Are the S'ship reduction of 3/year....for the years 2012(last year), 2013, & 2014?

so OSU has to be at 82 S'ship by August? of the above years?

If yes, then it looks like OSU "dodged a bullet since:
2012 class = Max of 25
2013 class = Max of 25? think they take Bell and Clark/Wilson if they commit
2014 class = ????  gotta think this will be a small class? then again with transfers, injuries, etc.

they haven't dodged a bullet...they are still recruiting knowing they have to stay under 82 vs staying under 85. Now that means they could have taken 28 last year but couldn't because of the 82.  You think Meyer would have liked to have had that option? I think so...so no bullet dodged.

Last year someone on here had an interesting take on the reductions.  Meyer is still going to get his blue chippers;  it's the guys at the other end of the spectrum who will lose out because of the sanctions.  Recruits 1 - 22 will still get their scholarships, numbers 23, 24 & 25 won't.  So it's the guys who hold for extra points, play on kick coverage etc who are left out.  The Buckeyes didn't dodge a bullet but the lost scholarships are more of a flesh wound than a gut-shot.

it was pretty excessive when one considers that the top players were suspended for 5 games, and many for longer as they sat out waiting for ncaa sanctions (posey) while others jumped ship declared for the draft(pryor), add on to this the bowl ban and the firing of the head coach, and you have very severe penalties for trading merchandise for tattoos at face value.

Woodeye67 wrote: Last year someone on here had an interesting take on the reductions.  Meyer is still going to get his blue chippers;  it's the guys at the other end of the spectrum who will lose out because of the sanctions.  Recruits 1 - 22 will still get their scholarships, numbers 23, 24 & 25 won't.  So it's the guys who hold for extra points, play on kick coverage etc who are left out.  The Buckeyes didn't dodge a bullet but the lost scholarships are more of a flesh wound than a gut-shot.

In addition to what 67 said, if you look at the recruiting numbers of signed players under JT, I believe it was near 20 per year avg, meaning the staff was giving ships to deserving program players.

Meyer comes in and he's going to sign the maximum amount under the rules, so it looks like he's going to be signing 25 per year avg and those few or handful players on the other end of the spectrum, who are scout team guys , that might have gotten a couple years of scholarship under JT, probably won't be getting any or as much under Meyer.

Now go one step further , of being a marquee program, and being able to sign 32 one year and 27 the next year. Wouldn't that be nice? Maybe not for the program players, but for the quality of the team

Frankly, yes we are fortunate that the 82's have come right after a coaching change. Because there is always more turnover of players after a coaching change than any other point in their regime. And UFM is known for a LOT of turnover in the 1-2 years after he takes over. 6am workouts and puking seem to get mentioned as contributing factors to that "phenomenon". LOL

I do think the 14 class will not approach 25 tho. Only 13 SRs and the "purging" will slow down soon, IMO!

SurfOhio wrote: it was pretty excessive when one considers that the top players were suspended for 5 games, and many for longer as they sat out waiting for ncaa sanctions (posey) while others jumped ship declared for the draft(pryor), add on to this the bowl ban and the firing of the head coach, and you have very severe penalties for trading merchandise for tattoos at face value.

Woodeye67 wrote: Last year someone on here had an interesting take on the reductions.  Meyer is still going to get his blue chippers;  it's the guys at the other end of the spectrum who will lose out because of the sanctions.  Recruits 1 - 22 will still get their scholarships, numbers 23, 24 & 25 won't.  So it's the guys who hold for extra points, play on kick coverage etc who are left out.  The Buckeyes didn't dodge a bullet but the lost scholarships are more of a flesh wound than a gut-shot.

Yeah, I agree that the penalties leveled on the players were severe.  I was just ref'ing the scholarship reductions. It would be nice to have those but in the big scheme of things, they won't hurt the team too badly.

The penalty never seemed to fit the crime in my way of thinking. It was sort of like having your big brother spend four years robbing the local news paper stand of $25.00 worth of newspapers and you being sentenced to 3 years of hard labor. #1 you did not commit the crime and #2 the sentence always seemed pretty damn severe for someone whose only crime was guilt by association. I am not saying that the rest of the team is free of all NCAA wrongdoings but they are being penalized for crimes they did not commit.

Woodeye67 wrote: Last year someone on here had an interesting take on the reductions.  Meyer is still going to get his blue chippers;  it's the guys at the other end of the spectrum who will lose out because of the sanctions.  Recruits 1 - 22 will still get their scholarships, numbers 23, 24 & 25 won't.  So it's the guys who hold for extra points, play on kick coverage etc who are left out.  The Buckeyes didn't dodge a bullet but the lost scholarships are more of a flesh wound than a gut-shot.

