Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[jwinslow]

That's a lot of dancing, Mr. lawyer. Let's stop speaking in generalities. Would you care to defend Saban, who is about to enter his third season of blatantly oversigning?

You can't tag that as simply jucos signing twice, or not qualifying, or a few guys leaving early. Three straight years of blatant oversigning, getting angry when the press asks him about it, and guys magically turning up on medical waivers and other scholarship clearing moves just in time for fall camp.

They have been way over their allotted amount and defied anyone who asked them about it.


The SEC measures do very little to prevent oversigning, as evidenced by LSU & Alabama drawing a lot of criticism despite working within the framework of said "fixes". All they do is prevent 37 man classes, but do nothing to keep Saban from signing an extra 5-10 guys with more potential than the third stringers who lose their hold on a scholarship in the 6 months following signing day.

What is not addressed so much is that there are reasons that mitigate/explain some of the numbers that show up in oversigning. Some individual kids are counted as "recruits" two or three times each. A kid signs, can't qualify, goes JUCO, signs again, has some core course issue, signs a third time.

That is not a significant factor in this data. A half dozen kids here or there don't add up to 20 extra players for most SEC schools.

Non qualifiers are a significant factor. double signees are not that frequent.

 

[BB73]

Mostly I am just cranky about things in general

I was assuming the crankiness had something to do with 7-5 and Urban actually leaving this time.

But it's just a guess on my part - one that was probably based on poor methodology. :tongue2:

 

[Gatorubet]

I was assuming the crankiness had something to do with 7-5 and Urban actually leaving this time.

But it's just a guess on my part - one that was probably based on poor methodology. :tongue2:

Damn straight. As long as the possibility exists that UF campus avian flu research bio-leaks or Georgia fan serial killers could dispatch his entire family...

 

[Gatorubet]

That's a lot of dancing, Mr. lawyer.

Simma...I threw you more than enough bones in that post.

Let's stop speaking in generalities.

Kinda sorta my point. That is all we have. I get the issues that you bring up. Grey shirts, non-qualifiers, guys who leave early for a variety of reasons... My bitch is with the use of just the defined "oversigned" numbers to come to a conclusion. And Big-10 coaches are not immune to the reality of numbers... scholarship numbers and how to shape them to the benefit of your program. Some things Tress does is what some SEC schools do. Some things Tress does not do. Which and why and to what extent those choices effect the Ws and Ls is a hard thing to measure. Tress does a great job of getting kids to stay instead of leaving for the NFL early when compared to many SEC schools. I would argue that that gives him an advantage over a program that is more of an NFL minor league (not that you do not produce NFL players, but that yours do not leave as early).

Conference culture can surely have an effect on bunches of things. Which one are a negative and which are a positive on the programs in the long run - to a significant mearsurable extent - is a question far more theoretical than scientific.

Non qualifiers are a significant factor. double signees are not that frequent.

Yeah. And I do not have the numbers to tell me how much of a factor that is instead of the "we launch anyone who is not good and sign a bazillion replacements" assertion.

Short version: you may be on to something, but I think you are: 1) over-exaggerating the effect due to a lack of measurables; and 2) unwittingly over-sensitive about certain conference successes, and looking for some justification to negate the achievements of several SEC programs


As always, I could be wrong.

 

[Gatorubet]

I started to reply to Gator and, after reading the 4 posts above mine, what else is there to be said? They are each spot on in their own way. Glad to be a part of a group with this understanding.

Yeah, well Nutria and I think differently, right Nute??

Nute?



Nutriaitch......pssstt........



Damn..... :(

 

[Buckeneye]

unwittingly over-sensitive about certain conference successes, and looking for some justification to negate the achievements of several SEC programs

Football games and conference schedules are won with talent and depth to back it up. Without the depth championships are not possible. The over-signing argument in regards to player potential and roster depth: (more specifically the latter) makes for an immeasurable advantage to help achieve said success.


I don't think anyone is trying to negate what hardware has or hasn't been won. I see an issue a bit more in relation to what happens to the "little" people that get left behind.

 

[buckiprof]

When I was 17, all I cared about was eating and fucking.

At what age does that change?

Oversigning as a practice was obviously worth taking a look at, and had to be a problem in some degree, as the SEC recently put into effect some rules on the subject.

Maybe the funniest thing I have read in this thread. Defend and/or lawyerize this however you want, claim it is more SEC piling on (however that really isn't my style), but from an outsiders point of view looking at the SEC as objectively as possible, having looked at the stuff that has gone on in SEC land for over 30 years.......SEC putting in rules on a subject is goddamn comedic gold.

I really have a hard time seeing any justification to squeezing out 5-10, hell even 1 is too many, student athletes per year who are simply not good enough, simply not panning out like a staff projected they would. If one does not see the unethical and immoral ways of such a practice, then there is no further discussion needed.

