On the South Carolina Gamecocks, Lorenzo Mauldin, and Oversigning
by Gamecock Man on Feb 27, 2011 3:04 PM EST
in SEC Football
Email
PrintThe topic of oversigning has lately become a major talking point is discussions of college football. Oversigning, in short, occurs when a program signs more recruits than it has room for under the hard cap on 85 total scholarship players with the understanding that it will have to eliminate some scholarship players before August in order to get under 85. A number of voices have spoken out against the practice. The blog oversigning.com was an early critic. More mainstream media types have begun to pick up on the issue, as have a number of coaches, athletic directors, and university presidents who oppose the practice.
The procedures and mathematics can become somewhat complicated, but in essence oversigning is a matter of exploiting the system that's in place in order to put your team in the best position to win. All teams have to remain under the hard cap of 85 players, so teams that oversign must get their numbers right one way or the other. There are several ways to do so. The most common is for a recruit to fail to become academically eligible; most coaches assume that this will be the case for at least some of their recruits and compensate for the academic casualties by oversigning. This may seem like a fairly benign practice, and in many cases it works out without any hiccups. However, if everyone qualifies, problems arise. In this case, coaches must strip players of their scholarships because the program will have to meet the 85-player limit. Some of the more insidious forms of dealing with this difficulty include forcing players to take greyshirts or medical hardship waivers. These are practices that are legitimate in some situations but that are being exploited as loopholes for oversigning purposes. The SEC West has become the poster child for these sorts of practices, with Nick Saban, Les Miles, and Houston Nutt being the strategy's most notorious practitioners. These practices are what have drawn the ire of critics, who view them as exploitative towards the young athletes involved. What's particularly problematic is that it appears that coaches like Saban, Nutt, and Miles oversign under the assumption that they will have to go back on their promises to their recruits, which suggests that they are consciously and intentionally exploiting their players. When a program oversigns by a handful of players, one can reasonably assume that the numbers will work themselves out, but could Nutt have believed that would be the case when he signed a class of 37 in 2009? One assumes not.
This year, the oversigning discussion has come home for us here at South Carolina. Carolina signed 32 players in this class, more than it can take under the 85-player limit, thus drawing the attention of oversigning critics. The stakes of this situation have been turned up by the story of former Carolina commitment Lorenzo Mauldin. A longtime commitment to Carolina, the Carolina coaching staff--worried over the impending numbers crisis--told Mauldin and Jordan Montgomery shortly before National Signing Day that there would not be room for them at Carolina. Now, the national media has picked up on the story in the wake of this Chip Towers Atlanta Journal Constitution piece, which has has painted Mauldin as the poster child of oversigning victims. Like many impoverished African Americans, Mauldin, a ward of the state whose mother has spent time in prison, has had to contend against a challenging home life. Oversigning, the article suggests, preys upon this marginalized population, selling them soft promises and broken dreams in return for improved results on the football field. The fact that Mauldin seems like such a likeable kid makes his story all the sadder.
Continue reading after the jump.
I largely agree with the critics of oversigning. I think a more transparent system with less loopholes would, first of all, level the playing field and, second of all, eliminate coaches' temptation to exploit vulnerable kids like Mauldin. I also don't like to think that our coaching staff is part of the problem. From what I've gathered from various sources, we've handled this situation about as honorably as you can while oversigning. The coaching staff has been fairly upfront with its recruits about their statuses and chose to rescind Mauldin'sand Montgomery's offers because both are highly unlikely to qualify academically. Moreover, the coaching staff has offered these two players the opportunity to join the team at a later date after they spend time in prep school, and I see no reason to believe they won't honor that promise. The coaching staff is still oversigned and will need to eliminate three players before August, but they appear confident that at least three additional recruits will fail to qualify, meaning that we hopefully won't have to resort to the disgraceful practices made famous by the Houston Nutts of the world. However, anything is possible, and something would certainly be wrong with a situation in which hard-luck recruits are actually punished for working their butts off and making the grades they need to become eligible at Carolina. All of which is to say that, again, I'd like a better system in place and for our coach to better explain his actions.
