As I hoped you gleaned, “roster management” at any level makes me uncomfortable. If a student chooses to no longer participate (which includes injury or violation of team guidelines), then it totally makes sense for them to look elsewhere. However, if the decision is “encouraged” then it shows once again that the goal of the program is not about the student’s development but other factors. James Jackson’s situation at OSU is such an example.

I think that you may be correct regarding the total numbers piece in the B1G. What’s interesting, though, is that the SEC’s rules have just come into play in the past few years (it’s called the Houston Nutt Rule for a reason), while the B1G has had these guidelines in place for much longer (1956). The 25 per year number is a good guideline, although it does allow for oversigning if a team only has 15 openings but still brings in 25 new teammates on NLOID.

While I agree with you that the “result” is still problematic (as I mentioned above), the process of being able to explain how you’re going to reach your numbers to the conference office on or around NLOID seems different to me than the appearance of some schools to still be juggling personnel into June and July. If, as we’ve both said, students are being “encouraged” to look elsewhere, wouldn’t you rather know that in February than a month or so before you hoped to begin your season?

There have been huge strides made in this- four year scholarship guarantees are a huge step in the right direction, and it’s good to see many SEC, PAC, ACC, an B1G schools commit to this. However, the fact is that this part of what’s allegedly an element of the educational endeavors of a University continues to be an unfortunate aspect of the reality of semi-professional sports.

We’ll be continuing to watch this situation, both at OSU and elsewhere in the B1G, and will be among the first to draw attention to the practice should it begin to shift and become less integrous.

If you continue to look at it this way honestly, you will come to one of two conclusions: 1) OSU, like oversigning teams are both actively removing players from their rosters to make room for new recruits. There really isn’t any difference between cutting 9 guys in Dec. and Jan. to gain more signees in Feb, and signing more guys in Feb, then cutting 9 guys in June and July. OR 2) OSU, like oversigning teams are simply acting on attrition. If Urban Meyer sits down and is honest with his players so they can make a choice to stay or go, can we not assume the same of coaches like Nick Saban? The difference is really only when the transfers are announced – the choice by the player is no different. If a player wants to transfer, but finish out his school year, why should he announce to the world (and current teamates) that he’s leaving? Perhaps the player wants to try one more Spring practice before he makes up his mind – a coach like Saban can sign a guy with the understanding that he may need to greyshirt if the first player decides to stay. The point is, oversigning can be done without cutting any kids, just like not oversigning. It just depends on how you look at it and how much you read into things you don’t have all the facts about.

Secondly, you have the SEC and B10 rules on oversigning confused. The SEC has a cap on the yearly signings (I really don’t know how TAMU is getting away with this class) while the B10 rule deals strictly with the 85 total roster number. A B10 team can sign as many as they want (within the NCAA rules) as long as they stay within the 85 limit (although they can go over by 3 as long as they are open about how they do it).

Lastly, allow me to ask you to talk to Bryan Thomas about Urban’s roster management style.

This ‘open bank account’ thing is bothersome to me. I agree with you, it strikes me as a Compliance Dept asset coverer. Actually, offering budget & money management course to general student population isn’t a bad idea.

I guess the Conference did get it right with the four-year scholarships and per-class cap limit. IMO it would tend to encourage athletic departments to constrain themselves.

The proposed UM uniforms are hideous; no wonder some of their players have DQ’s themselves from wearing them in the bowl game. The frontal pic looks like the mannequin either found a place to store his extra sweat socks or is trying to smuggle grapes.