Did ya'll seriously think ND could compete w/SEC

dtgold, you are right it has been different from year to year if a team needs to win a conf to get in, cuz not only a sec team got in without winning their conf so did 2 big12 teams! and i also think that fsu went twice with a loss,neb once,oklahoma twice and ohio state once all went with a loss. my point is it sems if you are fair about it, its not only sec teams that have gone ahead of other teams

dtgold, you are right it has been different from year to year if a team needs to win a conf to get in, cuz not only a sec team got in without winning their conf so did 2 big12 teams! and i also think that fsu went twice with a loss,neb once,oklahoma twice and ohio state once all went with a loss. my point is it sems if you are fair about it, its not only sec teams that have gone ahead of other teams    

I agree with some of what you are saying, Denny, however, things have been a bit different since the SEC run started in 2006. For the past 7 years, SECs teams get the benefit of the doubt one way or the other, mostly due to the pollsters. They will either be the highest ranked 1 (or 2) loss team, they will be the last of those teams to lose, or even if not the last to lose (LSU in 2007) they will still get into the title game.

While I am sure occasionally it happened for other schools/conferences, it has occurred for the SEC in 4 of the past 7 years (where there was arguably another school as deserving).

As for OSU, they were the only 1-loss team in the year you mentioned.     

While I am sure occasionally it happened for other schools/conferences, it has occurred for the SEC in 4 of the past 7 years (where there was arguably another school as deserving).

The SEC has benefitted in the polls, no doubt, but since the formula change in 04, the pollsters have carried the day in each ranking, i.e.,  the computer rankings have not changed the outcome of the 1 vs. 2 matchup.  The polls #1 and #2 team have made it each year.

The simple fact remains that the SEC backed into the BCS NC game this year, last year, in 07, and 06.  In each of those years teams destined for the BCS NC game, lost and an SEC team was there to fill the void.  If those teams don't lose, the SEC team does not make it.  In 07 and this year, 2 teams had to lose for the SEC team to make it.

When only 2 teams can make it, there are going to be more teams left out than can make it.  It happens.   

As for OSU, they were the only 1-loss team in the year you mentioned. 

KAN was also a 1 loss team that year.    

While I am sure occasionally it happened for other schools/conferences, it has occurred for the SEC in 4 of the past 7 years (where there was arguably another school as deserving).

The SEC has benefitted in the polls, no doubt, but since the formula change in 04, the pollsters have carried the day in each ranking, i.e.,  the computer rankings have not changed the outcome of the 1 vs. 2 matchup.  The polls #1 and #2 team have made it each year.


Exactly, and it's fairly obvious the pollsters have an SEC bias. 

The simple fact remains that the SEC backed into the BCS NC game this year, last year, in 07, and 06.  In each of those years teams destined for the BCS NC game, lost and an SEC team was there to fill the void.  If those teams don't lose, the SEC team does not make it.  In 07 and this year, 2 teams had to lose for the SEC team to make it.

When only 2 teams can make it, there are going to be more teams left out than can make it.  It happens.  

The other simple fact is it was always an SEC ready and waiting (read - the next in the polls) to claim the spot. Fact is the only way a team makes it ahead of an SEC team is to have less losses. If it's equal write the SEC team's ticket to the game. 


As for OSU, they were the only 1-loss team in the year you mentioned.

KAN was also a 1 loss team that year.  


You are correct...my mistake. Another example of how foolish we are to rely so much on polls. Clearly, if Kansas started the season higher, they are in the title game that year (deserving or not).  

Boy this thread has gotten way out of hand... LOL... Been funny to read though.....

When only 2 teams can make it, there are going to be more teams left out than can make it.  It happens.   

The other simple fact is it was always an SEC ready and waiting (read - the next in the polls) to claim the spot. Fact is the only way a team makes it ahead of an SEC team is to have less losses. If it's equal write the SEC team's ticket to the game. 


Ready and waiting?  OK, but one could make the case that had a SUPERIOR team taken care of business, the SEC team, regardless of being "next in line"  would not have mattered.  Had USC taken care of business against UCLA, USC, not FLA would have gone in 06.  

Same thing in 07.  If MO was indeed the best team in the country, a win over OU would have been enough to keep LSU out of the BCS NC game. The same was true of WVU.  If either wins, it mattered NOT where LSU was in the rankings.  They lost to ARK the previous week and for all intent and purpose WAS TOAST.  

