that illustrate my ambivalence about the practice:
First, here’s one from the LSU blog And The Valley Shook.
… Because if the SEC was truly abusive and the players were being taken advantage of: kids would stop signing with SEC schools. The elephant in the room is: why aren’t these kids flocking to the Big Ten, with its more restrictive rules on oversigning? High school recruits hold almost all the power during their recruitment period, so why are they going to the schools which are being so publicly derided as being hostile to their interests?
Now, before you tell me I’m being naïve about what these kids understand, perhaps you ought to start by explaining your own naiveté about the level of negative recruiting that goes on chasing in this day and age.
That being said, it’s the practice of how slots open up for these kids that may not pass the smell test. And Year2 hits on a good point about one such method.
… There are other ways of doing investigation. Take, for example, the Wall Street Journal‘s inspection of the use of medical hardships and how Alabama gives out more of them than any other program. I know that rebuttals to that piece have come from all over the Alabama blogosphere, many of which came to the conclusion that the medical hardship scholarships were fair and justified.
If that’s true, then why not investigate what it is about Alabama’s program that causes more players to become medically unfit to play football than most programs? Or is it just that Alabama’s standards are different? Are the coaches and doctors there more in tune with medical research into when to sit a player down for good? Or are the coaches just more willing to give out medical hardships than other coaches?
I don’t have all the answers to this, which is why I hesitate to issue a blanket condemnation. I’d sure like to know more, though.