. . . than in solving it. While I quite agree that codes of conduct should be guided by standards significantly higher than mere legality, the fact is that some people will take advantage of any lacunae in the rules to engage in conduct that is wrong but not outlawed. This group includes many people generally considered admirable, such as Dean Smith, whose “four corners” technique was an unsportsmanlike effort to kill time in a basketball game without doing anything that actually resembled playing basketball. The solution was the shot clock, and the problem was solved.

While oversigning justifiably evokes much more moral outrage than what Coach Smith euphemistically called “controlled offense,” the same principle applies. The people who engage in this practice to such an egregious extent know that what they are doing is morally wrong; they don’t care, so declaring with vigor, vim, and vitriol that they are wrong and that all who do not condemn them so vociferously are either ignorant or dishonest is unproductive, and, frankly, it’s gotten more than a little old around here, where we’ve gotten the point several times over now.

If the problem is the rule, change the rule. That is where the discussion should go. Should medical hardships have to be certified by the NCAA before a player can be greyshirted, much as medical redshirts must be approved by the NCAA? Should the written offer sheets extended to recruits contain specific disclaimers that must be acknowledged by both parties regarding what the scholarship does and does not mean? Should the date for identifying the 85 scholarship players be changed from the fall to earlier in the year, and, if so, what should the new date be? Should schools only be able to extend scholarship offers if they have an identifiable available scholarship to offer? What sanctions should be levied against schools that engage in the practice of oversigning as a matter of course? Should Mike Slive push for a new league policy or pursue NCAA legislation that would implement a universal standard throughout Division I-A? As a practical matter, are the votes there to implement such a policy, and, if not, should the measure be coupled with a proposal to raise the scholarship limits back to 95, where they were as recently as the early to mid-1990s?

These are the questions we need to be addressing. The continued railing against not only the practice, but against everyone who does not condemn it with what you deem a suitable level of vehemence in a rude and insulting manner, continues to creep closer and closer to the line. I would regret it if push finally came to shove, because you have contributed quite a bit to the basketball discussion, and your fanpost about Charlie Sheen and Muammar Qaddafi was quite entertaining. That Rangers100 is welcome; the one who continues to hammer home every point, demean his fellow commenters’ education and fandom based upon differences of opinion, and point out every error, no matter how trifling, increasingly is not. It’s starting to affect the tenor and caliber of the community here, and, as much as I appreciate and enjoy your positive contributions, my responsibility is to the community as a whole, and its defense must be a higher priority for me than indulging any individual member of it.

And I agree with the basis of your argument. But if your goal is to win the hearts and minds of others to your cause, you might want to reconsider your strategy.

Insulting people, their background, their racial motivations, their education, or their fandom whether by words or through your tone isn’t going to win you many supporters.