Last year saw OK ST choke it off to IOWA ST in the next to last game of the year.  Like all other years, teams fall in the rankings when they lose.  ALA just happened to be next in line.  You can cry all you want, but when the PAC champ, ORE is #5, having been roasted by #1 LSU, and the #4 team is STAN, a loser to ORE, it is easy to understand WHY ALA was next in line.  The simple answer:  OK ST takes care of business at a 6-7 IOWA ST team and OK ST, NOT ALA is playing in the BCS NC game.

Same thing this year.  ALA loses to TX AM and plays their way OUT of the BCS NC game.  Very few people thought 2 of the 3 remaining undefeated teams would lose 1 of their 2 remaining games.  It is comical to think an SEC WOULD NOT fill the void when ALA, UGA, FLA, LSU, TX AM, and S. CAR were ranked #4 to #9.  ORE and KAN ST both lost to put an SEC team back in the mix.  Just like in 07, each lost.  That was the only way an SEC team was going to go to the BCS NC game.

It happens.  Get over it already.






















 

When only 2 teams can make it, there are going to be more teams left out than can make it.  It happens.  

The other simple fact is it was always an SEC ready and waiting (read - the next in the polls) to claim the spot. Fact is the only way a team makes it ahead of an SEC team is to have less losses. If it's equal write the SEC team's ticket to the game.


Ready and waiting?  OK, but one could make the case that had a SUPERIOR team taken care of business, the SEC team, regardless of being "next in line"  would not have mattered.  Had USC taken care of business against UCLA, USC, not FLA would have gone in 06. 

Look, SECFAN, I get you have some comprehension issues, but it's getting tiresome having to explain everything to you like you are in elementary school. Yes, USC would have made it without a loss over a 1-loss Florida team. But the point is with an equal number of losses, we know the SEC team is going.  

I'll say it slowly for you again (read more than once if need be).......In their "dominant" run since 2006, when teams have an equal number of losses, the SEC team is getting the benefit of the doubt. Every time.  conference champ, not a conference champ, last team to lose...doesn't really matter

Same thing in 07.  If MO was indeed the best team in the country, a win over OU would have been enough to keep LSU out of the BCS NC game. The same was true of WVU.  If either wins, it mattered NOT where LSU was in the rankings.  They lost to ARK the previous week and for all intent and purpose WAS TOAST. 

see above 

Last year saw OK ST choke it off to IOWA ST in the next to last game of the year.  Like all other years, teams fall in the rankings when they lose.  ALA just happened to be next in line.  You can cry all you want, but when the PAC champ, ORE is #5, having been roasted by #1 LSU, and the #4 team is STAN, a loser to ORE, it is easy to understand WHY ALA was next in line.  The simple answer:  OK ST takes care of business at a 6-7 IOWA ST team and OK ST, NOT ALA is playing in the BCS NC game.

topnotch spin, but what do Oregon and Stanford have to do with Okie State? I also love how you make mention only of the 1 loss of Okie State, but forget they had far more quality wins than Bama.

And, yes, I get an undefeated Okie State makes it over a 1-loss Alabama. At some point I'm hoping you will understand this is irrelevant.   

Same thing this year.  ALA loses to TX AM and plays their way OUT of the BCS NC game.  Very few people thought 2 of the 3 remaining undefeated teams would lose 1 of their 2 remaining games.  It is comical to think an SEC WOULD NOT fill the void when ALA, UGA, FLA, LSU, TX AM, and S. CAR were ranked #4 to #9. 

And this is part of the problem, as Georgia, Fla, S. Carolina and LSU are simply the Overrated 4, and undeserving of ALL being ranked as high as they were. Just ask Clemson and Louisville.

  ORE and KAN ST both lost to put an SEC team back in the mix.  Just like in 07, each lost.  That was the only way an SEC team was going to go to the BCS NC game.

It happens.  Get over it already.

What makes you think I'm not "over it". Because I am discussing it does not mean I'm all that bothered by it. You are also discussing it. Perhaps you need to stop crying, as well. My team was in the title game in 2007, so I didn't have a dog in the fight as to who should get into the game.

They didn't have a shot at getting in the last 2 years either.   If I'm not mistaken, aren't you a big proponent of a playoff? Does this mean you should have stopped crying, and never posted this opinion? 