All of that said, there's something about the criticism of oversigning that perturbs me, too. In this column at Get the Picture, Senator Blutarsky makes what I think is a very interesting point: if it wasn't possible to oversign, South Carolina probably would have never taken a chance on Mauldin, suggesting that maybe the system actually benefits Mauldin. Although he doesn't say it in as many words, Mauldin seems to believe that getting to South Carolina is a best-case scenario for him, and it would be hard to argue with that considering that Mauldin's other offers are mostly from programs with inferior academics and athletics. And if Mauldin is OK with the process, where does that leave us? For critics of oversigning, it's irrelevant. If you scroll through the comments on SB's post, you'll see that one of commenters essentially attributes Mauldin's response to the situation to poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance. Yet if oversigning exploits kids like Mauldin, isn't the kind of argument this commenter is making also exploiting Mauldin by not allowing him to have his own say on the matter?
It's appropriate here to acknowledge that many of the critics of oversigning clearly have motives other than the well-being of kids like Mauldin. The aforementioned oversigning.com is written by a Big 10 homer who would presumably like to see his conference's honor restored with some much-needed wins over SEC teams, while the commenter at GTP is a Georgia fan who's likely not too keen on Spurrier and South Carolina's recent success. A kid like Mauldin who is trying to strategically make the most of the opportunities available to him is caught in the middle. For the arguments produced by the two sides, he's more a prop and a placeholder than anything else. That's what's probably most concerning to me about this situation, that in an argument between coaches trying to obtain a competitive advantage and self-righteous opposing fans wanting to take a moral high ground we're actually failing to really address what concerns this kid. I for the record do not believe he's incapable of speaking for himself; in fact, the statements Towers took from him strike me as remarkably self-possessed and articulate for a kid in his situation.
As you can probably see, I'm a bit ambivalent about this situation. I'd like to see oversigning dealt with effectively by the SEC and the NCAA, but I'm also uncertain about the motives of most oversigning critics, who I'd like to see address this situation in a less paternalistic, self-serving manner. So, I wrote it out here at GABA and would like to open it up to conversation. What do you think about oversigning and our situation in the matter?
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I can't think of a better solution than to just be upfront with the ones who the school thinks are on the bubble.
Just tell them as early as possible that there’s a chance they may not make the team due to grades, oversigning, or whatever. If we’re doing that, then I don’t see the problem. The players can either choose to risk not making Carolina’s team, or try to get on with a school’s team with less of an academic standard.
stuff 'bout stuff.
by silver82blade on Feb 27, 2011 3:27 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think we're doing that. You'll notice that Mauldin more less acknowledges that the grades are on him and that the coaches have been upfront about the situation.
Some coaches oversign but are fairly circumspect in making sure they’re not going to screw a kid. Others oversign under the assumption that someone will have to get screwed. So far, we’re part of the former category, while Ole Miss, Alabama, and LSU are part of the latter. Stronger rules need to be put into effect to prevent Houston Nutt and Co. from doing more damage.
What I think is really interesting about the GTP article is that it suggests, rightly, I think, that guys like Mauldin who are solid but not great D1 prospects have a better chance at making it to a place like South Carolina under the current system than they would under a system with more hard and fast rules. With harder rules, coaches would be more hesitant to take chances. They might take a chance on a Clowney, but a Mauldin wouldn’t get the time of day and would just end up someplace like Troy, at best. In other words, if Mauldin does indeed get to prep school and eventually makes it to Carolina, he will have benefited from the system. To me, that means that while oversigning is a problem, it’s a bit more complicated than the moral cavalry at oversigning.com think it is.
There’s good reason to be suspicious of people who use the kind of rhetoric you’re beginning to see from anti-oversigning crowd.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Feb 27, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
I think this whole AJC episode stinks
it stinks of Jawja bull dawg bull crap. Watching the puppies wring their hands and shed crocodile tears disgusts me? Did they have any interest in Mauldin? No. Was he part of their over-hyped “dream team”? No. Did they even pay him an ounce of attention during the recruiting period? Nope. Has his life been pretty miserable so far? Sure -because of they way his fellow Georgians have let him down.
Is he disapointed at how things turned out? Sure. Would I feel the same way? No doubt. Did he demonstrate maturity in accepting that his academic ineligibility was to blame? Absolutely. That was a strong mark in his favor. Im surprised the AJC found the integrity to include that quote.
