In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 300
Online now 479 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Ouch. Yes, oversigning and "grayshirting" is a common practice in the SEC. I don't think that S.Carolina has ruined anyone's playing career with oversigning. Typically, a few players decommit and/or do not qualify academically and the numbers end up working out. If it doesn't then players will be cut who were usually walk-ons and knew that their scholarships were given out on a year-by-year basis and that they have to compete to stay on the team... just ask Bryce Sherman:
Bryce Sherman Update
Brent Holloway caught up with Bryce Sherman recently and asked him about the situation with South Carolina.
Sherman, a 5-foot-4 backup wide receiver who served as the team’s primary kickoff returner last season, said he first learned his position with the team might be in jeopardy a little more than a week ago. His fears were confirmed Tuesday in a meeting with Spurrier.
“They just said they got better players over the last year,” Sherman said. “Everybody they recruited committed and that never happens. And then everybody qualified (academically) and that never happens.”
Holloway goes on to dispute South Carolina's claim that everyone has qualified, but regardless, the explanation that South Carolina gave Sherman sure sounds like the definition of oversigning, but without the real numbers it is hard to be 100% sure he was cut to make the numbers work.
Based on Sherman's comments in this article, which are slightly different than his comments to us regarding whether or not he knew his scholarship was a 1 year renewable deal, it sounds like he knew that his scholarship was year-to-year and that everyone on the knows they are competing for a spot.
Sherman confirmed that. He said he was aware that his scholarship was a year-to-year deal, not a four-year pact between school and student-athlete. He said players at South Carolina are also aware that they are competing for their roster spots.
”It is what it is,” Sherman said. “It’s a business. I don’t think it’s fair, but it’s not my call.”
An astute observation for a 21-year-old. It is a business and it’s not fair. Those are the realities of big-time college athletics. But need they be?
That’s a question the NCAA needs to answer for itself. Does it want to be an organization that allows its student-athletes to stand defenseless against the steamrolling, win-at-all-costs machinery? Currently constructed, it’s a system in which rising seniors can have their financial aid pulled out from under them, or freshmen who already enrolled in classes can be told they’re no longer part of the team, not because they failed a class or got in trouble, but because the coach at their school treats a scholarship like an expiring contract and there’s a hot new free agent he’s got to make room for.
I don't agree with 4 year scholarships. I don't believe that you should get a free 4 year education and all of the perks of being a collegiate student athlete just because you were good at the sport in high school.
This post was edited by Cock KoolAid237 16 months ago
LOL obviously they would not matchup conference opponents. There would be a rule in that type of scenario where the lowest ranked team from that conference was skipped over for the next opponent, or something of that nature.
Again, CFB is cyclical, so your insistance of referring to this as a pro-SEC notion is shortsighted... unless, you truly believe that the SEC will dominate for the rest of eternity.
Didn't stop them from pitting LSU and Alabama in the national title game last year.
Same would hold true if it was the Big Ten dominating. SEC country wouldn't be interested in BCS games with a bunch of Big Ten teams. And honestly neither would I.
This post was edited by WillyWolverine 16 months ago
Well, I'm suggesting a departure from the current system. The NC is different. That should be the two best teams in the nation, regardless of conference affiliation. Personally, I would have liked to have seen OkSt in the NC game last year- would have been much more interesting. Every other BCS bowl should have a rule against playing conference opponents. If the BCS bowls consisted of 4 games that pitted Big Ten teams against teams from other conferences (all of which being in the Top 10), I would definitely be interested in watching those matchups. I am a football fan and love watching good football. I want to see the best play the best and I don't understand why any football fan wouldn't.
It would have just so happened that the Big Ten was dominant that year. The SEC doesn't usually have 6 teams in the Top 10. I believe this is the first time that the SEC has ever had this many 10 win teams... (one of the reasons that Carolina is playing in the Outback bowl at 10-2)
Who else is predicting that Denard gets the rock a ton in this game due to it being his last game? If he gets 25+ touches....I don't think there is any way SC wins. You can only scheme so much for the guy before he breaks one on you. I know that is what most SC fans are worried about: Denard going off. They usually come back with " well Clowney will own him". Let me let you in on a little secret....the only way Clowney gets to him is in a passing situation. Otherwise Clowney will not catch him and neither will anyone else if he gets loose. If Borges doesn't get Denard on the edge....we have no chance. The biggest weakness of the vaunted SC defense is they are a bit soft against the run sometimes. Run Denard on the edge and Rawls up the middle. Run them til their legs fall off and every once in awhile take your shot to Roundtree or Gallon.
"Those Who Stay...Will be Champions"
You beat USCe by running on them and making them pass the football.
But again why are LSU, A&M, South Carolina ranked higher than Oklahoma or Florida State. All those teams have 2 losses. These would be my BCS bowl games this year
National title - ND vs Bama
4 BCS games-
Georgia vs Oregon
Kansas State vs Stanford
Oklahoma vs Florida State
Louisville vs N illinois
If you finish 6th in your conference....you don't deserve a championship type game.
FSU? Really? They lost to NCST, man. Our two losses came against LSU (Death Valley at night- about as unwinnable a game as there is in CFB) and then @UF. UF beat FSU at FSU. FSU in no way deserves to be ranked ahead of us. FSU is in the ACC and has their road to the NC giftwrapped for them. They only have to win two big games a year. I have no pity for FSU's failures.