Look, SECFAN, I get you have some comprehension issues, but it's getting tiresome having to explain everything to you like you are in elementary school. Yes, USC would have made it without a loss over a 1-loss Florida team. But the point is with an equal number of losses, we know the SEC team is going. 

I have comprehension problems?  How is it in the same post you state that USC would have made it over FLA, but then end by saying with an equal number of loses, we know the SEC team is going?  

How does that work?  Going into the last week of the 2006 regular season, USC was #2 with a 10-1 record.  FLA was #4 with a 11-1 record.

You might want to take your time in responding as I have comprehension issues.

Thanks 

Look, SECFAN, I get you have some comprehension issues, but it's getting tiresome having to explain everything to you like you are in elementary school. Yes, USC would have made it without a loss over a 1-loss Florida team. But the point is with an equal number of losses, we know the SEC team is going.

I have comprehension problems? 

Yes

How is it in the same post you state that USC would have made it over FLA, but then end by saying with an equal number of loses, we know the SEC team is going? 

How does that work?  Going into the last week of the 2006 regular season, USC was #2 with a 10-1 record.  FLA was #4 with a 11-1 record.

You might want to take your time in responding as I have comprehension issues.

Thanks     

You know what, SECFAN, you are correct. My apologies (this is what one is supposed to do when he is proven incorrect or makes a mistake).  Was thinking  they had 0 losses.


That said, they did still make it over a 1-loss Michigan team. And I don't think Michigan should have been given a do-over, but since Bama got one.....  

And the other examples you gave recently where a team missed out because they lost was not like this scenario....those were instances where you claimed the non SEC team would have made it with LESS losses. 

Last year saw OK ST choke it off to IOWA ST in the next to last game of the year.  Like all other years, teams fall in the rankings when they lose.  ALA just happened to be next in line.  You can cry all you want, but when the PAC champ, ORE is #5, having been roasted by #1 LSU, and the #4 team is STAN, a loser to ORE, it is easy to understand WHY ALA was next in line.  The simple answer:  OK ST takes care of business at a 6-7 IOWA ST team and OK ST, NOT ALA is playing in the BCS NC game.

topnotch spin, but what do Oregon and Stanford have to do with Okie State? I also love how you make mention only of the 1 loss of Okie State, but forget they had far more quality wins than Bama.

And, yes, I get an undefeated Okie State makes it over a 1-loss Alabama. At some point I'm hoping you will understand this is irrelevant.    

It's relevant because STAN, like ALA was a non-conference champ and ORE had 2 losses as did every other team and had already lost to LSU.

The ONLY team that did not fall into that category was OK ST.  What you fail to understand is how the polls work.  When a team loses LAST, they FALL in the rankings.  It is not always supposed to happen, but the last time a team lost last and still made the BCS NC game was OU in 03.  That went over so well they changed the formula.  Since then EVERY team destined for the BCS NC game and LOST LAST has NOT made the BCS NC game.  It was no different this year than last year and every other year since the formula change.  It happens.  

If yo understand that an undefeated OK ST gets in over a 1 loss ALA, what is so hard to understand that pollsters punish teams when they lose? That is very relevant. 

Last year saw OK ST choke it off to IOWA ST in the next to last game of the year.  Like all other years, teams fall in the rankings when they lose.  ALA just happened to be next in line.  You can cry all you want, but when the PAC champ, ORE is #5, having been roasted by #1 LSU, and the #4 team is STAN, a loser to ORE, it is easy to understand WHY ALA was next in line.  The simple answer:  OK ST takes care of business at a 6-7 IOWA ST team and OK ST, NOT ALA is playing in the BCS NC game.

topnotch spin, but what do Oregon and Stanford have to do with Okie State? I also love how you make mention only of the 1 loss of Okie State, but forget they had far more quality wins than Bama.

And, yes, I get an undefeated Okie State makes it over a 1-loss Alabama. At some point I'm hoping you will understand this is irrelevant.   

It's relevant because STAN, like ALA was a non-conference champ and ORE had 2 losses as did every other team and had already lost to LSU.

The ONLY team that did not fall into that category was OK ST. 

No $hit, which is why I brought up Okie State. Again your comp. issues make me wonder why those 2-loss teams have anything to do with 1-loss Okie State.

  What you fail to understand is how the polls work.  When a team loses LAST, they FALL in the rankings. 

Unless this does not benefit the SEC, like LSu in 2007.

