I think we will have over 40 commits

[ob79]

From what I have read and understand, Butch is telling recruits who agree to sign the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) agreement that he will guarantee their scholarship for their entire tenure at UT, without the guarantees that a NLI has for the University. Essentially, they get the scholly but their recruitment doesn't end in signing the GIA (they can still sign somewhere else) and they are eligible to transfer at any given time, without the restrictions of sitting out a year, etc.

It is a gamble on behalf of UT and CBJ b/c it does not end that prospect's recruitment, at least in terms of other teams being eligible to contact them and offer them...more. However, what it does, if I understand it correctly, is provide UT with a loophole to sign above the 25 signing limit (or 30 for this year) because they waive signing the NLI, according to THIS LINK:

The NLI does not include any additional protections for student-athletes above and beyond the GIA. The NLI simply provides a bigger carrot for not canceling a prospect’s scholarship, namely that the NLI is declared null and void and the prospect is free to be recruited and attend another university. Fact is, the NLI does not obligate the institution to do anything it wouldn’t otherwise be obligated to do if the prospect signed just the scholarship itself and tossed the NLI.

And this...

The number of scholarship that can be doled out is still unlimited. Programs are still permitted to commit as many scholarships as they want, so long as the NLI is not attached

I'm not sure that this necessarily means we're "signing" over 30 but, with Hurd & co. signing their GIA's last week, I think it's a VERY strong indicator that Butch Jones has found a loop hole in the 25 signing limit.

If so, the phrase "Butch gets it" is going to need to be changed to "Butch gets...whatever the hell he wants"

 

[ItsAllVols]

From what I have read and understand, Butch is telling recruits who agree to sign the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) agreement that he will guarantee their scholarship for their entire tenure at UT, without the guarantees that a NLI has for the University. Essentially, they get the scholly but their recruitment doesn't end in signing the GIA (they can still sign somewhere else) and they are eligible to transfer at any given time, without the restrictions of sitting out a year, etc.

It is a gamble on behalf of UT and CBJ b/c it does not end that prospect's recruitment, at least in terms of other teams being eligible to contact them and offer them...more. However, what it does, if I understand it correctly, is provide UT with a loophole to sign above the 25 signing limit (or 30 for this year) because they waive signing the NLI, according to this:



And this...




I'm not sure that this necessarily means we're "signing" over 30 but, with Hurd & co. signing their GIA's last week, I think it's a VERY strong indicator that Butch Jones has found a loop hole in the 25 signing limit.

If so, the phrase "Butch gets it" is going to need to be changed to "Butch gets...whatever the hell he wants"

But don't tell NCAA because they will close the loop hole before we can take advantage...but this is awesome advantage to improve the roster.

 

[volinbama256]

Can anyone explain this like I'm 10?

This^ me too....

 

[Volinnooga]

If thhere is such a loophole, I'd be amazed it hasn't been used previously. Something doesn't add up in this scenario.

 

[AboveAllNations]

From what I have read and understand, Butch is telling recruits who agree to sign the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) agreement that he will guarantee their scholarship for their entire tenure at UT, without the guarantees that a NLI has for the University. Essentially, they get the scholly but their recruitment doesn't end in signing the GIA (they can still sign somewhere else) and they are eligible to transfer at any given time, without the restrictions of sitting out a year, etc.

It is a gamble on behalf of UT and CBJ b/c it does not end that prospect's recruitment, at least in terms of other teams being eligible to contact them and offer them...more. However, what it does, if I understand it correctly, is provide UT with a loophole to sign above the 25 signing limit (or 30 for this year) because they waive signing the NLI, according to this:



And this...




I'm not sure that this necessarily means we're "signing" over 30 but, with Hurd & co. signing their GIA's last week, I think it's a VERY strong indicator that Butch Jones has found a loop hole in the 25 signing limit.

If so, the phrase "Butch gets it" is going to need to be changed to "Butch gets...whatever the hell he wants"

Who are you quoting? You can't just say "according to this" and provide no citation for the reader whatsoever. Can somebody who knows what they're talking about please explain "grant-in-aids" while also providing citations to a reputable source or authority?