It's actually even worse than that.

the 23rd, 24th, and 25th players that are 3 star guys that WOULD have been taken by the buckeyes will still be taken by another lesser school. That lesser school will then push their bottom five out to an DIVII etc.

The only kids loosing scholarships in this scenario are the marginal kids trying to play at a lower division school.

I think that's sad.

The NCAA should grant extra spots at other schools in the conferecne or something to offset that they are denying three kids college schaolrships by doing this. They just don't happen to be TOP 100 recruits.

If you listen to Urbans call in show this past season you would know that we ARE suffering from the scholarship reductions, especially on Kickoff and ST's where half of the "pirañas" where lost in a 2 week span.

BuckeyeDaJuiceMan wrote: If you listen to Urbans call in show this past season you would know that we ARE suffering from the scholarship reductions, especially on Kickoff and ST's where half of the "pirañas" where lost in a 2 week span.

I don't think anyone is saying there's no impact from the reductions.  I just think it's worse for the lower priority recruits than it is for the team as a whole. And ChiTown made a good point that the penalties reach beyond OSU.  But with the talent on the team, the staff should be able to find 11 bodies to run down under punts and make a tackle.

IDK, they took 25 last year and look to be taking 24 or so again.  So they didn't stop at 22!  Thus that argument is moot.  What has happened is that something like 19 players have left or been waivered.  So the real "fallout" so far are those guys who had to scramble to find a lower level school to take them on ship.  Maybe kids at those programs got squeazed out and went from GIA to "nada", if so they would be the ultimate "victim" in a trickle down.  UFM mostly had kids that were not contributers and not likely to be leave and replaced by others with potential to.  Frosh taking th eplace of upperclass guys who were not likely to even help on ST.

ChiTown,
Having said that I do like your thinking some.  I want Div1A, or the superconferences, to up the 85 limit for that reason!  Give more opps to kids to get ships at the BIG SCHOOLS that can afford them ( if they stopped syphoning so much to non-revenue sports and the AD fat ).  Most of the Div1A schools reported surplus revenue in 2011, and none showed a net loss.  It was something like 73 profitable and 44 at break even.  Cut the excess in non-revenue sports and there'd be plenty for more ships.  Plus add conference semis and an 8 team national playoff - and keep more of the >75% of the dance $ the NCAA steals and gives to all 340 teams or uses for their own programs and the $ issue is moot.

If we could offer 100 ships for FB, or even more(my plan is max 25 signees every year and no cap on roster max at all), then 15+ more kids get that opp.  15+ less trickle down and mean walk-ons, not getting any GIA $ at a lower level of FB.  And then 15+ more kids that would have stopped after h.s. now get to play at that div 3 level to fill out their roster.

More risks on 3 stars could be taken, not to mention we'd have been able to take acadmeic risk 4 stars like Gibson, and more in-state bordeline guys would get offers.  Deeper team and more able to play the extra games coming due to more depth.  To keep from a lot more xfers, add some JV games to keep the frosh and kids not ready yet for Varsity involved in real games!  Let the assts coach the JV games to get them HC experience.  TV gets some more games for BTN!  WIN-WIN  JV schedule could have ALA on it!

The loser is quality at the lower levels goes down a bit as we have "their top recruits/players" that would otherwise have gone to the MAC or IU or FCS etc. in the trickle down.  So be it!  We are the BIG DOGS, we should be deeper and better - we earne it.

ChiTownOSUnut wrote:

Woodeye67 wrote: Last year someone on here had an interesting take on the reductions.  Meyer is still going to get his blue chippers;  it's the guys at the other end of the spectrum who will lose out because of the sanctions.  Recruits 1 - 22 will still get their scholarships, numbers 23, 24 & 25 won't.  So it's the guys who hold for extra points, play on kick coverage etc who are left out.  The Buckeyes didn't dodge a bullet but the lost scholarships are more of a flesh wound than a gut-shot.

It's actually even worse than that.

the 23rd, 24th, and 25th players that are 3 star guys that WOULD have been taken by the buckeyes will still be taken by another lesser school. That lesser school will then push their bottom five out to an DIVII etc.

The only kids loosing scholarships in this scenario are the marginal kids trying to play at a lower division school.

I think that's sad.

