forums

'Ship numbers

TheOriginalCane said:
You don't seem to understand the rules. And the intent of the rules.

So what is your genius "new rule" suggestion that will prevent teams from being "penalized" for being under 85, while at the same time preventing teams from having "hundreds of players". And let's not forget, the IC rules are in place to prohibit oversigning.

****, I challenge anyone to come up with an improvement to the rules. I have already suggested two, which would be the creation of two new exceptions (similar to the mid-year graduation exception) that allow an addition to the IC numbers for any (a) grad transfer who leaves, and (b) any non-graduate who is drafted by the NFL.

Maybe even a third exception for non-graduate transfers who leave after 2 full years at the original institution, and maybe with a limitation on the number of appearances (i.e., 4 or fewer games per year). In essence, if you "redshirt" for your first 2 years, you are allowed to go wherever you want, with immediate eligibility, and your original school gets to replace you in the IC numbers.
Click to expand...
It's actually quite simple. However many spots are available, that's a scholarship opportunity. I don't seem to recall all these issues just a few years ago.
 
Advertisement
duke4heisman said:
It's actually quite simple. However many spots are available, that's a scholarship opportunity. I don't seem to recall all these issues just a few years ago.
Click to expand...


BECAUSE THE IC RULES HAD NOT YET BEEN INSTITUTED.

Which part of this do you not understand? We are not getting in Doc Brown's DeLorean and going back in time.

Oversigning was a problem, the IC rules were instituted. Nobody is going to get rid of the IC rules, because then oversigning would become a problem again.

Adapt to the new rules. Make a couple of changes to the new rules. But otherwise, stop talking about "just a few years ago". Those days are gone.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
BECAUSE THE IC RULES HAD NOT YET BEEN INSTITUTED.

Which part of this do you not understand? We are not getting in Doc Brown's DeLorean and going back in time.

Oversigning was a problem, the IC rules were instituted. Nobody is going to get rid of the IC rules, because then oversigning would become a problem again.

Adapt to the new rules. Make a couple of changes to the new rules. But otherwise, stop talking about "just a few years ago". Those days are gone.
Click to expand...
Then that's a problem. What are you referring to with oversigning? You have 85 scholarships available, that's it. It's the same for every team. Why wouldn't any extra be considered the same as a walk on, who obviously isn't good enough for a scholarship anyway or they don't financially need it.
The whole point is it was much much better before and the rules were simple, 85 is 85. Now it's 85 but.....
 
Ive often wondered if UM's football coaches are financially incentivized to not use all of their allotted scholarships. Its not like this is a one time thing, we've consistently operated with an average of about 75 scholarship football players since 2006.

It would devastate most programs if the NCAA were to take away 10 scholarships a year for 5 years, Im not sure UM would even notice. We operate in a constant state of probation. This is why we don't have competition for starting jobs. Its also why we're constantly in a state of rebuilding (total rebuild??).
 
Patreek said:
It makes a lot of sense. Without the initial counter rules teams like Alabama and Georgia would sign 50 kids a year and make half of them wait for scholarships to free up. They'd probably start finding ways to force kids to give up scholarships if they weren't a valuable contributor 2-3 years in.

Where it doesn't make sense is when programs keep hemorrhaging players as soon as they can declare for the NFL or when players transfer to other programs. The initial counter rules do need updated to take into account the realities of college football today. But there is a good reason for having these limits. Without some sort of signing limit the gap between the haves and have-nots would be even more egregious than it is today.
Click to expand...
What makes you think these teams don't do this now?

Most schools, like 98% of them, a football scholarship is a year to year renewal.
 
Advertisement
SFbayCane said:
Ive often wondered if UM's football coaches are financially incentivized to not use all of their allotted scholarships. Its not like this is a one time thing, we've consistently operated with an average of about 75 scholarship football players since 2006.

It would devastate most programs if the NCAA were to take away 10 scholarships a year for 5 years, Im not sure UM would even notice. We operate in a constant state of probation. This is why we don't have competition for starting jobs. Its also why we're constantly in a state of rebuilding (total rebuild??).
Click to expand...


We use all of our allotted scholarships, under the IC rules, every year.

Again, we need better retention.
 
duke4heisman said:
Then that's a problem. What are you referring to with oversigning? You have 85 scholarships available, that's it. It's the same for every team. Why wouldn't any extra be considered the same as a walk on, who obviously isn't good enough for a scholarship anyway or they don't financially need it.
The whole point is it was much much better before and the rules were simple, 85 is 85. Now it's 85 but.....
Click to expand...


If you don't know what oversigning is, then you need to stop posting in this thread.

Hey, it was much better when there were no limits on scholarships either, but those days aren't coming back.

Seriously, is this your approach to everything, to just stick your head into the ground and reminisce about the olden days? Those days aren't coming back.

Get used to reality and stop dreaming of how things were decades ago.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
If you don't know what oversigning is, then you need to stop posting in this thread.

Hey, it was much better when there were no limits on scholarships either, but those days aren't coming back.

Seriously, is this your approach to everything, to just stick your head into the ground and reminisce about the olden days? Those days aren't coming back.

Get used to reality and stop dreaming of how things were decades ago.
Click to expand...
Ain’t been getting no ***** lately huh? Chill out
 
TheOriginalCane said:
If you don't know what oversigning is, then you need to stop posting in this thread.

Hey, it was much better when there were no limits on scholarships either, but those days aren't coming back.

Seriously, is this your approach to everything, to just stick your head into the ground and reminisce about the olden days? Those days aren't coming back.