    It is not always supposed to happen, but the last time a team lost last and still made the BCS NC game was OU in 03.  That went over so well they changed the formula.  Since then EVERY team destined for the BCS NC game and LOST LAST has NOT made the BCS NC game.  It was no different this year than last year and every other year since the formula change.  It happens. 

And it's foolish. And no, unlike what you've said in a previous statement, I do not blame the SEC for this. I blame the system, and the pollsters. You only question my thoughts because they appear to be anti-SEC to you. 

If yo understand that an undefeated OK ST gets in over a 1 loss ALA, what is so hard to understand that pollsters punish teams when they lose? That is very relevant.    


I think you've lost mit. No one said they don't punish teams for losing, but the fact remains, when multiple teams have equal losses, Team SEC comes out on top since 2006.

No ****, which is why I brought up Okie State. Again your comp. issues make me wonder why those 2-loss teams have anything to do with 1-loss Okie State.

The other 2 loss teams LOST the 2nd game AFTER ALA did and thus were NOT an alternative to ALA.  The only 1 loss teams were OK ST, STAN and ALA.  STAN and OK ST lost after ALA, as did every other ranked team.  

When it was all said and done, it is easy to understand when ALA climbed to #2. 

And it's foolish. And no, unlike what you've said in a previous statement, I do not blame the SEC for this. I blame the system, and the pollsters. You only question my thoughts because they appear to be anti-SEC to you.  

Putting more words in my mouth dt?  Since when have I blamed the SEC for anything?  I cant help what you think but in EVERY case you have mentioned the SEC team was NOT going to the BCS NC game, UNTIL another team, and in the case of 07 and this year, 2 teams LOST.  Yo can fault anyone you want, but the SEC team was in the right place at the right time, but that does NOT change the fact they were dead in the water and needed a lot of help to make the BCS NC game.


I think you've lost mit. No one said they don't punish teams for losing, but the fact remains, when multiple teams have equal losses, Team SEC comes out on top since 2006.

Hate that. 

No ****, which is why I brought up Okie State. Again your comp. issues make me wonder why those 2-loss teams have anything to do with 1-loss Okie State.

The other 2 loss teams LOST the 2nd game AFTER ALA did and thus were NOT an alternative to ALA.  The only 1 loss teams were OK ST, STAN and ALA.  STAN and OK ST lost after ALA, as did every other ranked team. 

When it was all said and done, it is easy to understand when ALA climbed to #2. 

Actually, no, it is not. Okie State played a far tougher schedule and beat many more quality teams. Actually, I guess I could understand why Bama was the choice, I just find it hard to believe you can't understand why Okie St. was just as deserving.  

 
And no, unlike what you've said in a previous statement, I do not blame the SEC for this. I blame the system, and the pollsters. You only question my thoughts because they appear to be anti-SEC to you.

Putting more words in my mouth dt?  Since when have I blamed the SEC for anything? 

Never said you did. Perhaps you can find where I said YOU blamed the SEC for anything. You thought I blamed the SEC, which isn't the case. Guess those reading comp. issues are there afterall.

  

Actually, no, it is not. Okie State played a far tougher schedule and beat many more quality teams. Actually, I guess I could understand why Bama was the choice, I just find it hard to believe you can't understand why Okie St. was just as deserving. 

There you go again dt.  For the last time, please don't put words in my mouth and please don't say I said something I did not.  Please post where I ever said OK ST was NOT just as deserving.

Get a clue, I never did.

There is a big difference in explaining why something happened and quite another saying what you just attributed to me.  I did the former, not the latter.  Big difference.   

Actually, no, it is not. Okie State played a far tougher schedule and beat many more quality teams. Actually, I guess I could understand why Bama was the choice, I just find it hard to believe you can't understand why Okie St. was just as deserving.

There you go again dt.  For the last time, please don't put words in my mouth and please don't say I said something I did not.  Please post where I ever said OK ST was NOT just as deserving.

Get a clue, I never did.

There is a big difference in explaining why something happened and quite another saying what you just attributed to me.  I did the former, not the latter.  Big difference.      


There is a difference, but then the question begs why you even commented in the first place, other than to come to the rescue on what you thought was a slap at Team SEC. If you believe Okie state was just as deserving, is there a reason you've never tried to make a case for them, but only against them?


Telling, isn't it?      

 If you believe Okie state was just as deserving, is there a reason you've never tried to make a case for them, but only against them?


Telling, isn't it?      