The NCAA should grant extra spots at other schools in the conferecne or something to offset that they are denying three kids college schaolrships by doing this. They just don't happen to be TOP 100 recruits.

There is a reason for scholarship limits. Big Div. I schools with deep pockets can support bigger teams with more scholarship players. In the past, schools such as Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio State with gigantic football coffers would offer scholarships to players for 4 years knowing full well that their chances to take the field would be slim. However they offered scholarship just to keep them from playing for rival schools.

Scholarship limitations leveled the playing field. 

getbucked wrote: IDK, they took 25 last year and look to be taking 24 or so again.  So they didn't stop at 22!  Thus that argument is moot.  What has happened is that something like 19 players have left or been waivered.  So the real "fallout" so far are those guys who had to scramble to find a lower level school to take them on ship.  Maybe kids at those programs got squeazed out and went from GIA to "nada", if so they would be the ultimate "victim" in a trickle down.  UFM mostly had kids that were not contributers and not likely to be leave and replaced by others with potential to.  Frosh taking th eplace of upperclass guys who were not likely to even help on ST.

ChiTown,
Having said that I do like your thinking some.  I want Div1A, or the superconferences, to up the 85 limit for that reason!  Give more opps to kids to get ships at the BIG SCHOOLS that can afford them ( if they stopped syphoning so much to non-revenue sports and the AD fat ).  Most of the Div1A schools reported surplus revenue in 2011, and none showed a net loss.  It was something like 73 profitable and 44 at break even.  Cut the excess in non-revenue sports and there'd be plenty for more ships.  Plus add conference semis and an 8 team national playoff - and keep more of the >75% of the dance $ the NCAA steals and gives to all 340 teams or uses for their own programs and the $ issue is moot.

If we could offer 100 ships for FB, or even more(my plan is max 25 signees every year and no cap on roster max at all), then 15+ more kids get that opp.  15+ less trickle down and mean walk-ons, not getting any GIA $ at a lower level of FB.  And then 15+ more kids that would have stopped after h.s. now get to play at that div 3 level to fill out their roster.

More risks on 3 stars could be taken, not to mention we'd have been able to take acadmeic risk 4 stars like Gibson, and more in-state bordeline guys would get offers.  Deeper team and more able to play the extra games coming due to more depth.  To keep from a lot more xfers, add some JV games to keep the frosh and kids not ready yet for Varsity involved in real games!  Let the assts coach the JV games to get them HC experience.  TV gets some more games for BTN!  WIN-WIN  JV schedule could have ALA on it!

The loser is quality at the lower levels goes down a bit as we have "their top recruits/players" that would otherwise have gone to the MAC or IU or FCS etc. in the trickle down.  So be it!  We are the BIG DOGS, we should be deeper and better - we earne it.

ChiTownOSUnut wrote:

Woodeye67 wrote: Last year someone on here had an interesting take on the reductions.  Meyer is still going to get his blue chippers;  it's the guys at the other end of the spectrum who will lose out because of the sanctions.  Recruits 1 - 22 will still get their scholarships, numbers 23, 24 & 25 won't.  So it's the guys who hold for extra points, play on kick coverage etc who are left out.  The Buckeyes didn't dodge a bullet but the lost scholarships are more of a flesh wound than a gut-shot.

It's actually even worse than that.

the 23rd, 24th, and 25th players that are 3 star guys that WOULD have been taken by the buckeyes will still be taken by another lesser school. That lesser school will then push their bottom five out to an DIVII etc.

The only kids loosing scholarships in this scenario are the marginal kids trying to play at a lower division school.

I think that's sad.

The NCAA should grant extra spots at other schools in the conferecne or something to offset that they are denying three kids college schaolrships by doing this. They just don't happen to be TOP 100 recruits.

Only a little, and why should it be level anyway? We should dominate and we should have more GIA players since we generate so much more $ than so many other schools!

My plan is 25 ( more or less based on APR ) per year per school for all in Div1A or supers. If some school can only afford 20 then only sign 20! No maxes and thus no incentive for sleazebags like Saban and Miles to cut and terminate ships anymore - it wouldn't help them sign more the next year. Only a better APR would help you get a little more. Puts the incentive to keep as many as possible and keep them graduating, so you have more depth and more talent. Lose em and you don't get to replace them anyway!

Highly doubtful and suspect, myth and misperception

daisyman wrote: There is a reason for scholarship limits. Big Div. I schools with deep pockets can support bigger teams with more scholarship players. In the past, schools such as Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio State with gigantic football coffers would offer scholarships to players for 4 years knowing full well that their chances to take the field would be slim. However they offered scholarship just to keep them from playing for rival schools.

