Still can't figure out how some teams sign 30 kids a year.

[TNCatfanforever]

UT signed 33 last year and they have at least 29 in this class. I know there is a 25 limit....we need to figure out how to skirt this rule.

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by TNCatfanforever:
UT signed 33 last year and they have at least 29 in this class. I know there is a 25 limit....we need to figure out how to skirt this rule.

UT had only signed 17 in the 2013 class, that gave them the ability to back count 8 against 2013 + their 25 for 2014. This year they cannot do that.

There is no sense in signing 30 kids if you can't get 30 kids who can help you...and you're still limited to 85 total.
.
Any kids over 25 that are committed have to greyshirt or blueshirt...below describes blueshirt.


A blueshirt is a player who arrived on campus as a "preferred" or "recruited" walk-on and goes on to earn a football scholarship. The NCAA doesn't allow for schools to produce written promises of scholarships to walk-ons, but that doesn't stop a school from telling a prospect who walks on that an offer is coming after a certain point.
"There are a couple of different ways you can award a blueshirt scholarship," one Big 12 coach said. "We'll have some cases of a player arriving for the start of fall practices, and we'll then immediately put them on scholarship after the end of fall camp, then count the scholarship forward - against the 2015 class, for example - and announce them on the following signing day.

"The other way is if there's a player, and we know we'll have a scholarship coming open at a certain position. We tell them if you come as a freshman, pay your own way, a scholarship will come open at this point in time, and it's yours."

There is one advantage of encouraging a kid to be a blueshirt as opposed to a grayshirt. Unlike grayshirts, who aren't allowed to practice or be around the program for the first semester out of high school, a blueshirt can practice and play immediately, as long as he pays his own way. The only catch is the prospect may not have been recruited, meaning he can't have taken a paid official visit to the school or signed any kind of financial-aid agreement.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I agree. If they can't help; don't offer them. No need in taking players just to have bodies. Depth is one thing. Dead weight is another.

EVERYTHING rides on this season and upcoming recruiting class

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

The SEC allows you to sign 28 but 25 is how many you can admit. You can skirt that rule by having some enter in Jan and count back to the preceding class if numbers allow, you can have the grayshirt which is where they don't enroll until the following Jan or what they call a blueshirt, which I don't fully understand and don't think anyone else does either and a few schools, like UT abuse it. But it involves the player walking on for a semester or maybe a year and is promised a scholarship when numbers allow.

 

[*Bleedingblue*]

Sounds to me like a blue shirt is nothing but preferred walk on. If says that when the kid is given the schollie then he will be announced with the class. As you can see by UT's class they have already announced.
I'd like to know as well as how they are skirting the rules. I don't care of they kicked off 20 guys from last years class because they weren't good enough they are still counted because they enrolled. If you had a class of 20 you can sign 30 next year but 5 of them have to be early enrollee's.
So now since they had several enroll early last year, don't know how many though those count towards the class before. If they signed 33 that means at least 8 had to backfill the last class to leave them with 25 for the '14 class and can only sign 25 for the '15 class.

If they had say only recruited 13 players in the '13 class then you could say early enroll 12 for the '14 class leaving 21 of the 33 to be a signed recruit for the 2014 class even though your number is 33. So in the '15 class you can early enroll 4 and sign another 25 for a total of 29.

Is this correct?

This post was edited on 2/4 2:12 PM by *Bleedingblue*

 

[LosGatos]

Unless I missed the change, the SEC limit on LOIs is still 25, not 28. It was 28 several years ago but has been 25 for the last couple of years.

 

[GhostVol]

Originally posted by *Bleedingblue*:
Sounds to me like a blue shirt is nothing but preferred walk on. If says that when the kid is given the schollie then he will be announced with the class. As you can see by UT's class they have already announced.
I'd like to know as well as how they are skirt in the rules. I don't care of they kicked off 20 guys from last years class cause they weren't good enough they are still counted because they enrolled. If you had a class of 20 you can sign 30 next year but 5 of them have to be early enrollee's.
So now since they had several enroll early last year, don't know how many though those count towards the class before. If they signed 33 that means at least 8 had to backfill the last class to leave them with 25 for the '14 class and can only sign 25 for the '15 class. If they had say only recruited 15 players in the '13 class then you could say early enroll 12 for the '14 class leaving 21 of the 33 to be a signed recruit for the 2014 class even though your number is 33. So in the '15 class you can early enroll 4 and sign another 25 for a total of 29.

Is this correct?