Do the Jawjaw faithful or the AJC really care about Mauldin? Nope. Just another chance to take a whack-a-mole shot at Carolina. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Richt-partisans point to how great and honorable “CMR” is not to have dirtied himself from oversigning, but those are the same folks who make excuses for all the Georgia arrests, or the way suspended UGA players serve laughably short suspensions, or the sideline antics of his sweaty, man-boobed loudmouth Todd Grantham.
The whole AJC article is a hit piece. “Well, sure he is not qualified but what if a (miracle)happens and he does” it breathlessly asks.
It’s clear that he won’t. That’s why UGA took a pass. That’s why GT took a pass. That’s why we’ll place him in a great prep school and he will come to play for us in a year or two. Watch how the AJC will ignore him in a year or two when he’s playing the precious overhyped Georgia teams.
The puppies are incredulous that Mauldin still holds a good feeling for Carolina. Well, its because we’re not mealy-mouth, self-congratulatory hypocrites like our neighbors in the penal colony to the west. And we paid attention to someone who you treated like sh*t. Simmer down you hirsute hounds. Dont you have something to go lick now?
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Feb 27, 2011 4:35 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Right on, tryptic. One of the first things that struck me while reading UGA's reaction to the situation...
is that most of these UGA fans wouldn’t give a damn about this kid if not for the fact that they think it makes Spurrier look bad.
To go back to the GTP article, I think there’s a way in which by oversigning, Carolina is giving this kid as good a shot as he can get to play football and get an education at an SEC school. You hit the nail on the head when you wrote that
It’s clear that he won’t. That’s why UGA took a pass. That’s why GT took a pass. That’s why we’ll place him in a great prep school and he will come to play for us in a year or two. Watch how the AJC will ignore him in a year or two when he’s playing the precious overhyped Georgia teams.
The reason Mauldin doesn’t hate us is because he sees Carolina as the opportunity he wasn’t given by UGA, GT, or other major college football programs.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Feb 27, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
Another way of putting it...
How many of these people screaming about oversigning are out fighting for social justice when their beloved football programs aren’t involved? How many Georgia fans, Ohio St. fans, or whoever else really care enough about marginalized populations to do anything about it when their programs’ interests aren’t involved? Frankly, I can think of about a million and one better ways to do something productive for social justice and equality than to complain about oversigning. Something tells me the readers at the AJC don’t care, though.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Feb 27, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
Let's just say I have a differing view
Richt-partisans point to how great and honorable "CMR" is not to have dirtied himself from oversigning, but those are the same folks who make excuses for all the Georgia arrests, or the way suspended UGA players serve laughably short suspensions, or the sideline antics of his sweaty, man-boobed loudmouth Todd Grantham.
Nothing like throwing a few lame insults around to get your point across, I suppose. If you truly believe that the crowd at the AJC or a few commenters in the vast “blog-o-sphere” truly represent the collective heartbeat of an entire fanbase, then I believe you are mistaken. This is not solely a UGA based crusade, no matter how bad you want to paint it that way. Rightfully or wrongfully so, there are many non “Jawjaw” fans that have an opinion on the Mauldin situation and have expressed it elsewhere.
As a caveat, I guess I consider myself to be in the “excuse making” crowd when it comes to the multiple UGA arrests. Having lived in Athens for five full years for my undergraduate and graduate years, I can personally attest to the over-vigilance of the local PD when it comes to going after students (not just football players) for rather trivial things such as emerging from alleys and forgetting my middle name after a few too many.
Take a few potshots at your rival, get some laughs from the collective fanbase here. This is a South Carolina blog, I get it. I personally think you’re blowing this thing out of proportion and if you’ve read the original post over at Get the Picture as linked here by the esteemed Gamecock Man, you’d see that most of the logical folks over there have taken the position that the Mauldin thing really isn’t that big a deal.
I think what most of us agree on regarding this over signing issue is that there needs to be established transparency up front with the kid about what the true intentions are. If he truly is an academic risk and most likely won’t qualify, then tell him up front that if he does qualify, he’ll need to gray shirt. I’ve got no problem with that as long as the coaching staff has been clear with the kid about what the expectations are. By all means, that appears to be what Spurrier and Co. have done here and I’m fine with that.
Well, its because we’re not mealy-mouth, self-congratulatory hypocrites like our neighbors in the penal colony to the west.
