A theory to the "possible" numbers issue....

[VolsFanRJ]

Arkansas and South Carolina are sitting out there right now with 30 and 31 commits so if we land 29 then so be it. Gotta be a way to work it out.

 

[Ericvol2096]

yes, we can sign 29 with then having to work out what to do with 3 of the signees. If they all qualified, we would have to ask 3 to gray shirt or turn 3 loose in the summer.

Gotcha, sounds good...hope we have to worry about that!:hi:

 

[Montrell Hardy]

Gotcha, sounds good...hope we have to worry about that!:hi:

+1000. That would be a very good thing to worry about.

 

[PACKERVOL]

I was reading an article about the NCAA adopting the SEC's 28 rule, and it mentioned those signing between February and May, IIRC. I wonder how that relates to the handful of EE's that signed well before that?

I really think the NCAA needs to change it's rules to allow teams to sign whatever they need in order to get to 85, as there are differing levels of attrition from one program to the next. Sticking a "one size fits all" limit effectively impedes some teams from being able to compete on a level playing field.

If we were able to sign what we needed last year, we wouldn't have had as many depth issues. I just don't see how the bureaucrats can see this and still do nothing. If one team only has 70 scholarship players while another has a full 85, that unfairly tips the balance of competition.

I totally agree. However, this is the NCAA we're dealing with. Expecting them to be rational and fair may be asking too much from them. Yes, the key should be the 85 limit, and recruit each year with that in mind. They are always making rules for parity, and this is one way they could do that.

 

[LWSVOL]

I was reading an article about the NCAA adopting the SEC's 28 rule, and it mentioned those signing between February and May, IIRC. I wonder how that relates to the handful of EE's that signed well before that?

I really think the NCAA needs to change it's rules to allow teams to sign whatever they need in order to get to 85, as there are differing levels of attrition from one program to the next. Sticking a "one size fits all" limit effectively impedes some teams from being able to compete on a level playing field.

If we were able to sign what we needed last year, we wouldn't have had as many depth issues. I just don't see how the bureaucrats can see this and still do nothing. If one team only has 70 scholarship players while another has a full 85, that unfairly tips the balance of competition.

what that rule would encourage would be for more coaches at schools to chase away players that were not turning out.

For example, Saban has put several players on medical and encouraged many to transfer. if you had an open ended rule where schools could sign players up to an 85 number, then coaches would be kicking off players right and left to recruit what they thought were better players.

it would be chaotic..

an addiitonal comment, had Kiffin not run so many players off we would not have had the 85 issue. it only came about because he chased players away

 

[EricFreakingBerry]

Yes, I don't think adopting a "sign whatever you need to get to 85" will turn teams like Tennessee into automatic contenders, it would just allow teams who are better than UT currently to remain better than UT because there would be more player movement than NFL free agency.

 

[Billy Antrim]

what that rule would encourage would be for more coaches at schools to chase away players that were not turning out.

For example, Saban has put several players on medical and encouraged many to transfer. if you had an open ended rule where schools could sign players up to an 85 number, then coaches would be kicking off players right and left to recruit what they thought were better players.

it would be chaotic..

+1. Thanks for posting this. I was going to but your wording is better.

Also, the NCAA wants to increase the # of players graduating, and changing the rule would have the opposite effect. :hi:

 

[OaklandTnVol]

what that rule would encourage would be for more coaches at schools to chase away players that were not turning out.

For example, Saban has put several players on medical and encouraged many to transfer. if you had an open ended rule where schools could sign players up to an 85 number, then coaches would be kicking off players right and left to recruit what they thought were better players.

it would be chaotic..

an addiitonal comment, had Kiffin not run so many players off we would not have had the 85 issue. it only came about because he chased players away

For players who aren't here anymore. Thanks a lot. And to think some folks here still miss him.

 

[winchestervol63]

Not true. Our absolute limit this year is 29 signees.

I think that you are wrong. The max number relates to how many guy we can enroll, plus S&P guys. Not how many LOI's can be signed.

I think we were over last year too for signed LOI's only, by the time we added Gooch and Darr. Only had two spaces left for four guys, IIRC. But at least 2-3 of them didn't make it in due to grades (John Brown, Loften, not sure who else).

The details don't matter as much as the concept. The point is that we couldn't have signed Gooch and Darr if it were an LOI limit and not enrollee limit, as your post seems to indicate (other guy said we could get down to the number later and you disagreed). The coaches had a pretty good idea that not all of the four guys in question were gonna get in for the four spots, so they signed the two additional guys. And when Brown and Loften (at least) didn't make it, the numbers worked out fine.

 

[Regulator]

I know that in basketball, there is (or was) a rule about 10-in-2, IIRC. You could sign no more than 10 recruits in any two consecutive years. Am I correct on that? Would something like that work for football? Perhaps no more than 50 over any two consecutive years while still holding to the 85 total max?

 

[Vol_Doc]

what that rule would encourage would be for more coaches at schools to chase away players that were not turning out.

For example, Saban has put several players on medical and encouraged many to transfer. if you had an open ended rule where schools could sign players up to an 85 number, then coaches would be kicking off players right and left to recruit what they thought were better players.

it would be chaotic..

an addiitonal comment, had Kiffin not run so many players off we would not have had the 85 issue. it only came about because he chased players away

Exactly. :thumbsup:

 

[Incipient]

I totally agree. However, this is the NCAA we're dealing with. Expecting them to be rational and fair may be asking too much from them. Yes, the key should be the 85 limit, and recruit each year with that in mind. They are always making rules for parity, and this is one way they could do that.

what that rule would encourage would be for more coaches at schools to chase away players that were not turning out.

For example, Saban has put several players on medical and encouraged many to transfer. if you had an open ended rule where schools could sign players up to an 85 number, then coaches would be kicking off players right and left to recruit what they thought were better players.

it would be chaotic..

an addiitonal comment, had Kiffin not run so many players off we would not have had the 85 issue. it only came about because he chased players away

Which is to say, sounds great in theory, terrible in practice.

 

[armygrad]

Consider: Dooley is smart and is a lawyer as well. I fully expect, as opposed to the speculation in posts here and elsewhere, that he knows exactly how many he can sign, how many he can enroll, and where the loopholes in the regulations may be. He does not strike me as someone who would "bump" a lower rated player to whom he has offered or as someone who is not totally prepared in what he is doing. Some trust seems indicated.

 

[volunteers4life]

I see us picking 4-5 more signees up on NSD or shortly thereafter, and it is likely 1-2 of those already committed will be academic casualties regardless, so there shouldn't be any concern about this situation. I think the best scenario for us is we sign slightly over a full class, then back fill as the situation warrants, ensuring NO back counting for this year in next year's class.