Here to help. We have 2 kids that will blueshirt in the 2015 class. Both are in-state recruits. Both VOLUNTEERED (see what I did there) to blueshirt since they were UT commits all along and never did 'official' visits...thus they were eligible to blueshirt. Both are financially able to enroll and pay their own way until school actually begins in the fall. Once classes begin, they can be put on scholarship. They DO NOT count against the 25 yearly signees, but they DO count against the 85 total. If you want to blame somebody, blame New Mexico State. They started the whole 'blueshirt' thing and the NCAA went along with it.

 

[*Bleedingblue*]

Originally posted by GhostVol:

Originally posted by *Bleedingblue*:
Sounds to me like a blue shirt is nothing but preferred walk on. If says that when the kid is given the schollie then he will be announced with the class. As you can see by UT's class they have already announced.
I'd like to know as well as how they are skirt in the rules. I don't care of they kicked off 20 guys from last years class cause they weren't good enough they are still counted because they enrolled. If you had a class of 20 you can sign 30 next year but 5 of them have to be early enrollee's.
So now since they had several enroll early last year, don't know how many though those count towards the class before. If they signed 33 that means at least 8 had to backfill the last class to leave them with 25 for the '14 class and can only sign 25 for the '15 class. If they had say only recruited 15 players in the '13 class then you could say early enroll 12 for the '14 class leaving 21 of the 33 to be a signed recruit for the 2014 class even though your number is 33. So in the '15 class you can early enroll 4 and sign another 25 for a total of 29.

Is this correct?

Here to help. We have 2 kids that will blueshirt in the 2015 class. Both are in-state recruits. Both VOLUNTEERED (see what I did there) to blueshirt since they were UT commits all along and never did 'official' visits...thus they were eligible to blueshirt. Both are financially able to enroll and pay their own way until school actually begins in the fall. Once classes begin, they can be put on scholarship. They DO NOT count against the 25 yearly signees, but they DO count against the 85 total. If you want to blame somebody, blame New Mexico State. They started the whole 'blueshirt' thing and the NCAA went along with it.

So what your saying is that your gonna have to kick off 2 more players off the team to make room for these guys? Do these 2 recruits have it in writing that they are guaranteed 2 have those 2 spots? Or can Jones pull a Petrino and tell them to make tracks?

 

[WildCard]

Originally posted by GhostVol:

Originally posted by *Bleedingblue*:
Sounds to me like a blue shirt is nothing but preferred walk on. If says that when the kid is given the schollie then he will be announced with the class. As you can see by UT's class they have already announced.
I'd like to know as well as how they are skirt in the rules. I don't care of they kicked off 20 guys from last years class cause they weren't good enough they are still counted because they enrolled. If you had a class of 20 you can sign 30 next year but 5 of them have to be early enrollee's.
So now since they had several enroll early last year, don't know how many though those count towards the class before. If they signed 33 that means at least 8 had to backfill the last class to leave them with 25 for the '14 class and can only sign 25 for the '15 class. If they had say only recruited 15 players in the '13 class then you could say early enroll 12 for the '14 class leaving 21 of the 33 to be a signed recruit for the 2014 class even though your number is 33. So in the '15 class you can early enroll 4 and sign another 25 for a total of 29.

Is this correct?

Here to help. We have 2 kids that will blueshirt in the 2015 class. Both are in-state recruits. Both VOLUNTEERED (see what I did there) to blueshirt since they were UT commits all along and never did 'official' visits...thus they were eligible to blueshirt. Both are financially able to enroll and pay their own way until school actually begins in the fall. Once classes begin, they can be put on scholarship. They DO NOT count against the 25 yearly signees, but they DO count against the 85 total. If you want to blame somebody, blame New Mexico State. They started the whole 'blueshirt' thing and the NCAA went along with it.

Yeah, but....

We all understand a grey shirt but it is easier to discuss using actual dates (i.e., 2015 and 2016). Let's recap. You simply ask a 2015 prospect to "full time enroll" in the spring semester (calendar year 2016) rather than the fall semester. He essentially becomes your first recruit of the 2016 recruiting year and counts in the 2016 class. The grey shirt player can sit out the 2015 fall semester or enroll but not take more than 12 hours (to extend his official college start date to 2016). If enrolled, he cannot participate in team activities during the fall term.


Note: As recently as a few years ago the NLI had specific language about "deferred enrollment" but I cannot remember exactly what it said. Unfortunately, the current document is not available for public viewing. Hmmmm...

The point I wanted to revisit was whether or not acceptance of deferred enrollment also guaranteed financial aid at the time of enrollment.