Scholarship limitations leveled the playing field. 

getbucked wrote: IDK, they took 25 last year and look to be taking 24 or so again.  So they didn't stop at 22!  Thus that argument is moot.  What has happened is that something like 19 players have left or been waivered.  So the real "fallout" so far are those guys who had to scramble to find a lower level school to take them on ship.  Maybe kids at those programs got squeazed out and went from GIA to "nada", if so they would be the ultimate "victim" in a trickle down.  UFM mostly had kids that were not contributers and not likely to be leave and replaced by others with potential to.  Frosh taking th eplace of upperclass guys who were not likely to even help on ST.

ChiTown,
Having said that I do like your thinking some.  I want Div1A, or the superconferences, to up the 85 limit for that reason!  Give more opps to kids to get ships at the BIG SCHOOLS that can afford them ( if they stopped syphoning so much to non-revenue sports and the AD fat ).  Most of the Div1A schools reported surplus revenue in 2011, and none showed a net loss.  It was something like 73 profitable and 44 at break even.  Cut the excess in non-revenue sports and there'd be plenty for more ships.  Plus add conference semis and an 8 team national playoff - and keep more of the >75% of the dance $ the NCAA steals and gives to all 340 teams or uses for their own programs and the $ issue is moot.

If we could offer 100 ships for FB, or even more(my plan is max 25 signees every year and no cap on roster max at all), then 15+ more kids get that opp.  15+ less trickle down and mean walk-ons, not getting any GIA $ at a lower level of FB.  And then 15+ more kids that would have stopped after h.s. now get to play at that div 3 level to fill out their roster.

More risks on 3 stars could be taken, not to mention we'd have been able to take acadmeic risk 4 stars like Gibson, and more in-state bordeline guys would get offers.  Deeper team and more able to play the extra games coming due to more depth.  To keep from a lot more xfers, add some JV games to keep the frosh and kids not ready yet for Varsity involved in real games!  Let the assts coach the JV games to get them HC experience.  TV gets some more games for BTN!  WIN-WIN  JV schedule could have ALA on it!

The loser is quality at the lower levels goes down a bit as we have "their top recruits/players" that would otherwise have gone to the MAC or IU or FCS etc. in the trickle down.  So be it!  We are the BIG DOGS, we should be deeper and better - we earne it.

ChiTownOSUnut wrote:

Woodeye67 wrote: Last year someone on here had an interesting take on the reductions.  Meyer is still going to get his blue chippers;  it's the guys at the other end of the spectrum who will lose out because of the sanctions.  Recruits 1 - 22 will still get their scholarships, numbers 23, 24 & 25 won't.  So it's the guys who hold for extra points, play on kick coverage etc who are left out.  The Buckeyes didn't dodge a bullet but the lost scholarships are more of a flesh wound than a gut-shot.

It's actually even worse than that.

the 23rd, 24th, and 25th players that are 3 star guys that WOULD have been taken by the buckeyes will still be taken by another lesser school. That lesser school will then push their bottom five out to an DIVII etc.

The only kids loosing scholarships in this scenario are the marginal kids trying to play at a lower division school.

I think that's sad.

The NCAA should grant extra spots at other schools in the conferecne or something to offset that they are denying three kids college schaolrships by doing this. They just don't happen to be TOP 100 recruits.

getbucked wrote: Only a little, and why should it be level anyway? We should dominate and we should have more GIA players since we generate so much more $ than so many other schools!

My plan is 25 ( more or less based on APR ) per year per school for all in Div1A or supers. If some school can only afford 20 then only sign 20! No maxes and thus no incentive for sleazebags like Saban and Miles to cut and terminate ships anymore - it wouldn't help them sign more the next year. Only a better APR would help you get a little more. Puts the incentive to keep as many as possible and keep them graduating, so you have more depth and more talent. Lose em and you don't get to replace them anyway!

So, in one post you mention:  "What has happened is that something like 19 players have left or been waivered. So the real "fallout" so far are those guys who had to scramble to find a lower level school to take them on ship. Maybe kids at those programs got squeazed out and went from GIA to "nada", if so they would be the ultimate "victim" in a trickle down. UFM mostly had kids that were not contributers and not likely to be leave and replaced by others with potential to. Frosh taking th eplace of upperclass guys who were not likely to even help on ST.", and then in this post you refer to Saban and Miles as sleazebags for cutting and terminating ships.  I am sure that is in reference to their over-signing technique, but still...