Blog Entry

Oversigning debate hits Connecticut legislature

Posted on: February 10, 2011 4:38 pm
 
Posted by Jerry Hinnen

If we haven't yet, let's go ahead and call this the Offseason of Oversigning. No topic has proven to be a bigger hot button since Auburn polished Oregon off in Glendale, with everyone from Nick Saban to USA Today to Bernie Machen to Sports Illustrated's Andy Staples to compliance officials to (as of today) Jay Paterno weighing in on the subject ... and we're not even halfway through February.

Such has been the topic's rapid rise to critical mass that it's even being debated outside the world of college football--in this case, inside the halls of the Connecticut state legislature , where a bill called the "Connecticut Student-Athletes' Right to Know Act" would "require universities to spell out the details" on how and why their athletic scholarships could be revoked or unrenewed.

Appearing before legislative officials to argue for the bill were local professor (and former Notre Dame football player) Allen Sack and former UCLA Bruin Ramogi Huga:
While NCAA rules state that athletic aid cannot be reduced or cancelled during the one-year period of the award because of athletic ability or injury, Sack said, "the rules are murky when it comes to conditions for the renewal and non-renewal of the scholarships in the subsequent year."

"Some universities renew scholarships for four years as long as athletes continue playing and adhere to team rules," said Sack. "Others cancel scholarships for poor athletic performance or for injury" ...

Huma, a former UCLA football player and president of the National College Players Association — a California nonprofit made up of more than 14,000 Division 1 student athletes — also testified at the hearing and went one step further. He said the majority of high school recruits decide which college to attend based on "false information given to them by athletic recruiters."

Most recruits and their parents have no idea, Huma said, that colleges can "leave them with sports-related medical expenses, take away their scholarship for any reason, leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in educational-related expenses, and hold their eligibility and scholarship opportunities hostage when they try to transfer schools."
Though neither Sack nor Huga specifically refers to the practice of oversigning, the controversy over whether teams (in Sack's words) "cancel scholarships for poor athletic performance" in order to make room for new recruits nonetheless puts it at the heart of the bill. It's hardly coincidence it appears just as the debate over oversigning reaches its most heated point, just as it wasn't coincidence Saban prematurely echoed Sank's words by saying "We have never gotten rid of a player because of his physical ability" in his defense of his recruiting practices.

The bill still has many hurdles to clear before passing, including a check with the NCAA to make it sure it doesn't run afoul of (or further complicate) NCAA regulations. And, of course, there's a massive, massive gulf between one such bill passing in Connecticut (where UConn would be the only FBS program affected) and nationwide oversigning reform enacted by either the NCAA or the government.

But the point remains: more than ever it appears college football is sloping towards some kind of oversigning legislation, and that the only real question is how slippery that slope will be.

Comments

Since: Dec 31, 2006
Posted on: February 10, 2011 8:14 pm
 

Oversigning debate hits Connecticut legislature

The one single thing that a prospective high school athlete gets from a college is the promise of an education. A free four year ride so that they will prepared for the world outside of athletics. We all know the minute amount of college athletes that actually make the pros, so this is the one thing of value that they receive. They receive no cut of the merchandising, no cut of the game proceeds, no cut of the TV rights. All they get is an opportunity for an education.
Whoops, not so fast, they are not even guaranteed that! 
So, if it turns out that the athlete doesn't live up to their promise, or heaven forbid, they get hurt throwing their bodies around in the name of their school, the school can just walk away from them.
That's just pathetic.
To be honest, the value of most education opportunities students get is poor to begin with, but I can blame them for that. The school doesn't force them to major in kinesiology. However, the counter argument might be made that in the major sports, the time demands are such, it's probably difficult to have a real major.
However, if that's what the student wants to do, they are least due that.
It's a sham what colleges do for athletes. I would encourage all of them to simply bypass college and get paid for what they do. The only thing that an athlete gets today is exposure. I'd rather get paid, thanks.



Since: Dec 21, 2010
Posted on: February 10, 2011 6:32 pm
 

Oversigning debate hits Connecticut legislature

This bill will never get passed in Alabama, South Carolina or Mississippi


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com