Very little there to disagree with. Love the Malcom Reynolds addition.
Tyrion Lannister, the greatest character on the greatest show on tv right now. Great addition to the others mentioned.
Do you think he still leaves if he wasn't unhappy with playing time? Several years ago, AJ McCarron and Phillip Sims were battling for the starting QB job at Bama. It was the 3rd game of the season before AJ was declared the starter. Phillip played the year out as a dutiful backup and said all the right things. Then he transferred the following spring - nearer to home to be with an ailing aunt I believe. He even got a hardship waiver from the NCAA to play right away - but I don't believe for one minute that he would have left had he won the starting job. He was a kid with a lot of talent who wanted to play, not sit behind someone else. It happens a lot, and happens everywhere.
And it's not 'a coincidence' that the number you oversign ends up = to the number of players that are gray-shirted or transfer out.
No, but that doesn't mean anything. If I'm a coach and I have 5 guys tell me after the season that they are leaving at the end of the school year, and I look at the roster and foresee 3 positions that has more talent than I can give adequate playing time to - then I can sign 8 over with three incoming guys willing to greyshirt. I will end up with your scenario but haven't forced anyone out or cut a scholarship. BTW, Bama has played the last 3 seasons under the 85 scholarship limit, so it hasn't been as perfect as you say...
The problem with the SEC rule against oversigning is that it really isn't about oversigning. Its focus is solely on the 25-man yearly limit and not the 85-man total roster, which is the real issue. Tennessee was able to sign so many because they could back-count a lot - effectively filling up previous year's class before adding to this year's 25. What the SEC rule does do, is discourage teams from signing kids who may be academically ineligable - as they cannot accept more than 25 LOIs in any class. Some may see that as a good thing, but I disagree - anything that may encourage kids to take their education more seriously is good in my book. Also, it keeps potential greyshirts from signing their LOIs. Under the NCAA rules, you can sign a kid on NSD and have him delay his enrollment until after the next football season, where he will count toward next year's class. He has the protection of the LOI - which guarantees his scholarship upon enrollment for up to 1 year from signing. In the SEC, if a team wants to greyshirt a kid (and has an otherwise full class) he can't sign an LOI so there is nothing binding the school to the kid. Again, this is not a very good thing in my opinion. The B10 rule against oversigning is much better, though it really isn't about oversigning either - it really only restricts the number of greyshirts used.
In all probability, Saban is aware of at least 2 other transfers - or at least has two guys who agreed to greyshirt if room doesn't open up. Nothing wrong with that - and again, within the B10 rules were Bama to be held to them.
If you think that guys who have been on the team for 4 years without contributing in a significant capacity on the field (how does that happen with Saban?) and who have earned their degrees are being wronged if they are told their scholarship won't be renewed for a 5th year, then I can respect that, but we will just have to disagree. It is well known that Notre Dame makes players petition the school for a 5th year, but nobody cries foul at that. As I mentioned, JT Moore seems to be in this situation for OSU this year - do you view him the same? It is not that hard to believe that a guy may not want to go through another year of hard work when he has a degree in hand, is ready for life after college, and isn't going to see the field.
Same with being at odds with a player. With 85 guys, there will usually be at least a couple who can't act right. Sometimes they straighten themselves out, sometimes they don't. Again, Bama isn't the only school with this problem, but if you view Baugh's suspensions in the same light then I have no problem with you.
Yes, Bama has a handful of QBs. Most teams do. Most teams take one in every class. Bama took 2 last year (along with a walk-on) which I thought was odd, and another 2 this year (counting the transfer from FSU). I'll agree that he may have signed too many. I questioned one of the guys last year - but he now holds a 4-year scholarship so if any of the new guys leave, it's definately their choice, right? QB is a unique position in that there is only one who gets meaningful playing time. Bama has an opening for that position this year and there will be a fierce battle for that spot. Upperclassmen who don't win that spot may look elsewhere for playing time. Again, this happens everywhere. Next year, OSU will have a similar battle after Miller departs. Do you think Cardale Jones will stick around if JT Barrett wins the job? It's possible I guess, but you have to believe that he'd consider a transfer.