We are ranked ahead of those teams because of strength of schedule... why do you think FSU or OU should be ahead of us? I know why- because it pisses you off that there are 6 SEC teams in the Top 10, and you want to single out USC because we aren't a traditional power.
You've only got 2 SEC team in your BCS bowls when computer rankings, coaches, and the AP think that there are 6 SEC teams in the Top 10. I think you are showing your anti-SEC bias my friend. Again, you wouldn't see me crying about it if computer rankings, real life football coaches, and the AP all thought that 6 Big Ten teams were good enough to be in Top 10, because they would probably be right.
I mean look at what you wrote- you've got a 10-2 FSU team that lost to NCST in a BCS bowl over an 11-1 UF team that beat them in their own house. Ridiculous.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Cock KoolAid237 16 months ago
I disagree. I believe that if 6th in your conference with 10 wins equals being one of the 10 best teams in the nation then you do deserve a BCS game. A lot more than a 2-loss unranked Louisville team. Conferences don't mean anything. Give me a break. Just because a kid won the special olympics doesn't mean anyone wants to watch him swim against Michael Phelps.
We've been over this....this is why there are tie-ins. Conference champions get rewarded and I believe that's the way it should be. If you're that good...then win your conference and shut everyone up. BCS games are for champions....not the highest ranked. Get over it.
LOL yea that's what YOU BELIEVE it should be. Not everyone else. Not just SEC fans either- people who just want to see some decent football. I actually checked out the mGoBlue board a couple of days ago and their own fans were saying the BCS bowls should go Top 10. But you're right, we should just win the SEC, because that's so easy to do. How come I never thought of that? Dude, you win your conference you should get the recognition for that- no doubt... trophy, banner, record book, probably a bowl game... but let's be real- if your conference is worth a damn then you should finish the season in the Top 10 if you win it. Otherwise, your team just isn't that good. Let me know how much you enjoy watching these epic 2012 BCS bowl matchups while sipping on your Delaney Kool Aid. Matter of fact, how exciting was that 70-33 2011 Orange Bowl featuring that amazing ACC champion Clemson that we had just finished curb stomping for the 3rd year in a row. Not all conference championships are created equal.
Remember UGA last year? Won your division. Sparty beat them. Nuff said.
You need to calm yourself and maybe realize who your talking to. I have never gone off onse some anti-SEC post and I didn't single out South Carolina.
The strength of schedule is again based on how everyone perceives other teams. Again everyone things the SEC is so strong so therefore SEC teams schedule strength will be stronger. I never said those teams should be ranked ahead of the 2 loss SEC teams. I just don't believe one should go around claiming they are better because they are ranked higher when they have the same number of losses.
I simply have no interest in watching any conference have more than 2 teams in BCS games. And if you cared to notice i didnt' even have 1 Big Ten team in a BCS game. Just my opinion man.
Against current members of the SEC, I believe Michigan is 20-6-1....pretty good by any standards. We can go in circles about this forever, fact of the matter is that fan of SEC teams are overly confident right now...but they soon forget about how they needed KSU and Oregon to lose for them to even get the chance to play in the NC game. Texas AM just joined the conference....so they're still mostly Big 12 blooded....they dominated your conference in the first year, with a new coach, and new system. SEC is overrated other than Bama and LSU.
If the SEC is so hard....somebody explain to me how TAMU comes in and shreds everybody. Makes you guys look very weak. Heck they beat the #1 team, and gave the #2 and #3 teams in your conference tough games. They had the hardest schedule of anyone in the SEC and they went....as Cock Kool Aid says.....they went HAMM! Explain it. I'll wait. If Notre Dame wins this game....then what? What excuse will come out?
This post was edited by Moon 16 months ago
FYI, Gruden, Tirico, and Spake will be the crew working the Outback Bowl.
My intention was not to turn this into an SEC vs the world conference argument. I just think Top 10 BCS ranks would make much better games than the current system. You're right, Moon. Winning the SEC is not hard. Many conferences are easier to win. Oh and it's "HAM"... one "M"... or it doesn't make any sense. It's an acronym.
And i simply disagreed with you on this. And no it wasn't because of some SEC bias. I just don't want to see a bunch of teams from one conference playing in BCS games.
I feel you, man. We just disagree on who was better this year. I apologize if I came off disrespectful.
Winning any conference is hard for that particular team. I never said it wasn't hard.
You don't think that it's more difficult to win the SEC than it is to win the ACC or Big East?
...then why did Michigan go to one last year?
Dude, you can't claim tSEC looks weak when they've handed the B1G a straight up beatdown over the past 5 or 6 years.
The worst was last years NC game. I remember the whinning of 2006 where it was said how unfair it would be to match up two Big Ten teams for the NC game yet we were all supposed to be fine with an SEC rematch last year. It was the first NC game that I didn't watch in god knows how long. The only thing the game proved is that it would take Bama two tries to beat LSU.
I think it's time to bring pro football to the Southern States. What the SEC is doing to college football is bad for the game. Treating 18 yr. old kids like they are professionals playing for a contract seeems very overboard to me. These are student athletes and most won't go on to the NFL. I would hate to see just what an NCAA investigation would bring up at most SEC schools. Something tells me it would be much worse than USC or Ohio. The NCAA has it's reasons due to the fact that the NCAA itself is corrupted by the money. College football is becoming the NFL and these kids aren't ready for that. The win at all and any cost mentality of the SEC is bad for college football. They need to just call it what it is. Minor league football.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports