But this oversigning business really burns me up. If ANY coach is knowingly doing it (very hard to prove), then IMO they should be immediately fired, as they have fundamentally broken their obligations to do what's best for their kids.
This is where I disagree, because the coaches job is to compete in the league and win games. His responsibility is to also do right by the kids along the way. So that creates a lot of gray area. ALL scholarships that any school offers are year to year, meaning they can be revoked at any point the school wishes. If the NCAA wanted to change that, they could. They don't.
So, what does that mean when a player doesn't live up to his or her potential? In most cases, it means that they are moved to the back of the line, where they either hang around and get their education, or they transfer to another school where they'll see some playing time. Happens all the time. So the school doesn't actively revoke their scholarship, but they tell the kid its likely he'll never see the field to play. Is that wrong? After all, the coach has recruited other players who can do a better job and help win games. Is benching the player good for the kid? Not really, but the coaches job is to win games and generate fan support and revenue for the school. So the kids makes the decision on they do with their future...stay or leave.
In the case of disciplinary action, as with Jenkins at Florida, at some point the coach dismisses an otherwise highly talented player who could contribute to the teams success. Urban was good at overlooking things (no offense intended, Gators), but Muschamp is not going to put up with it. Is that good for the kid, or is he looking out for the team and the school?
So lastly, what happens when a kid is injured, and the coaching staff and team doctors feel like the kid can't safely play at the level required in the SEC and be competitive? In Saban's case, they removed the athletic scholarship and offered them an academic scholarship to finish their degree. In otherwords, the kids in the NY Times article (except for one who was released on discplinary reasons) could have stayed at UA and finished their degree, at no cost to them minus living expenses. That seems pretty fair to me. That a couple of them want to argue that they could have played and continued to be a part of the team is highly debatable, and that's where the thrust of the issue is. They think they could have played. Saban and staff think otherwise, and that they probably would have been at the bottom of the depth chart anyway if they had stayed on the team. So the player could have pursued a scholarship elsewhere, but no other team would offer them. Why? Is it because they sucked as a player, or because their injury was viewed as too debilitating by those other schools. Either way, no other school wanted them either. So there only option is to stay at school and get a quality education for free, or try to start a scandal with the NY Times about one of the most decorated coaches and programs in the country.
It's a crock.