Get used to reality and stop dreaming of how things were decades ago.
Click to expand...
Lulz. Again, you are SUPPOSED to have 85 SCHOLARSHIPS. Period. Everything else is just noise and semantics. 85 is 85.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
We use all of our allotted scholarships, under the IC rules, every year.

Again, we need better retention.
Click to expand...
We do need better retention. And better roster management. But saying we use all ICs each year is unhelpful. Using an IC on an afterthought, a walk on, a transfer, these are not all created equal. The job of the staff includes a full, balanced roster. When we have not had that for a decade, you can be sure we’re going about it poorly.
 
561Cane said:
It's comical that during recruiting so many inquire to the "how many will Miami sign" and the fact is, it doesn't matter. Why? Miami always falls short. As of today, Miami has 74 'ship players with 13 seniors, but with two add backs in Patchan and McCloud leaving the nbr at 63. You then add Garvin, J. Thomas, Dallas and Bandy leaving early and now we're down to 59. Throw in a couple of worthless 'ships to Few and the long snapper and it's truly 57. Add a couple of defections, at least one of the QB's will be gone and one of the LB's and that's 55. Miami, Blake James and Manny Diaz could sign basically 30 to get to PAR, 85!

And Ladies and Gentlemen, that's the crux of the issues. Expect that once again starting the season with less than 80. Miami self imposes sanctions...it's pathetic what Blake James has been allowed to do.

Actions speak much louder than words!
Click to expand...
Needed that 10 win season not the 6-6 implosion to fill out the class. Makes no sense to throw in bodies that won't play at this level. Need a break out year of 10+ wins in the near future to sign a big quality class to get things on par.
 
Ethnicsands said:
We do need better retention. And better roster management. But saying we use all ICs each year is unhelpful. Using an IC on an afterthought, a walk on, a transfer, these are not all created equal. The job of the staff includes a full, balanced roster. When we have not had that for a decade, you can be sure we’re going about it poorly.
Click to expand...


Your post indicates that you don't understand the rules.

ICs are not used on walk-ons.

Transfers, yes.

Again, let's make this clear. If you have used your 25 ICs, and you still have 5 left, sure, you can give them to walk-ons, but you could NOT have given them to High School signees or transfers.

Lots of hard-heads on this board, like Dukeforheisman. Doesn't matter if he asks Santa Claus for 85 scholarship players, the rules are what they are. Not my fault for trying to explain them to people who wish it was 1961.

ICs are used by impact players. High school signees and transfers. We can argue about whether we should need so many transfers, but the fact remains, the coaches are using all the IC slots they possibly can.

I'm not a Manny super-fan, but he's been the head coach for 1 year. We have had poor development and retention under multiple coaches. But that is DIFFERENT from the conspiracy theory that many nutjobs post, that our coaches are somehow not using all of our IC slots.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Your post indicates that you don't understand the rules.

ICs are not used on walk-ons.

Transfers, yes.

Again, let's make this clear. If you have used your 25 ICs, and you still have 5 left, sure, you can give them to walk-ons, but you could NOT have given them to High School signees or transfers.

Lots of hard-heads on this board, like Dukeforheisman. Doesn't matter if he asks Santa Claus for 85 scholarship players, the rules are what they are. Not my fault for trying to explain them to people who wish it was 1961.

ICs are used by impact players. High school signees and transfers. We can argue about whether we should need so many transfers, but the fact remains, the coaches are using all the IC slots they possibly can.

I'm not a Manny super-fan, but he's been the head coach for 1 year. We have had poor development and retention under multiple coaches. But that is DIFFERENT from the conspiracy theory that many nutjobs post, that our coaches are somehow not using all of our IC slots.
Click to expand...
I understand the rules. We’ve had a deficient roster for years and years. Pretty sure Richt left a few spots on the table, also. In any case, I just provided category examples. Walk-ons who get a scholarship count unless they have been with the school for a couple years. Few is a former walk on who *may* have gotten a scholarship (not sure).
 
Advertisement
SFbayCane said:
Ive often wondered if UM's football coaches are financially incentivized to not use all of their allotted scholarships. Its not like this is a one time thing, we've consistently operated with an average of about 75 scholarship football players since 2006.

Something is fishy for sure. Been gong on through 4 coaches
It would devastate most programs if the NCAA were to take away 10 scholarships a year for 5 years, Im not sure UM would even notice. We operate in a constant state of probation. This is why we don't have competition for starting jobs. Its also why we're constantly in a state of rebuilding (total rebuild??).
Click to expand...
 
Patreek said:
It’s more about initial counters (25 per year with slight loopholes) than scholarships that hold the team back. The guy who explained this to everyone has been banned unfortunately.

Manny had flat out said already they only can take 25-27 guys this cycle - what restricts him is the initial counters not the 85 scholarships.
Click to expand...
While this is true, we need to rape the portal once again this off season...still have numbers we can count against last years as well as this years class
 
Ethnicsands said:
I understand the rules. We’ve had a deficient roster for years and years. Pretty sure Richt left a few spots on the table, also. In any case, I just provided category examples. Walk-ons who get a scholarship count unless they have been with the school for a couple years. Few is a former walk on who *may* have gotten a scholarship (not sure).
Click to expand...


Richt didn't "leave a few spots on the table". That is just ignorant talk.

You want to complain about retention, fine. And, no, we didn't give any walk-ons scholarships that would count against the IC numbers. They get scholarships that we COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN to anyone else under the IC rules.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top