Brother, you must not have been in Columbia after our loss back in September because I endured the worst experience I’ve ever had as a visitor (as I’m sure some here have experienced in Athens) which I chronicled here for all to see. One SEC school’s fans basically calling out another SEC school’s fans is like arguing who is the tallest midget. We’re all short here, so spare me the self-righteousness. You won’t see me trying to argue my fanbase is superior to another because I know we have jerks just like everybody else has jerks.
Basically, what I’m saying is that the criticism being lobbed Columbia’s way isn’t just a “Jawjaw” based criticism, as has been spelled out below by Gamecock Man. If I may steal an Urban Meyer line, the commenters at the AJC represent the bottom 1% of the bottom 1% of online commenters out there. What those yahoos say isn’t representative of what most of us think that you know, went to UGA or contribute money to UGA I just think you need to step back from the lame insults and read what the logical Georgia folks have been saying at sites like DawgSports and Get the Picture before you start lobbing up those bombs like you’ve done.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
by AuditDawg on Feb 28, 2011 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks for the post, Audit. Rec'd.
Take a few potshots at your rival, get some laughs from the collective fanbase here. This is a South Carolina blog, I get it. I personally think you’re blowing this thing out of proportion and if you’ve read the original post over at Get the Picture as linked here by the esteemed Gamecock Man, you’d see that most of the logical folks over there have taken the position that the Mauldin thing really isn’t that big a deal.
I agree completely and regret it if I implied otherwise. Other than with my dispute with one commenter, not coincidentally the one I take issue with in the above article, my experience in the thread over at GTP attests to the fact that the Georgia fans over there are, like yourself, rational folks who are capable of looking at the issue reasonably. I’m sorry if anything I wrote here suggests otherwise. Unfortunately, all things UGA-USC cause me to lose control of my better qualities.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Feb 28, 2011 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
Smiles
I thought they were really good insults, actually … particularly the Grantham one.
I was angry (and continue to be angry) about the way this Mauldin situation is being spun despite the fact – as you acknowledge – that USC was acting honorably with him the whole way. Anger drove a lot of that post.
It is non-debatable, however, that the AJC takes a hugh pro-UGA editorial line. Likewise, it’s non-debatable that the majority of UGA fans who comment at AJC and other message boards slander the University of South Carolina and the state in general – you’d be blind if you deny it. Finally, it’s non-debatable that the AJC misrepresented what USC has and will do for this young man. If y’all want him, offer him. But UGA didn’t. UGA won’t. The AJC knows it. So why run the story? Seriously – do you believe it was out of compassion for this young man? Or to whip up an anti-USC frenzy? It’s calculated. It’s cynical. And it’s contemptible. But that is what PRECISELY happened here.
This whole episode, thus, is manufactured to be pro-UGA, anti-USC. If the “logical folks” who support the University of Georgia think its overblown that’s of cold comfort to me. When I see my University attacked by a pro-UGA organ, I will push back. And it’s not being self-righteous when I point out that UGA fans as a group love to point out the mote in our eye while blind to the beam in their own.
I congratulate you personally, however, on being the exception to the almost unchallenged rule of myopia in the Athens-Atlanta axis, but, In reality, it’s your post that is in the minority – call it the top 1% of the top 1%.
Mebbee you just don’t like to hear anything negative about your beloved team? Guess what? Neither do I. If I laid it on a little too thick for you, you will note I did it hear on a USC blog. Want me to come over and do it on your site? Fine. But its not about whether it “plays well” but a place for Carolina fans to be able to say what we feel without having to apologize for what we believe.
I am sorry if you had a bad experience in Columbia last year. I don’t go to Athens anymore based on the way I was treated there in the 90s.
They wore garnet helmets.
tryptic, I think he has a point.
I def. agree that the AJC article is a hit piece that distorted the facts and that it was written to appeal to UGA fans. However, I also think Audit is right that it was mainly intended for the bottom 1% crowd as well as the somewhat more intelligent but willfully ignorant like that guy wide the axe to grind at GTP. I don’t like it when rival fans overgeneralize about us, so I’m going to try not to do it to them, too.
Again, though, I think the AJC thing stinks.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
We definitely agree on that
I def. agree that the AJC article is a hit piece that distorted the facts and that it was written to appeal to UGA fans.