I'm still not sure I get "blue shirting". It appears to be merely an "extension" of grey shirting. Per example above, the kids must be "un-recruited walk ons" (

) in the fall, be fully enrolled and may participate with the team as walk ons. Now to clarify Ghost Vol's post above they cannot be put on scholarship "once classes begin" unless the fall 2015 scholarship count is 83 or less on the first day of class. But if that was the case, they could have been placed on scholarship earlier. If the 2015 fall semester begins with less than 85 scholarships the surplus scholarships can be awarded to anyone (current walk ons; new walk on or pending grey shirts).

However if on the first day of fall classes the scholarship count is 85, they cannot receive financial aid until the spring 2016 semester when they become "counters" against the 2016 class. i.e., financially speaking, the same as grey shirting. However, for these kids, their 5 year eligibility clock begins in fall, 2015 not spring 2016.

Clear as mud???

Peace



This post was edited on 2/7 11:18 PM by WildCard

 

[BigTyrone]

Vols and Cards helping us out. The world has gone mad.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Originally posted by LosGatos:
Unless I missed the change, the SEC limit on LOIs is still 25, not 28. It was 28 several years ago but has been 25 for the last couple of years.

You can sign 28, but only 25 can be a part of the class, you lose 3 scholarships if those other 3 aren't admitted in the next class

 

[*Bleedingblue*]

Grumpy are you saying that you can have 28 commit but those extra 3 will have to be for the next years recruiting class? So that means they will only take 22 commits instead of 25 for the '16 class?

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

No, if you have some you think might not qualify and have to attend prep school. The drawback is they are the only ones who can use that scholarship for a year, if they don't make it back you can only take 22 in the next class, if they get back you can take the 25, just 3 of them have to be those kids. We had 2 a couple years ago, 1 made it, one didn't, had one in this class, he didn't make it. If he had we could have taken 31 with the EE. Only signed 29, right now anyway still trying for number 30. We also picked up 1 from UAB, he's a sr and don't really know if he will be more than depth at ILB, we are awfully thin there.

 

[C1180]

That sure is clear as mud to me. The NCAA regulations seem almost as clear as the federal income tax code.

All of this BS sound like just a way for shysters to try to beat the system. IMO all of this could be simplified. How about just set an 85 limit and teams be allow to sign whatever amount needed to keep them at the 85 limit. Then make SSs four years unless there is misconduct on the part of the SS holder to make it difficult for coaches to run players off. Some years you could sign a lot and some years you would only be able to sign a few. It would make teams manage their signings better.. You say but how could the NCAA punish teams by taking away SS? Easy just lower the 85 limit the number of SS they are losing for the number of years specified. Lose 5 SS their limit is 80. Lose 5 SS a year for two years their SS limit 80 first year and is 75 the second year. You say but then they could sign enough players to catch up. I say why not they were only supposed to be punished for two years not a longer period of time.

Another thing is this would eliminate teams having low rosters of SS players because players flunked out, transferred, or left early for the NFL.

 

[hmt5000]

Originally posted by C1180:

That sure is clear as mud to me. The NCAA regulations seem almost as clear as the federal income tax code.

All of this BS sound like just a way for shysters to try to beat the system. IMO all of this could be simplified. How about just set an 85 limit and teams be allow to sign whatever amount needed to keep them at the 85 limit. Then make SSs four years unless there is misconduct on the part of the SS holder to make it difficult for coaches to run players off. Some years you could sign a lot and some years you would only be able to sign a few. It would make teams manage their signings better.. You say but how could the NCAA punish teams by taking away SS? Easy just lower the 85 limit the number of SS they are losing for the number of years specified. Lose 5 SS their limit is 80. Lose 5 SS a year for two years their SS limit 80 first year and is 75 the second year. You say but then they could sign enough players to catch up. I say why not they were only supposed to be punished for two years not a longer period of time.

Another thing is this would eliminate teams having low rosters of SS players because players flunked out, transferred, or left early for the NFL.

or even make schollies a 2 year contract to be renewable after 2 years. that way you can run off people who are just "attending" school. but that would keep schools from running off kids after the first year to make room for more "tryouts".

 

[RV2]

Originally posted by hmt5000:
or even make schollies a 2 year contract to be renewable after 2 years. that way you can run off people who are just "attending" school. but that would keep schools from running off kids after the first year to make room for more "tryouts".

Scholarships are a one year contract so nothing keeps a school from running players off if necessary.

SEC teams are limited to 25 LOI's per year per conference rules. You can back count those you don't use but once a kid signs that's it for that LOI - it can't be reused for that particular class.

NCAA mandates only 25 initial qualifiers per year. You can back count any of those that go unused from one year to the next if those kids enroll mid year.

