general, at the expense of state schools. We would have essentially no geographic restrictions on recruiting, while most 1-A schools would have substantial geographic limitations.

So the only way to handle recruiting on a way to put every program on as level a playing field as possible is to treat all of the players as free agents. That means that many states will have to deal with a number of their better players playing college ball out of state. I can understand that as a fan you'd like to see more California products play college ball in state, but there's no realistic way to accomplish that.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:07 pm

Upon further review . . .

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I can understand that as a fan you'd like to see more California products play college ball in state, but there's no realistic way to accomplish that.

If the California legislature sees that as a problem, they could do something about it. After all, IIRC, Cal State-Fullerton, Cal State-Long Beach and Pacific all had 1-A programs within the past 10-15 years, and Pacific is the only one of those that might be a private school. Having said that, the California legislature probably has more important things to worry about.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:53 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Upon further review . . .

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I can understand that as a fan you'd like to see more California products play college ball in state, but there's no realistic way to accomplish that.
If the California legislature sees that as a problem, they could do something about it. After all, IIRC, Cal State-Fullerton, Cal State-Long Beach and Pacific all had 1-A programs within the past 10-15 years, and Pacific is the only one of those that might be a private school. Having said that, the California legislature probably has more important things to worry about.

title ix isnt something that the state can change