As for academic versus athletic scholarships and loss of one, academic is pretty damn objective whereas athletic can quickly go into the subjective when unethical and immoral coaches are involved.

 

[Gatorubet]

Maybe the funniest thing I have read in this thread. Defend and/or lawyerize this however you want

It's what we do. While the family does not so much give a [censored] if it was negligent homicide or Murder One, there are a lot of people who do. And knocking "defending" or "lawyerizing" if the accused guy was over-billed does not make it a bad thing to demand some perspective or for the villagers waving the torches to be a little more precise.

And I never condoned launching a ton (or one) of guys for no good reason, without notice, just because you want more 5 star guys, so please don't insinuate that I'm "defending" something I am not.

claim it is more SEC piling on (however that really isn't my style)

Hardly a point, unless BP stands for Bukiprof I was not directing my post at you, Sir.

but from an outsiders point of view looking at the SEC as objectively as possible, having looked at the stuff that has gone on in SEC land for over 30 years.......SEC putting in rules on a subject is goddamn comedic gold.

Of course this site is not going to be objective about the SEC, any more than an SEC site is going to be objective about the SEC. That is where MY unbiased opinion is so invaluable.

I really have a hard time seeing any justification to squeezing out 5-10, hell even 1 is too many, student athletes per year who are simply not good enough, simply not panning out like a staff projected they would. If one does not see the unethical and immoral ways of such a practice, then there is no further discussion needed.

Bull[censored]. Athletic scholarships, however the practice, are all for one year duration. I would need more than "simply not good enough" Like why that was. If you have a kid who refuses to hit the weight room or do his film study, you can try to motivate him all you want, and you should... but in the end, if he does not keep up his end of the bargain, he has not one damn claim on a four year ride. None. *

*Now, an entirely different discussion is the kid who is trying his best and doing everything that is asked of him, but is a bust. I see no problem telling him his chances are nil to ever see the field and encourage him to think about transfer. And if he does not care that much about actually playing, but is otherwise doing his part, I would not have a problem renewing his annual scholly.

But signing a LOI = four year ride no matter what effort I put in?? That is bull[censored], and the use of the terms "unethical" and "immoral" are not the terms I would use for informing a low effort kid that his ride is over. The devil is in the details, and the "why" and "how" a kid is not renewed is obviously key. Simply put, a kid who will not put the work in is not entitled to a four year pass in my mind. That is the assertion that some here are making - that any pulling of any scholarship is immoral after you sign a LOI. If you (and by you I mean anyone, i doubt you think that), then we simply disagree.

as for academic versus athletic scholarships and loss of one, academic is pretty damn objective whereas athletic can quickly go into the subjective when unethical and immoral coaches are involved.

C'mon - you are caught up in the argument here. Unless every test ever taken is a scan sheet, you cannot tell me that written essays that result in a C+ versus a B, when a B keeps the GPA requirement scholly involves an absence of subjective criteria. But I will grant you that the prof would have little or no motive to do that*, where there is motive for a coach to make room.

*And I note that no unethical professor has ever shaded a grade to make an athlete eligible or to get sex from a student. :p

 

[Deety]

Gator, if this were an anti-SEC thing and we really didn't care about the kids, people would just be arguing that OSU should be doing likewise. That we aren't is pretty consistent with the way this site shows respect for our Buckeyes, is it not?

 

[Gatorubet]

Gator, if this were an anti-SEC thing and we really didn't care about the kids, people would just be arguing that OSU should be doing likewise. That we aren't is pretty consistent with the way this site shows respect for our Buckeyes, is it not?

Deety, I am trying to reign in a little of the wilder supposition about allegations being thrown around - i.e., the "how" and "why" some SEC schools do things, and the actual advantage that any different practice may give to the SEC.

For example, there are two versions of what happened, and why, in the LSU QB story. That there may be another side of the story, that Nutria set out, has been brushed aside almost totally in favor of the witch hunt from the reporter guys who, depending on the issue, y'all routinely dismiss as unworthy of belief as hack journalists when it is negative toward y'all.

(and here, I am obviously not using you as the example of a little hypocrisy, Ma'am, but more of a general observation. Negative Big-10 stuff is routinely dismissed, negative SEC stuff taken on its word. I know, big surprise...and no, not always, and yes, this site is among the best at reasonable discussion as you will find anywhere...)

It is not at all unusual for Buckeyes to say that Buckeyes won't do [fill in the blank] like the immoral SEC does. For y'all to jump on the unethical and immoral SEC and point to your own more moral methodology has possibly as much to do with Big-10 back patting as being "consistent with the way this site shows respect for our Buckeyes"

That said, you guys (tOSU) are indeed a class act program with a classy coach, a great AD and a nutty but cool President.