That’s what’s become of sports “journalism” today is to play to the lowest common denominator to get more page clicks. Unfortunately that mentality swallows up more of my fanbase than I’d like to admit. However, as the great Ron White once said “You can’t fix stupid”. So I guess I just have to live with it.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
There are plenty of fans of that nature in our Columbia, too.
They’re the ones who talk all pre-season about how we have the greatest coaching staff in the country and that we’re national title contenders but then want to fire all the coaches after the first loss.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 1, 2011 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
Admittedly, the moobs comment made me laugh
Mebbee you just don’t like to hear anything negative about your beloved team? Guess what? Neither do I. If I laid it on a little too thick for you, you will note I did it hear on a USC blog. Want me to come over and do it on your site? Fine. But its not about whether it "plays well" but a place for Carolina fans to be able to say what we feel without having to apologize for what we believe.
That thought process is completely fine and I don’t want you to apologize for how you feel. I think what I’ve grown sick of seeing on these various sites (of which I peruse and comment at quite a few) is the old “well, I saw this one guy on a website make bad comments about my team, so they must all be HATERZ” mentality that seems to float around the intertubes. Admittedly, there are a lot of idiot UGA posters out there, but if you were to believe the AJC is a “pro-UGA” paper, then you must have never read Mark Bradley who makes it a point to consistently write how much better a coach Paul Johnson is than Mark Richt despite his sporting a 1-2 record against Mark Richt.
I’m not trying to ruffle feathers over here, I just want to provide a reasonable opposing voice to try to break that groupthink mentality that tends to pervade these sites. Take a look at the Auburn SB blog, Track em Tigers for further evidence. Those folks heads couldn’t be further in the sand unless they were ostriches.
Anyways, this is a fun discussion, but I’d hold off throwing any man boobs insults at any opposing fanbase coaches until Spurrier stops pounding the Coors at Daytona.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
so you know
The Gamecocks are sitting 5 over the 85 roster limit going into the spring game…
So five players will be part of some sort of “roster move” by August.
USC Gamecocks Sports Analysis and Insight
www.leftoverhotdog.com
Flounder, what do you think about this? How will we get the numbers right? Is there going to be some shady dealing, or will the numbers be addressed by academic casualties?
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Feb 27, 2011 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
BTW...
Great numbers breakdown. I hate all the math involved in the oversigning discussion.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Feb 27, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
RE:
I am torn on this one. It is like a corporate tax loophole. Good for the shareholders (the fans) but bad for overall business. The oversigning opportunity is there and one of two things need to occur either USC not do it or keep doing it to keep up with the neighbors. Bad way of stating it but really only two ways to handle it until the rules are changed.
USC Gamecocks Sports Analysis and Insight
www.leftoverhotdog.com
Business as usual....
While reading the article, I do feel sorry for the kid and what he had been through with his life but I believe we are missing some points here.
First of all, this is a two-ways decision. It is the decision from USC to offer this kid the scholarship after evaluating him, but it’s also important to point out that it is also the student athletes’ decision to accept the offer from USC. With that said, if I were an athlete and several schools offered me scholarship, I would do a lot of researches and make the best decision that I could. After evaluating the school and the program itself, I would see if there is a potential that I would be gray-shirted and what the chance for me to play right away and then from there making my own decision. With all the technology nowadays and the vast information on the internet, student athletes can and should make an informative decision on where they should go. So in short, the responsibility is also laid with the student athletes and that they are the one who also makes the ultimate decision to come play for any school that offered them. Further more, I remember reading an article some where mentioned that even after everything played out, the kid still wants to play for Spurrier and USC even though he has the option of playing somewhere else and other schools like Louisville also interested in him so obviously he thinks that USC is a better place for him and he likes what it got to offer him.
Secondly, this is a business after all and there are always risks involved in it. We all want a better system in place but I just don’t know how we can make that happen. You have a limit on how many athletes you can have but you have the risk that some athletes like Clowney who would wait until the last minute to tell you where he would go. So it’s a guessing game, and it’s always better to offer more scholarships hoping some will deny, some will not qualify than to run short and not have enough good athletes in your team. It’s not a perfect system but to have discussion about this is like talking about a playoff system or paying the student athletes. It’s a never ending conversation. Nothing is perfect and if you believe there is some perfect system out there, let me know and I will show you its imperfection.