It's really not that complicated.

Tennessee and others circumvent these rules by 'not offering' and hosting kids not on 'official visits'. They just show up and enroll and are sometimes given an open scholarship at a later date.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by hmt5000:

Originally posted by C1180:

That sure is clear as mud to me. The NCAA regulations seem almost as clear as the federal income tax code.

All of this BS sound like just a way for shysters to try to beat the system. IMO all of this could be simplified. How about just set an 85 limit and teams be allow to sign whatever amount needed to keep them at the 85 limit. Then make SSs four years unless there is misconduct on the part of the SS holder to make it difficult for coaches to run players off. Some years you could sign a lot and some years you would only be able to sign a few. It would make teams manage their signings better.. You say but how could the NCAA punish teams by taking away SS? Easy just lower the 85 limit the number of SS they are losing for the number of years specified. Lose 5 SS their limit is 80. Lose 5 SS a year for two years their SS limit 80 first year and is 75 the second year. You say but then they could sign enough players to catch up. I say why not they were only supposed to be punished for two years not a longer period of time.

Another thing is this would eliminate teams having low rosters of SS players because players flunked out, transferred, or left early for the NFL.

or even make schollies a 2 year contract to be renewable after 2 years. that way you can run off people who are just "attending" school. but that would keep schools from running off kids after the first year to make room for more "tryouts".

You might be right about the 2 year thing for those that are not making an effort. The problem is who is going to make that determination. I sure wouldn't count on coaches like Saban and Petrino
making a fair determination.

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by C1180:

That sure is clear as mud to me. The NCAA regulations seem almost as clear as the federal income tax code.

All of this BS sound like just a way for shysters to try to beat the system. IMO all of this could be simplified. How about just set an 85 limit and teams be allow to sign whatever amount needed to keep them at the 85 limit. Then make SSs four years unless there is misconduct on the part of the SS holder to make it difficult for coaches to run players off. Some years you could sign a lot and some years you would only be able to sign a few. It would make teams manage their signings better.. You say but how could the NCAA punish teams by taking away SS? Easy just lower the 85 limit the number of SS they are losing for the number of years specified. Lose 5 SS their limit is 80. Lose 5 SS a year for two years their SS limit 80 first year and is 75 the second year. You say but then they could sign enough players to catch up. I say why not they were only supposed to be punished for two years not a longer period of time.

Another thing is this would eliminate teams having low rosters of SS players because players flunked out, transferred, or left early for the NFL.

There was a proposal this year to make all scholarships 4 year contracts and the student representatives on the rules committee were almost all against that measure. Most of the administrators thought that the student athletes would want 4 yr scholarships but the students argued that coaches shouldn't be bound to keeping athletes who weren't giving effort.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Originally posted by C1180:

That sure is clear as mud to me. The NCAA regulations seem almost as clear as the federal income tax code.

All of this BS sound like just a way for shysters to try to beat the system. IMO all of this could be simplified. How about just set an 85 limit and teams be allow to sign whatever amount needed to keep them at the 85 limit. Then make SSs four years unless there is misconduct on the part of the SS holder to make it difficult for coaches to run players off. Some years you could sign a lot and some years you would only be able to sign a few. It would make teams manage their signings better.. You say but how could the NCAA punish teams by taking away SS? Easy just lower the 85 limit the number of SS they are losing for the number of years specified. Lose 5 SS their limit is 80. Lose 5 SS a year for two years their SS limit 80 first year and is 75 the second year. You say but then they could sign enough players to catch up. I say why not they were only supposed to be punished for two years not a longer period of time.

Another thing is this would eliminate teams having low rosters of SS players because players flunked out, transferred, or left early for the NFL.

There was a proposal this year to make all scholarships 4 year contracts and the student representatives on the rules committee were almost all against that measure. Most of the administrators thought that the student athletes would want 4 yr scholarships but the students argued that coaches shouldn't be bound to keeping athletes who weren't giving effort.

I also have a problem with student athletes not giving proper effort keeping their SS but like I said in my earlier post just who can be trusted to determine those that are giving proper effort and those that are not. There is going to be some working their butts off but can not cut it. I can see a coach suggesting to those kid that they think they would be better served by going to a lower level but I would not like their SSs being pulled.

I have never had a problem with the SSs of slackers being pulled but again who makes the determination of who is a slacker. There is some really great athletes that are basically slackers because they refuse to expend the effort to be great and only expend enough effort to be mediocre and always under achieved. If I was a coach those types would really disgust me and I would love the ones of lesser talent that always gave great effort and dared to over achieve.