Because, ya know, neither Nutria or I are in favor of launching some good hardworking kid with no notice just because he did not pan out any more than you or prof or anyone here does. You do not have a monopoly on caring about the kids, thank you very much, but your innocent statement is in fact a good example of the - perception - that I am trying to address.

One can have issues with the blanket statements and conclusions made on this thread by the.....thes.....these Yankee aggressors, and yet not be in favor of immorality - or not in favor of caring about the kids.

 

[buckford]

Please excuse me for asking this question. When a student is "launched" from a team, is he able to immediately obtain another football scholarship from another NCAA team in Div.I? Is he still required to sit out for a year?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Please excuse me for asking this question. When a student is "launched" from a team, is he able to immediately obtain another football scholarship from another NCAA team in Div.I? Is he still required to sit out for a year?

It depends. Did he ever receive a golf cart ride across campus? Is he signing autographs for free ink? If yes, he's gotta sit.

Now, if his dad is asking for nearly 200,000 dollars.... he plays right away.

Real answer - I think he's got to sit a year on any transfer unless he petitions the NCAA otherwise. But, I am more or less guessing.

 

[cincibuck]

Gatorubet:Nobody is arguing that 80% of your roster should be launched every year if they are not All Big-10, and that launching everybody for any reason is fine.

Oversigning as a practice was obviously worth taking a look at, and had to be a problem in some degree, as the SEC recently put into effect some rules on the subject.

What is not addressed so much is that there are reasons that mitigate/explain some of the numbers that show up in oversigning. Some individual kids are counted as "recruits" two or three times each. A kid signs, can't qualify, goes JUCO, signs again, has some core course issue, signs a third time.

ALL of the oversigning.com stats use this definition:

And what is not addressed is the quality of the high schools producing many of these kids -- something not limited to SEC country -- and the integrity of individual coaches and schools to recruit only athletes who can be legitimately considered "academically capable."

Maybe the SEC works with a lower standard. I don't know. But there are few schools that haven't taken a gamble if the athlete looked like someone who could help them -- or hurt them if someone else in their conference signed him. Prostitution is not limited to women standing under street lamps.

 

[cincibuck]

It's what we do. While the family does not so much give a [censored] if it was negligent homicide or Murder One, there are a lot of people who do. And knocking "defending" or "lawyerizing" if the accused guy was over-billed does not make it a bad thing to demand some perspective or for the villagers waving the torches to be a little more precise.

And I never condoned launching a ton (or one) of guys for no good reason, without notice, just because you want more 5 star guys, so please don't insinuate that I'm "defending" something I am not.

Followed by:

Bull[censored]. Athletic scholarships, however the practice, are all for one year duration. I would need more than "simply not good enough" Like why that was. If you have a kid who refuses to hit the weight room or do his film study, you can try to motivate him all you want, and you should... but in the end, if he does not keep up his end of the bargain, he has not one damn claim on a four year ride. None. *

*Now, an entirely different discussion is the kid who is trying his best and doing everything that is asked of him, but is a bust. I see no problem telling him his chances are nil to ever see the field and encourage him to think about transfer. And if he does not care that much about actually playing, but is otherwise doing his part, I would not have a problem renewing his annual scholly.

But signing a LOI = four year ride no matter what effort I put in?? That is bull[censored], and the use of the terms "unethical" and "immoral" are not the terms I would use for informing a low effort kid that his ride is over. The devil is in the details, and the "why" and "how" a kid is not renewed is obviously key. Simply put, a kid who will not put the work in is not entitled to a four year pass in my mind. That is the assertion that some here are making - that any pulling of any scholarship is immoral after you sign a LOI. If you (and by you I mean anyone, i doubt you think that), then we simply disagree.

Exactly. Now sir, tell me how many college kids appear in the coach's office accompanied by a lawyer? And how many lawyers are on retainer or are employees of a major college football program? And if the kid brought a lawyer how would he stack up against the school's legal team? And what are the chances that the kid comes from a family with the resources to stay in a legal battle long enough to win a significant settlement?

Yes a good deal of ass kissing takes place BEFORE NLOI day, but after that all the odds favor the house.

 

[DaveyBoy]

Tress does a great job of getting kids to stay instead of leaving for the NFL early when compared to many SEC schools. I would argue that that gives him an advantage over a program that is more of an NFL minor league (not that you do not produce NFL players, but that yours do not leave as early)..

This could not be further from the truth. Tress has always encouraged players to find out their options and to not hesitate going into the draft if it suits them personally. The difference between Tressel and most SEC coaches in general is that Tressel genuinely helps the student-athlete make the right decision for himself. I'm surprised you would have said what you said about Tressel.

No team has sent more guys to the NFL than Tressel during his tenure. And many if not most left OSU with some eligibility.