 

[Brillovol]

From what I have read and understand, Butch is telling recruits who agree to sign the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) agreement that he will guarantee their scholarship for their entire tenure at UT, without the guarantees that a NLI has for the University. Essentially, they get the scholly but their recruitment doesn't end in signing the GIA (they can still sign somewhere else) and they are eligible to transfer at any given time, without the restrictions of sitting out a year, etc.

It is a gamble on behalf of UT and CBJ b/c it does not end that prospect's recruitment, at least in terms of other teams being eligible to contact them and offer them...more. However, what it does, if I understand it correctly, is provide UT with a loophole to sign above the 25 signing limit (or 30 for this year) because they waive signing the NLI, according to this:


And this...


I'm not sure that this necessarily means we're "signing" over 30 but, with Hurd & co. signing their GIA's last week, I think it's a VERY strong indicator that Butch Jones has found a loop hole in the 25 signing limit.

If so, the phrase "Butch gets it" is going to need to be changed to "Butch gets...whatever the hell he wants"

So here's the only possible loophole I see: Signing a GIA but not a NLI does not count the player as an initial qualifier.

While this could possibly be the case, I'm not buying it. Giving a kid an athletic scholarship to play football should count as an initial qualifier no matter what piece of paper he signs. If not, props to Butch and the staff for figuring this one out. I'll believe it when I see it though.

 

[BruinVol]

So here's the only possible loophole I see: Signing a GIA but not a NLI does not count the player as an initial qualifier.

While this could possibly be the case, I'm not buying it. Giving a kid an athletic scholarship to play football should count as an initial qualifier no matter what piece of paper he signs. If not, props to Butch and the staff for figuring this one out. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Any kid getting aid is an initial counter unless they are walk ons for 2 years.

 

[ob79]

Who are you quoting? You can't just say "according to this" and provide no citation for the reader whatsoever. Can somebody who knows what they're talking about please explain "grant-in-aids" while also providing citations to a reputable source or authority?

edited.

Now get the sand out of your crotch.

 

[Brillovol]

Any kid getting aid is an initial counter unless they are walk ons for 2 years.

That's my understanding as well. The ONLY possibility is that the new GIA signing was somehow overlooked in the rules, but I seriously doubt it. A scholarship is a scholarship no matter how you draw it up.

 

[StoVol]

From what I have read and understand, Butch is telling recruits who agree to sign the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) agreement that he will guarantee their scholarship for their entire tenure at UT, without the guarantees that a NLI has for the University. Essentially, they get the scholly but their recruitment doesn't end in signing the GIA (they can still sign somewhere else) and they are eligible to transfer at any given time, without the restrictions of sitting out a year, etc.

It is a gamble on behalf of UT and CBJ b/c it does not end that prospect's recruitment, at least in terms of other teams being eligible to contact them and offer them...more. However, what it does, if I understand it correctly, is provide UT with a loophole to sign above the 25 signing limit (or 30 for this year) because they waive signing the NLI, according to THIS LINK
:



And this...




I'm not sure that this necessarily means we're "signing" over 30 but, with Hurd & co. signing their GIA's last week, I think it's a VERY strong indicator that Butch Jones has found a loop hole in the 25 signing limit.

If so, the phrase "Butch gets it" is going to need to be changed to "Butch gets...whatever the hell he wants"

So basically the 30 we sign this year will be our normal class, and anything above 30 will be on scholly but not bound by the NLI? So players 31-35 say, would be able to transfer? That sounds like a genius move if you put the Hurds and Kelly's in spots 31-35, people unlikely to move on. Would be awesome if we could do this. Prob a one year deal tho before the "butch" rule goes in effect. This will be the only year we'll need it tho!

 

[ob79]

So here's the only possible loophole I see: Signing a GIA but not a NLI does not count the player as an initial qualifier.

While this could possibly be the case, I'm not buying it. Giving a kid an athletic scholarship to play football should count as an initial qualifier no matter what piece of paper he signs. If not, props to Butch and the staff for figuring this one out. I'll believe it when I see it though.

I'm skeptical as well but it seems that is the case, i.e. the GIA not counting as a "counter" for the 25 limit.