Awesome. RIP Harold Ramis
First, you should note that the SEC office sets up the SEC schedules. Bama has no say in who they play from the East. Implying that they purposefully set up an easy schedule is silly. The fact is that they face Tennessee every year, which leaves only one additional foe from the East. They have to play Kentucky once every 6 years like everyone else - just like they have to play Florida this year. The byes are another thing altogether. in 2010, there were 6 Bama opponents who had byes before playing them. This year (after assurances that they would work to ease that trend) there were only 3 (including LSU and Auburn) - although TAMU's game against Sam Houston State could also be considered (if Bama's game against Chattanooga is)
since no football program distributes dubious medical hardship waivers like Alabama does
Well, OSU has issued 7 hardships over the last two years while Alabama has only issued 2. Perhaps that line needs to take a vacation.
Now about oversigning - Saban is currently 7 over (with Hart's departure -meaning they were 8 over on NSD). As the RBR article pointed out, there are at least 2 (I'm watching 3) players who will likely graduate and move on, one other guy who has been at odds with Saban for some time and is likely gone, and at least one QB that will be transferring. As the Dee Hart event showed us, these things have already been discussed with the coaches - meaning these players are no longer with the team - they just haven't announced it yet (it really isn't our business if the players don't want it to be). That would mean that Bama oversigned by only 2, a number allowed under the B10 oversigning rules. OSU also oversigned this year. By my count, on NSD they were at 85 scholarships over (due to their reduced 83 limit). Similar to Bama's attrition discussed above, it seems that JT Moore has graduated, Mitchell
was unhappy with playing time wanted to be closer to home, and Baugh may be being pushed out due to personality reasons. If you think that's all the attrition coming for OSU (or Alabama), you will probably be disappointed. The fact of the matter is that Alabama's attrition rate is no higher than the average rate of its fellow SEC teams. It's also no higher than the average rate of the B10 teams. Your "Thirteen Below" article was well written - but you ignore what you found there when you criticize Bama for "cutting" players because of oversigning - and if you looked closely at every school you could write a similar article.
Sorry to take so long. I've been busy.
All SEC teams have a permanant rival from the other division. Alabama and Tennessee play each other every year. This is very important to most of the SEC teams, but does make for a few bad schedules every year - which is why they need to go to 9 game conference schedules very soon.
JT Moore is still absent from 11W's scholarship grid. Wonder why?
FYI, Bama has been issuing 4-year guaranteed scholarships since they were passed.
You are right in that it is a competition for playing time. Where you are wrong is where you insinuate that it is unique to Saban. Every school has multiple players at every position, and it is not unexpected that highly talented players would look to transfer if they don't make the 2-deep after a couple years. The only way to fix that "loophole" is to reduce the talent that goes to a school - which means a draft which can't work in college.
Seriously, why are unions even a discussion in college football? The NCAA is moving steadily toward students receiving a stipend - it is going to happen in the next couple of years. The 4-year scholarship has been back for a couple years now, the players receive all the medical treatment they need, and their (very expensive) education, room, board, etc. has been paid for in return for them competing in an activity they enjoy.
Granted, I live in an area of the country where Labor is not a big thing. In general, it is viewed with disdain. I have friends who work for large corporations and factories - none of whom are in a union, and all of whom are well compensated and love their jobs. I've worked my whole life in small businesses and have never been exposed to it first hand. My view is that unions are somthing that was needed at one time but has since become relics that no longer serve their origional purpose, and have become primarily a political animal. I understand that the midwest is a very union-heavy area and I'm sure there are many, if not most of you with a vastly different opinion of them. That's what I'm looking for when I ask honestly, what good are we looking for by turning to unions? What can come out of this that will be better than what we currently have/are heading toward already? I'm weary of this, but I could be missing something given my background. Ya'll help me out on this one.
First off, you need to correct your Bingo chart: Medical redshirts are an extra year given to players who had an injury that cost them most of a season. You are looking for Medical Hardship, which is when a player is deemed too injured to compete further with the team - and is permanant. Ironically, Hart received a medical redshirt after tearing an ACL his freshman year with the team. He was probably a candidate for a medical hardship after his second ACL tear the next year but came back and played sparingly the last year or two. This is why he is set to graduate at the end of this academic year even though he is just a Sophmore with the team. With two years of eligibility left, he can transfer without penalty and play somewhere else where he has a better chance of more playing time.