Telling?  You bet it is.  There are a bunch of people on this and other boards that don't have a clue why ALA, not OK ST made the BCS NC game.  I may not agree with the way things shook out, but I am not going to stay on the sidelines when a bunch of misinformation is tossed around.  The way the BCS shook out is pretty much the same each year.  

Ever since the formula change, teams that lose LAST do not make the game.  That was true in the 4 years an SEC team made the BCS NC.  It was true in 06, 07, 11 and 12.  Each of those years played out the same.  Teams destined for the BCS NC game LOST LAST and a SEC team filled the void.  Last year was different in that the next 2 teams in line were BOTH non-conference champs.  The powers that be chose to allow non-conference champs make the BCS NC game and they did not preclude them for doing so, even when they saw the need to change the formula.  NEB in 01 and OU in 03 would not have made the BCS NC game, if the current formula was in place those years.

As pointed out, the fact that the polls comprise 2/3rds of the formula, it is almost a slam dunk the top 2 teams in the polls are going to make the BCS NC game.  That in itself makes the fact that LATE LOSSES are going to hurt those teams.  As I previously pointed out, had OK ST lost to IOWA ST earlier in the season, OK ST, not ALA would have been in the BCS NC game.  Unfortunately for them, it was the 11th game of the season and they could not recover.  


It happens, just as it did in the case of ORE and KAN ST this year. 

If you believe Okie state was just as deserving, is there a reason you've never tried to make a case for them, but only against them?


Telling, isn't it?     


Telling?  You bet it is.  There are a bunch of people on this and other boards that don't have a clue why ALA, not OK ST made the BCS NC game.  I may not agree with the way things shook out, but I am not going to stay on the sidelines when a bunch of misinformation is tossed around.  The way the BCS shook out is pretty much the same each year. 


Agree....SEC teams are overranked so they can be "the next man up" when someone loses.  But the question begs when misinformation is tossed around against Okie state, you remain on the sidelines. It also seems as though in some cases, you confuse misinformation with opinions, however. 

Ever since the formula change, teams that lose LAST do not make the game.  That was true in the 4 years an SEC team made the BCS NC.  It was true in 06, 07, 11 and 12.  Each of those years played out the same.  Teams destined for the BCS NC game LOST LAST and a SEC team filled the void. 

Actually, no, I showed you Oklahoma did not lose last in 2007. You, of course, will not admit this gaffe you made, and I expect will ignore your gaffe again. You will spin and point to the rankings, but the fact is you are claiming something that is not true. LSU lost last and made it.

   

Never said you did. Perhaps you can find where I said YOU blamed the SEC for anything. You thought I blamed the SEC, which isn't the case. Guess those reading comp. issues are there afterall.

My reading comprehension would be a great deal better if knew what you are referring to in your posts.  This is a perfect example.  I cant tell whether the "previous statement"  was in reference to me blaming the SEC.  Now you tell me I said YOU blamed the SEC. 

I would love to see where I accused you of blaming the SEC for anything.  It has been stated many times in this thread and others, it is the system. Knowing that makes it unlikely that I would say as much, but then again I would love to read the post that is so objectionable.

Why don't you take a moment and post the statement you are objecting to?  That would help me understand what you are referring to.  After all, I need all the help I can get.

Never said you did. Perhaps you can find where I said YOU blamed the SEC for anything. You thought I blamed the SEC, which isn't the case. Guess those reading comp. issues are there afterall.

My reading comprehension would be a great deal better if knew what you are referring to in your posts.  This is a perfect example.  I cant tell whether the "previous statement"  was in reference to me blaming the SEC.  Now you tell me I said YOU blamed the SEC.

I would love to see where I accused you of blaming the SEC for anything.  It has been stated many times in this thread and others, it is the system. Knowing that makes it unlikely that I would say as much, but then again I would love to read the post that is so objectionable.

Why don't you take a moment and post the statement you are objecting to?  That would help me understand what you are referring to.  After all, I need all the help I can get.


This would be a lot easier to do if you included it in your replies, as I do. I always include what I am replying to. 

dtgold... bitch to the computers... it's their fault when it happens.  Point is, if an SEC team makes it by hook or crook into the game, it's ballgame.  Checkmate.  

dtgold... bitch to the computers... it's their fault when it happens.  Point is, if an SEC team makes it by hook or crook into the game, it's ballgame.  Checkmate

I can see facts aren't exactly your forte, but I'll provide one anyway.....it's the polls that most determine the participants (2/3rds compared to 1/3 for the computers), not the computers. I don't expect you to acknowledge this gaffe. 

