T1B

Oversigning violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the NCAA rules. But pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the Meatgrinder to take a stance against it.

An exclusive TV deal with NBC violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the NCAA rules. But pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the Domers to take a stance against it.

Carson wrote:An exclusive TV deal with NBC violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the NCAA rules. But pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the Domers to take a stance against it.

How, exactly, does it? I don't know that the NCAA has said anything about TV contracts since the Oklahoma case came down from the Supreme Court and struck the NCAA's TV bargaining rights down as an antitrust violation.

For that matter, ND hardly has an "exclusive" deal with NBC. NBC made a pretty hard run at the Pac-12, it took ABC/ESPN and Fox combining forces to prevent them from signing a deal.

The fact that ANY single team has ANY deal with a major network is a blatant recruiting and revenue advantage.

Do you not remember the national uproar when the deal was first announced?

Don't even get me started on ND's automatic BCS bid.

Yeah, oversigning is a recruiting advantage.

Carson wrote:The fact that ANY single team has ANY deal with a major network is a blatant recruiting and revenue advantage.

Funny, but last year I was hearing that ND was at a revenue DISadvantage viz. the Big Ten due to the BTN. So which is it?

Do you not remember the national uproar when the deal was first announced?

So now we're relying on 20-year-old news to justify our positions?

Don't even get me started on ND's automatic BCS bid.

Their "automatic" bid requires a Top 8 finish. If you support the concept that the BCS should be a meritocracy (as most here claim to do), that doesn't give ND anything they wouldn't have if the BCS truly were a meritocracy.

Btw, here are some teams who qualified for the BCS under circumstances where ND wouldn't even have been eligible for consideration for the BCS:

1998: Syracuse (15)
1999: Stanford (unranked)
2000: Purdue (unranked)
2001: LSU (13)
2002: Florida State (14)
2004: Michigan (13)
Pitt (21)
2005: Florida State (22)
2010: Connecticut (unranked)

If you want to restrict the discussion to at-large bids (not entirely fair, but I'll play) . . . only one team has ever received an at-large bid with three losses, and it wasn't ND. Just sayin'.

Yeah, oversigning is a recruiting advantage.

You still only have 85 schollies, so most of the time, oversigning means you have to drop somebody. Part of the spirit of the NCAA rules is that the kids you recruit are supposed to be "student-athletes." Dumping a kid who is underperfoming on the field for dubious medical reasons doesn't exactly comport with that idea.

Most of the kids smoke/fukk/flunk themselves out or they never meet their entry requirements to begin with.

Attrition management is why oversigning has become more common.

Talented players leaving early to go pro also has some effect.

i wish my team could try out seven to eight extra players a year.

Carson wrote:Yeah, oversigning is a recruiting advantage.

It's a depth advantage, you know, when you can essentially "cut" some guys in your 2 and 3 deep for even better ones.

With the amount of talent you guys produce down there, your rosters are already stacked with quality depth. But nope, that's not enough for you.

But the talent leaves early, and has to be restocked.

Carson wrote:But the talent leaves early, and has to be restocked.

You can still do that without cutting corners.

Carson wrote:But the talent leaves early, and has to be restocked.

Tuberville over-signed his first Tech class. This says more a system-wide practice in the MG than a "need" to restock talent. Tech had some nice teams with Leach but weren't exactly vacated by NFL players (Crabtree and the kid from OKC who plays for the Pats name i can't think of..., notable exceptions).

Carson wrote:But the talent leaves early, and has to be restocked.

You could, you know, make due with what you have. CRAZY concept, I know.

Besides which, if you’re shoving players out of the program because you have better backups coming in, that’s not the same as players leaving early for the NFL.

how many players actually leave any one program early anyhow? three if you're absolutely loaded? i'd think transfers are more of an issue than early entries into the draft.

Carson wrote:Most of the kids smoke/fukk/flunk themselves out or they never meet their entry requirements to begin with.

Attrition management is why oversigning has become more common.

Talented players leaving early to go pro also has some effect.

How about you only offer and sign kids that are fully qualified by the NCAA clearinghouse? Novel concept, isn't it?

If the NCAA would guarantee a scholarship for 4 years, it would take a step towards ending this. But then you would just have the Nick Saban's of the world cut kids for "medical" reasons.