jwinslow;1869138; said:
And another self inflicted hit to your credibility is landed. Great work!
I can't be held responsible for your reading comprehension limitations. And you'll have to see somebody else about the broken sarcasm meter. I was obviously referring to BB73's funny comment with that last line. Feel free to add a smiley if that helps with the sandy youknowwhat.
Here is the link to the oversigning.com site that says that your rules allow for you to oversign three more than the 85 roster. I did not make that up. Some here were quick to call the signing of even ONE extra player a sign of a lack of morals and/or ethical compass, and that if you signed more than the actual full roster of 85 you did not put the kids' interests first. You can go back and look at the who and what was said.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2011/01/25/oversigning-and-the-big-10-conference/
So anyway, I was making what I thought was a valid observation about a part of this whole discussion: the part that talked about the assumption that oversigning more spots that the 85 roster was wrong, illegal, and could only advocated by someone who "hated the kids" (again, that was Bill's funny condensation of that viewpoint).
It seems that the Big-10 Conference has a rule that allows its members to oversign three spots. Here is the letter from the Big-10's
Chad Hawley, as Associate Commissioner, who replied to Oversigning.com's request for clarification on the Big-10's rules in the following correspondence:
The Big Ten exception in football is that an institution may oversign by 3. Our rule isn't based on the NCAA limit of 25 initial counters, it's based on the number of scholarships available. Using your example, if an institution has 65 countable scholarships returning, the institution could sign up to 23.
When we approved limited oversigning in 2002, part of the deal was that institutions that did oversign would need to provide "sunshine" to allow for peer review. This reporting includes identifying the individuals who received the offers that created the oversigned situation. In addition, institutions that actually oversign would need to provide a person-by-person accounting for how the institution comes into compliance with the NCAA limit of 85; this includes reporting on not only the new signees, but also the status of each student-athlete who received countable aid in the previous academic year.
Over the years, a few institutions have used the exception to oversign, but what we've seen is that the majority do not use the exception.
Did I say that the Big-10 was bad? No. Did I imply that the big-10 was bad? No....unless you missed my reference to BB73's line. My little point...my very valid little point....is that some of you will have to admit that
your official rules allow for a school to oversign by three spots. The Big-10 allows more LOIs signed and accepted from kids by a program than for which they have existing spots.
The Big-10 is not unethical in doing this. The Big-10 is not immoral for doing this. And God knows, the Big-10 does not take the position that it "does not care about the kids" because is allows oversigning. But the fact that you do formally allow it - that you have it as a part of your conference rules - should call into question some of the more extreme views expressed here - that only the ethically challenged can possibly agree that it would be OK to allow the signing of more than the exact number of currently open roster spots on signing day, and that anything over 85 is presumptively unethical.
And Josh, I would respect you more if you could avoid the personal comments because you don't like my post. I don't really need to hear your pronouncements as to my credibility. It is even less attractive when the thing I posted happens to be true. The sarcasm meter thing happens to us all from time to time.