Lastly, with that said, there are still better ways to handle oversigning problem than some of the ways that a lot of other coaches out there are doing to the student athletes. One of them is effective communication. If you communicate effectively with your athletes about his chance to play right away or grayshirted, the athlete will be less surprise and can make a better decision. I believe USC has been very up front with these athletes. And coaches need a reminder that student athlete is also human and need to be treated like human instead of a commodity in the trade market out there. But who knows, it might be business as usual to some of the coaches out there and our opinions are only ours to share.
by sea_wolf114 on Feb 28, 2011 11:03 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Great post. Rec'd.
First of all, I think you’re right on about how we need to acknowledge that this is a two-way decision. If this kid was only concerned about going where he has the best chance of qualifying, he could go somewhere else. The thing is, though, that he really wants to come to USC, and considering the other offers he got, can you blame him? He’s trying to make the most of his football abilities by getting into a good school with a quality football program.
Second of all, I agree that any reforms we enact are probably going to leave a lot of questions unanswered. I’d like to see the NCAA and SEC make an effort to address these issues, but people need to realize that it won’t be long before someone figures out how to exploit the loopholes in the new regulations, too.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Feb 28, 2011 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
New person!
Welcome new person.
stuff 'bout stuff.
by silver82blade on Feb 28, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
The conversation continues at GTP...
here.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
Yo chief
I meant to reply to you in the open thread about the comment I made on Saturday. I didn’t mean it as a “I want all Carolina fans to kiss our feet” type comment. Admittedly, I posted it in haste not really thinking about what I meant.
Basically, I meant that you’ll encourage comments such as tryptic67’s above (which I understand that it plays to the local crowd here), but get offended when I make a similar short-sighted comment about the Gamecocks. I guess that was the point I was making with my remark about “condescending tone” as poorly conveyed as it was.
I just want to offer my formal apology if I stepped on your toes since I think you’re good people. However, I will disagree with your comments at belittling other SEC fanbases. I solely reserve that judgment for Auburn, so it’s more of a singular fanbase, than the plural fanbases.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
I just read the FTP piece and the comments
1. lots of USC swipes and slanders. Didn’t see anyone besides GM or Gwinnett defending USC from “lame insults” that “play well” to the audience. In fact, saw one poster who told GM basically to shut up and go back to his own blog. Well, ya can’t please everyone.
2. lots of posters there with situational ethics. The one who held Kentucky and Tennessee out as paragons of virtue in the anti-oversigning jihad was particularly ironic. Does he not follow the news?
They wore garnet helmets.
LMAO at the guy who told me to go back to my own blog.
That had to be the cream of the crop there. I had just finished pointing out that the other guy I was talking to was using faulty logic, and this other guys comes in and tells me to dispense with the talk about logic because I went to South Carolina, 111th ranked university. People, you can’t make this stuff up.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
Of course...
I guess the appropriate response would have been that the fine education I received at the University of South Carolina prepared me for admission to a PhD program at an elite, top 20 private institution in the northeast. But really, I think I’ve said my piece over the there, so I’m going to drop it.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
Discussion?
More like Texas_Dawg throwing a temper-tantrum. Ugh, that was difficult to read, and I feel dumber for it.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Mar 1, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
I give the propietor of that blog a lot of credit for allowing the conversation to happen over there.
But yeah, that thread was quickly hijacked by charlatans with little to no capability for introspection and reasoned discussion.
Texas_Dawg’s dispute with Blutarsky says all you need to know about where his perspective is coming from. Notice where he calls Blutarsky out as “pathetic” because he won’t get on board with Richt and Adams perspective on the issue. The moral highground argument is, for him, essentially about circling the wagons and toeing the party line.
The annals of history are littered with jerks who masked insidious agendas with claims to moral rectitude. If there’s anything that history teaches us, it’s to beware of such people.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 1, 2011 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
The new spin from Texas_Dawg at GTP...
is that since Greg McGarity says it, it must be true. Obviously, McGarity has only one thing in mind, helping the lives of the poor victims of oversigning. What a load of pure, unadulterated BS.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
That guy is killing me over there
I bet George W Bush and Barack Obama would love to have all of us march in beat with everything they declared “morally repugnant”. He takes a holier than thou attitude and basically dismisses anyone challenging him by skewing the facts to fit his agenda. He acts like the rest of us should be cast out of the community as UGA supporters because we don’t care about this or feel as strongly about this as he does.