To me, this is a good insight into Saban's practices. Even though he hasn't been on the team since the Sugar Bowl, there was no announcement to the public to this effect. I don't know why Saban chooses to be so tight with roster information - he would certainly receive less heat were he to release more* - but I can assure you that Hart was not the only one. I look at the roster and see at least 3 mid/upperclassmen who will have earned their degrees by the end of this academic year, and are possibly in Hart's position (of having graduated and moving on), and another player who has been suspended and in Saban's doghouse most of the year. That leaves 3 spots left to "open", and all I'm looking at is the roster - I've not sat down with the players. 3 transfers out of the remaining players is certainly not unordinary - and just like Dee Hart, probably already known to the coaches.
That said, the chart is pretty funny.
*No he wouldn't
It's not the conditioning as much as it is dumbing down the game. The HUNH in its purest sense turns football from a game of chess to a game of ping pong. Instead of matching personnel to down, distance, field position, risk management, etc. you get one group of players that have to be able to play every scenario. Instead of several players contributing at several positions throughout the game, you end up with one. The offense then runs variations of the same play against the same defense all the way down the field. This is what Saban meant when he said that. Is this the change we want? I like that it gives teams with less talent a leg up against teams like Bama, but I don't like the effect it is having on the game. I'm not a big fan of 50-55 scoreboards in football.
The rules in football have morphed enough toward offense - one concession to allow defense to hang with them is not asking too much.
Saban famously asked a couple years ago if this is what we want football to become. It was a good question that I think went ignored in favor of the meme that Saban was trying to get rid of the HUNH. Now, I'm not saying he isn't for this rule change - I'm sure he is - what I'm pointing out is that Saban's question is relevant. Do we want the game to change? Left unfettered, HUNH has the potential to completely change how the game is played and the way it looks - not quite as extreme as the forward pass, but in the same vein. There is some good in that - heck I admire innovation as much as the next guy, even when it rips your heart out - and HUNH certainly opens the door to a lot of innovation. But there are also negatives that may come along with the change, and that should be explored and thought through honestly (and I'm not talking about higher risk of injury, which I'm not sold on).
It also brings challenges to not just traditionalists. How do you officiate it? This is the question that makes me favor not necessarily this rule but something to slow the game down some. Opposing DLs are not the only guys that don't have enough time to get set sometimes. The officials are also being outrun at times, and this has led to missed calls. Let's say the ball is set quickly, but the refs haven't had time to check formations, alignments, etc. This allows a HUNH team to potentially get away with pre-snap violations much easier. If a crew were to rush to set the ball faster than another crew, then the selection of who officiates the game suddenly becomes a larger factor - and that is never a good thing.
As it is, I'm really not in favor of this rule suggestion, but I'm glad we are having the conversation. I do think something needs to be done, but just what that is, is difficult to say.
There is already a rule that defenses have to be allowed time to match any personnel changes the offense makes. If a team were to do this, they wouldn't be alloed to snap the ball until the defense had a chance to match the subs - which would likely result in a delay of game.
Well, since that is a big reason I read this site, I'll say that the site I favor for Alabama is Roll Bama Roll. I recommend this excercise as it really does open up your view of things and lead to a better understanding of the national landscape of college football.
So well said. I disagree personally with the lifestyle but really couldn't care less who is and who isn't gay. What I find more disturbing is having this lifestyle shoved in my face at every turn and told that we must embrace it or be labeled a bigot or full of hate.
There will be a media circus around this guy wherever he goes. This will be a defining aspect of his life from this point on - If he gets cut it will be (to many people) because he is gay, regardless of how well he performed; if he doesn't earn a starting job, it is bias against him holding him back. He will no longer be seen as a football player, but rather a gay pioneer first and foremost - and that is a legitimate problem for anyone considering him for their team. This will be a major distraction wherever he goes, regardless of the political/social leanings of the team's management.
I never said some of them weren't questionable. I was simply responding to the previous poster who said "If its recognized by the NCAA, its good enough for me." The NCAA record book lists Minnesota, Texas, and Alabama as co-champions for 1941 - as questionable as that claim is, it meets his criteria.