Also, according to Woody Womack, we're likely to land another commit today (Mosely, I'd imagine), which, IMO, lends more credibility to this "theory."

And lets be honest, this is all this is at the moment. While the NCAA verbiage seems to support the theory, I'd be floored to find out that we landed the first coach that "cracked the code" to the 25 signing limit.

If it does, in fact, come to fruition....as Ron said, Butch is a damn genius.

 

[VOL61]

Who are you quoting? You can't just say "according to this" and provide no citation for the reader whatsoever. Can somebody who knows what they're talking about please explain "grant-in-aids" while also providing citations to a reputable source or authority?

The GIA is the scholarship provided. The NLI stops the players recruitment......

After reading the bylaws someone posted in this thread I am starting to agree with Bruin that I don't see anyway around the 30 # of Intial counters that the NCAA allows....

I am thinking this financial agreement signed by the players now are just showing them we are taking them which may be starting to be questioned because we are still recruiting so many kids even though we have 30 committed....

There is one thing in the article from Johna Infante that I couldn't fine in the NCAA bylaws and that was 15.5.1.10.1..... That was a rule he cited that allowed schools to basically hand out 28 NLI's but didn't pretain to schools giving as many scholarships as they wanted out as long as they were below the 85 total limit....

The thing that makes it so confusing to me is we are still really in on 10-15 kids. I don't see us getting them all but we could get several. I don't know who they would replace with us having so many EE....

 

[VOLorNuttin]

From what I have read and understand, Butch is telling recruits who agree to sign the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) agreement that he will guarantee their scholarship for their entire tenure at UT, without the guarantees that a NLI has for the University. Essentially, they get the scholly but their recruitment doesn't end in signing the GIA (they can still sign somewhere else) and they are eligible to transfer at any given time, without the restrictions of sitting out a year, etc.

It is a gamble on behalf of UT and CBJ b/c it does not end that prospect's recruitment, at least in terms of other teams being eligible to contact them and offer them...more. However, what it does, if I understand it correctly, is provide UT with a loophole to sign above the 25 signing limit (or 30 for this year) because they waive signing the NLI, according to THIS LINK:




And this...




I'm not sure that this necessarily means we're "signing" over 30 but, with Hurd & co. signing their GIA's last week, I think it's a VERY strong indicator that Butch Jones has found a loop hole in the 25 signing limit.

If so, the phrase "Butch gets it" is going to need to be changed to "Butch gets...whatever the hell he wants"

I think there is definitely SOMETHING to it, because otherwise, there is just no real benefit in them signing it. It's not like he needs extra incentive to convince Hurd to sign with us. The only thing that makes sense, is that it helps us steal a few more players than we would have, under normal rules.

 

[BruinVol]

I'm skeptical as well but it seems that is the case, i.e. the GIA not counting as a "counter" for the 25 limit.

Also, according to Woody Womack, we're likely to land another commit today (Mosely, I'd imagine), which, IMO, lends more credibility to this "theory."

And lets be honest, this is all this is at the moment. While the NCAA verbiage seems to support the theory, I'd be floored to find out that we landed the first coach that "cracked the code" to the 25 signing limit.

If it does, in fact, come to fruition....as Ron said, Butch is a damn genius.

There is no code to crack.

25 initial counters are most you can bring in.

Anybody on Aid is a counter.


Here it is:
NCAA Bylaw 15.5.6.1 limits FBS football programs to a total number of scholarships to 85 "counters" annually including 25 scholarships for "initial counters." Counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3) are individuals who are receiving institutional financial aid that is countable against the aid limitations in a sport, initial counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3.1) are individuals who are receiving countable financial aid in a sport for the first time.

 

[VOL61]

There is no code to crack.

25 initial counters are most you can bring in.

Anybody on Aid is a counter.


Here it is:
NCAA Bylaw 15.5.6.1 limits FBS football programs to a total number of scholarships to 85 "counters" annually including 25 scholarships for "initial counters." Counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3) are individuals who are receiving institutional financial aid that is countable against the aid limitations in a sport, initial counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3.1) are individuals who are receiving countable financial aid in a sport for the first time.