If this act of over signing/gray shirting/whatever is so ethically unsound that it questions the very fabric of my alma mater (as Texas_Dawg claims), I’d like him to point any evidential truth that there is a chance my employer is going to fire me tomorrow because I carry two degrees from UGA and my school has been irreparably harmed because I didn’t take a strong enough stance on the internet against over signing. What a ridiculous person he is.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
Yeah, I really admire people like you and the Senator for putting up with that crap.
To me, the guy just comes across as someone who wants to put the stamp of moral self-righteousness on his fandom. Most of his posts are really only elaborate ways of saying that you guys need to get 100% behind everything Richt and McGarity say and that if you don’t, you’re not Dawgs. There’s not much room for intelligent, introspective people like you or Blutarsky when that’s the standard. God knows that if that’s the angle my readers took here at GABA, I’d have had my degree revoked by now.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
BTW...
What is really bizarre about that guy is that I don’t necessarily disagree with him in substance, and from what I can tell, nor do most of the folks at GTP who he’s arguing with. We all want to see some form of reform on the oversigning issue. The problem is that whereas a lot of us came to our conclusions through reasoned discussion and examination of the multiple issues at hand, he got there through a zealous desire to toe the party line as well as hatred for the programs that oversign. At least that’s what I gather from the self-righteous BS and animosity towards anyone who voices an even somewhat contrary opinion, as well as his irrational smearing of rival programs. And honestly, if even half of what I just wrote is true, he’s just an idiot. One definition of stupidity and definitely an inability to think through complex issues on one’s own and an unwillingness to even slightly disagrees with one’s leaders. Like you said, I’ll bet our presidents would love for us to be this stupid. It’s a good thing we live in a democracy, I guess.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
Proud of you guys...
for manning up on the oversigning thing… most fans of the more notorious programs in this regard seem to try far too hard to justify the antics of their coaches.
In this case, you are getting screwed by the AJC… I have no problem with oversigning so long as it’s made VERY clear to the kids that they aren’t at the front of the line and there may not be a scholarship available come signing day. If that’s done, then he analyzed the risk of not picking somewhere with a guaranteed ’ship versus the reward of playing SEC football… and South Carolina did nothing wrong.
Now what I do have a problem with is pulling scholarships from kids that are already enrolled in school for poor athletic performance. That needs to be banned outright. A LOI should be a two way street that guarantees 4 years on athletic scholarship so long as sufficient academic progress is made. There should be no provision for injuries, as if it affects everyone then at the normal rates of attrition it should balance out just fine… and medical schollies are just too exploitable.
correction...
a medical scholarship should only be available if there is an injury that requires a player to literally be physically or mentally unable to attend school for more than a year. And the awarding of them needs to be handled by the conference, and not the school.
Thanks. Good posts. I like the sensible policy solutions.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
BTW, everyone...
You’ve probably seen the recent WSJ article on oversigning, in which Spurrier plays a prominent role. I should have an article up about it later today, most of which will likely be critical of Spurrier.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
Nuance
I think most people udnerstand the nuance of a particular signing when it is their team involved. You understand the Mauldin situation because you’re closer to it and have taken the time to see all the sides of the story.
That’s almost entirely missing from the oversigning debate, and really, it’s impossible to approach every situation with the same nuance you will with your own team.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
You guys have already covered a lot of what I was going to say...
…but I’ll add this: I’m not a fan of oversigning. There are definitely shady dealings involved and not every case is like Mauldin’s. However, I think the anger over this issue needs to be directed not necessarily at the schools, but at the NCAA itself, which has essentially given oversigning its blessing. Coaches are going to do whatever they’re allowed to get an edge; this is sports, after all, and it’s as cutthroat as it gets. If there’s a loophole, damn right they’re going to exploit the hell out of it until they can’t anymore. Might not be right, but that’s why there’s a governing body that is there to (supposedly) prevent this incidents.
So if you (general you) hate oversigning so much, stop wasting your time barking at Spurrier or LSU or whoever. Take it up with the NCAA, which apparently does not care enough to come down against it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