Well dtgold88, bitch at the computers and the coaches. As far as pollsters, you would have to pull most of them out of the a**es of the west coast teams if you wanted to yell at them.  Don't hand me any BS about them being pro- SEC... they are West Coast all the way.  By hook or crook, it is over when SEC is in the game... 7 straight... What does that tell you?  Tells me the coaches and the computers are right, to the extent they can be with a flawed system.  

Well dtgold88, bitch at the computers and the coaches. As far as pollsters, you would have to pull most of them out of the a**es of the west coast teams if you wanted to yell at them.  Don't hand me any BS about them being pro- SEC... they are West Coast all the way.  By hook or crook, it is over when SEC is in the game... 7 straight...

Again, I realize facts are not your strong suit. Which part of "the pollsters determine the title game was hard to understand"? 

If they were so pro West Coast, wouldn't we have more such teams involved?


  What does that tell you?  Tells me the coaches and the computers are right, to the extent they can be with a flawed system. 

Tells me they might be right. Do we know that Okie State would not have beaten LSU, or Oregon would not have pasted ND? 

Brees4mvp....


Man what have you been drinking? I understand You want to hang onto LSU being great but give it a rest.....So bama is 3rd best in the west because they beat LSU on LSU's field at night in a close game? By your logic I guess LSU is no better then Auburn since you beat them 12-10? Or mabye LSU is 6th in the SEC since they are 6-2 in the conf?


You try to point out LSU beat bama at home in 2011 but bama had the better stats that game and lost on the score board but its a LSU win to you....Now you flip the script and its LSU giving the game to bama.


Here I will make it simple for you....Almost doesnt show up on the scoreboard. LSU lost and then lost their bowl for the second straight season.

BamaTime... The point of the thread is that MOST SEC schools would have destroyed ND on Monday night.  I believe that is 100% true.  Alabama has not dominated the SEC, the way many of these moronic posters are pointing out.  They watch ONLY the National Championship game, and think Alabama is heads and shoulders above every other team in the SEC.  That is NOT true, and you have to admit it.  Last year, BAM didn't even win the SEC West.  This year, Bama should/could have have lost 3 SEC games.  I understand Bama got it done, and I tipped my cap to them.  My whole point is that WHOEVER gets in the BCS Championship game from the SEC... wins.  Period.  I got 7 straight test cases to back me up.  Not trying to bash BAMA, but I am dispelling the myth that Bama is this untouchable team from the SEC, with all others far, far behind.  That is not the case.      

BamaTime... The point of the thread is that MOST SEC schools would have destroyed ND on Monday night.  I believe that is 100% true.  Alabama has not dominated the SEC, the way many of these moronic posters are pointing out.  They watch ONLY the National Championship game

That is pure comedy....SEC fan (including you) watches the title game and decides  because an SEC team wins it, they must be the best conference. Now you are saying it's not ONLY about the title game.

I wil also add that Nick Saban is a great coach, and with a month to prepare for a game, he usually wins.  Bama has the best coach in the SEC, and LSU lost its only games this year because of coaching.  

This message has been removed by the administrator.

So long as there are SEC teams that oversign, you bet it is Checkmate.  I believe there are a couple of SEC teams already over the 25 recruit hardcap the SEC supposedly adopted.  I won't hold my breath that the 4 year scholarships will actualy hold true.  I am sure there are a ton of opt out clauses that will let coaches ditch any player they want to.

===========

Actually, you are incorrect that it is oversigning. UGA for example may sign as many as 35 players this year. Why?

We only had 68 players left on scholarship this year, well under what we allowed. The limit would apply if we were maxed out in total scholarships but not if we are under the overall limit. We lost an usually large number to going pro, academics, transfers and kids like Crowell who could not stay out of trouble. Also, if you don't use all your scholarships in one year early admissions can count against the previous year. UGA undersigned last year, mainly because we lost of few big names just before signing day.

The limit was imposed to stop coaches like Nutt who would sign 35 a year they grayshirt or just plain drop the offer on kids. It was not indicitive of the entire conference. UGA didn't ever enter into the picture on oversigning. Another national myth about the SEC.

I only have one problem with a 4 year scholarship. It becomes like a union job then. What do you do with a complete screw up who is coasting? At least now you can pull his scholarship.