There are a ton of exemptions to this rule though. But the rule John Infante citied I couldn't even find. That is what has me questioning him now....

But he is a compliance officer and it is posted on an NCAA site which is why I even thought it could be possible.

But it all seems to go back in the end to if you get aid you are a "counter" so I think you are probably right. Just hard to see us dropping 7,8,9 kids.....

 

[kamoshika]

This new interpretation is not a loophole. It does not render null & void the limitation on initial counters. The only way to exceed 25 initial counters -- both before and after this interpretation -- is to back count up to the allowable limit.

 

[VOL61]

This is from the article from an earlier post and it seems pretty clear cut.


"The point of all this NLI talk is to show 2009-48 is not just a toothless rule, it really doesn’t limit oversigning at all. Bylaws 13.9.2.3 and 15.5.1.10.1 only limit NLIs to 28. The number of scholarship that can be doled out is still unlimited. Programs are still permitted to commit as many scholarships as they want, so long as the NLI is not attached. The twins don’t limit oversigning, they just require some of the oversigned prospects to be free to walk, since the GIA commits the school to the prospect but not the prospect to the school. And by a quirk of NCAA rules, institutions are prohibited from mentioning that they have signed these additional prospects."

So Bruin are you saying John Infante is just wrong in his article?

How does he come to this if it isn't possible? He is a compliance guy.....

Wonder why it was even posted on an NCAA site if there isn't anything to it?

 

[BruinVol]

So Bruin are you saying John Infante is just wrong in his article?

How does he come to this if it isn't possible? He is a compliance guy.....

Wonder why it was even posted on an NCAA site if there isn't anything to it?

I don't see one mention in his article of how many acually enroll.

If signing 5 academic question marks with only 3 spots is a plan his point may very well work.

Sign those 5 to grant and aides and if a few make it pays off.

 

[Dust10]

That Infante article is two years old. In my experience, statutes are revised every single year. While it may have been true then, the NCAA could have thrown in the language about the counters since.

 

[StoVol]

Or we could just oversign and deal with it

 

[SHOWOFF]

36 to 38 signed... book it!

 

[VOLorNuttin]

It may seem a bit far-fetched, but so did the whole notion of the 5 Power Conferences leaving the NCAA and governing themselves. They all hinted about it in their respective media days, this season. I wonder if the coaches in the SEC know something the public doesn't, just yet. The NCAA rules can still be in full effect, but if the coaches/AD's know that the SEC is planning to break away next summer, that might very well explain things.

I do think there is going to be some kind of shakeup occur before next season. Maybe just a re-vamping of the conference's representation within the NCAA, and voice in rule changes, player stipends, etc. The conferences sounded like they were not going to stand for status quo, and that something HAD to change.

Plus, if the class-action lawsuit against the NCAA goes against them (and it WILL), then that is going to change the dynamics in College football dramatically. I can't even see the NCAA withstanding the pressure from the lawsuit and the conferences, too.

 

[Catbone]

Would it be worth to over sign say.. by 3 and lose 6 schollies for next year? Unless its Adoree, Malone, and another 5* I say hell no. But then again what do I know...

 

[bigsteve13]

Someone call Saban to clarify the loophole in the rule cause you know he's already been using it

 

[Aesius]

It may seem a bit far-fetched, but so did the whole notion of the 5 Power Conferences leaving the NCAA and governing themselves. They all hinted about it in their respective media days, this season. I wonder if the coaches in the SEC know something the public doesn't, just yet. The NCAA rules can still be in full effect, but if the coaches/AD's know that the SEC is planning to break away next summer, that might very well explain things.

I do think there is going to be some kind of shakeup occur before next season. Maybe just a re-vamping of the conference's representation within the NCAA, and voice in rule changes, player stipends, etc. The conferences sounded like they were not going to stand for status quo, and that something HAD to change.

Plus, if the class-action lawsuit against the NCAA goes against them (and it WILL), then that is going to change the dynamics in College football dramatically. I can't even see the NCAA withstanding the pressure from the lawsuit and the conferences, too.

Isn't the 30 recruit max rule an SEC specific thing?