🏈 SEC rule will not help academic standards

[BAMANEWSBOT]

The Ole Miss Rebels announced 37 new football signees in February. And, contrary to what some people in authority around the SEC might have us believe, the entire educational foundation of the league's 12 universities was never in danger of...

Read More Here...

 

[TerryP]

Kennedy writes:

Let's take a look at what might have happened if the 28 limit had been in place last February. Alabama entered signing day with 28 commitments, with scholarship offers still pending for superstar recruits Rueben Randle, Bobby Massie and Kenny Bell. Those three were never going to be told their scholarship offers were being pulled, meaning three of the Crimson Tide's previous commitments -- most of whom had done everything asked of them in the classroom to qualify -- would have been forced to have their scholarship offers made contingent on what those blue-chippers decided.

Now, let's take a look at what really happened.

Alabama entered signing day with 27 listed on recruiting services - not 28.

Out of those 27 (listed by recruiting services) Chance Warmack and James Carpenter were already enrolled.

25 were signed on NSD, three below the new rule.

So what would have happened if the new rule was in place and Randle, Massie and Bell would have signed.

We would have been at 28.

 

[Perdido Tide]

I read this in the paper this morning three times and Im still not sure what his point is.

 

[AFF]

Maybe I haven't been following along close enough, but I just don't see who this new rule "helps". What is the purpose? Where is the trail of injured student athletes who have been hurt by the old way of doing things? It seems that a few kids may have been helped in some way by having an opportunity of turning things around in JC with the promise of potentially playing in the SEC if they worked hard.

I hate it when groups of people with "power" decide that they need to invent new rules just for the sake of having new rules. Especially when the rule is intended to "help" some group that has never been hurt to begin with.

 

[Perdido Tide]

Maybe I haven't been following along close enough, but I just don't see who this new rule "helps". What is the purpose?

Signing lots of players with poor grades is a slap in the face to the academic side of football. College presidents should be upset with what Ole Miss did last year.

 

[AFF]

Signing lots of players with poor grades is a slap in the face to the academic side of football. College presidents should be upset with what Ole Miss did last year.

Keeping the old way wouldn’t have affected academics one iota. As it was, the kids would have still needed to resolve their academic issues in junior college before attending an SEC university. I really like the extra incentive that potentially playing in the SEC gave those kids who needed to get their academics back on track. One of the great serendipitous effects of the sport of college football is the fact that it provides kids who otherwise could not have attended university a chance to do so. I don’t think the rule will have a significant impact on the sport itself, but I do think it has the potential to have a significant (negative) impact on some kids. So, where’s the upside?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>

 

[TerryP]

I read this in the paper this morning three times and Im still not sure what his point is.

Setting his poor reasoning aside, I'm still not sure how he makes his point as well other than the title of the article.

Keeping the old way wouldn’t have affected academics one iota. As it was, the kids would have still needed to resolve their academic issues in junior college before attending an SEC university. I really like the extra incentive that potentially playing in the SEC gave those kids who needed to get their academics back on track. One of the great serendipitous effects of the sport of college football is the fact that it provides kids who otherwise could not have attended university a chance to do so. I don’t think the rule will have a significant impact on the sport itself, but I do think it has the potential to have a significant (negative) impact on some kids. So, where’s the upside?<o></o>

The incentive hasn't changed. If they want to play SEC football (or other sports) they'll still have their chance.

It does limit the ability a HC had to park a lot of kids in JUCO with the idea they'll be an easy resign in another year.

It is a bit ironic that Auburn has been doing just that for quite a while and they were the school that proposed the new rule.

If Nutt wouldn't have been as blatantly callous with his answers on the number he signed I doubt it would have come to this. But, that 37 number really did send a lot of bad exposure in the direction of the SEC...and deservedly so.