Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[SloopyHangOn]

Yeah. Let's talk oversigning some more here.

Oversinging?

 

[jwinslow]

I was planning to move it here earlier but got busy

 

[Gatorubet]

I was planning to move it here earlier but got busy

 

[SmoovP]

YOU SIGN MORE PLAYERS THAN YOU CAN PUT ON SCHOLARSHIP..

After having read the last several pages of this topic thread, I'm going to decline to fight this battle, except to say a few of things and be done with it:

GatorUbet has done an admirable job of explaining the situation.


The comment quoted above reflects a superficial understanding of the issue.

It is every bit as superficial as if I were to say 'OSU is running a dirty program as evidenced by the tattoo-gate scandal, Maurice Clarett, Troy Smith, etc., etc.'.

It is every bit as superficial as if I were to say "OSU consistently under-signs players, which means something fishy is going on. OSU has only signed 78 players over the past 4 years, so how can the field a team of 85? They are obviously cheating"

Both are obviously untrue to anyone with half a brain and one eye.

My understanding (admittedly, not an expert one) of the issue is this:

A) The SEC has a high number of academic non-qualifiers who do indeed sign, but don't make it to campus, which leads to;

2: Players going Juco or Prep - which do not count against the ultimate signing number, even though the recruiting services report that x number of players signed an LOI - in a deliberate sign-and-place deal, resulting in;

III - actually having a class that is under the 25 player limit in some cases when the class hits campus, which allows;

(d) the next class to have additional numbers equal to the number under from the previous year.


As to how this relates to the Razorbacks, I'll say this while not speaking for the other SEC schools:

1) Houston Nutt was, and is, guilty of over-signing. In fact, the recently enacted SEC limit on signing numbers is referred to as "The Houston Nutt" rule. I will not defend him. I am so very glad he is gone.

Let's note however, that his most egregious flaunting of the signing limit - the one that was so blatant that he got a rule named after him - happened at his current coaching job at Mississippi.

Let us also note, that it has never given Nutt a competitive advantage, as evidenced by his lifetime vs. the SEC record of below .500.

B: Arkansas' average signing number over the past 9 years is 26.56. That puts Arkansas at 5th from the top of the BCS school list for the past 9 years. OSU's average number is 20, which puts them 6th from the bottom of BCS schools over the past 9 years. That is a wide gap. But the over/under against the 25 player-per-year limit is wider on the under for OSU than it is on the over for the Razorbacks. An average of one-and-a-half players per year is easily - and ethically - accounted for in a variety of ways.

But considering the relative success of the two programs, it would appear (superficially) that under-signing gives a team a competitive advantage.

III - I am not aware of any Razorback players who have not had their scholarships renewed because a more talented player was signed behind them. Players have flunked out, players have gone elsewhere seeking playing time, players have been booted for disciplinary reasons, but unless I've missed it, no players have been booted in favor of a more talented prospect behind them, or for under-performing.


Having said all of that, yes, the SEC has a well-deserved reputation for over-signing. I won't go so far as to say that it is a moral/ethical issue, but it is something that should have been addressed - and it has.

But the numbers reported on sites like oversigning.com do not tell the whole story of over-signing at programs like Arkansas any more than they tell the whole story of under-signing at programs like OSU.

If you guys want to point to those numbers as evidence of your superiority, be my guest. It's not something that I'll buy, because of the superficiality of the argument. Your numbers in the win/loss column, your number of BCS games and your number of NC's do that in a much more valid way.

 

[jwinslow]

Let us also note, that it has never given Nutt a competitive advantage, as evidenced by his lifetime vs. the SEC record of below .500.

The only way to conclude it didn't give him a competitive advantage is to compare it to a 4-5 year span where he didn't oversign, and compare those records, and even then it is a really small sample size.

He did it for a reason. Perhaps what it means is Houston Nutt is not capable of building a BCS power, rather than his oversigning was not an advantage.

But considering the relative success of the two programs, it would appear (superficially) that under-signing gives a team a competitive advantage.

False. Being Ohio State, having Ohio largely to yourself (a fence built by Tressel), and having annual BCS bids (and NC games 1/3 of the time) is what gives the team a competitive edge in talent.

Jim Tressel is a fantastic recruiter, but he wouldn't land as much premiere talent as Urban Meyer, Ron Locksley, Charlie Strong, Pete Carroll if recruiting at Arkansas. He might coach up a lot more sleepers as his teams have a terrific track record even without top notch recruits, but on paper, he would not be my pick if I wanted to get the most talent to your school.

 

[SmoovP]

The only way to conclude it didn't give him a competitive advantage is to compare it to a 4-5 year span where he didn't oversign, and compare those records, and even then it is a really small sample size.

He did it for a reason. Perhaps what it means is Houston Nutt is not capable of building a BCS power, rather than his oversigning was not an advantage.

Houston Nutt is indeed incapable of building a BCS power. Something most Arkansas fans knew in year three of his ten year tenure. The reason he did it is because he's a shyster and a hack.

False. Being Ohio State, having Ohio largely to yourself (a fence built by Tressel), and having annual BCS bids (and NC games 1/3 of the time) is what gives the team a competitive edge in talent.

As for your second point, you agree with me. That's why I put in the (superficially) in that point, to point out that it is a very superficial reading of the data.

Which is really the entire point of my long-winded post.

 

[Deety]

A) The SEC has a high number of academic non-qualifiers who do indeed sign, but don't make it to campus

To me, this means the SEC is willing to recruit people who are unlikely to be or stay academically eligible, and willing to hedge their bet with the futures of those who were eligible, who believed in the promises made them, but just weren't as good.

If the schools aren't recruiting for likely eligibility, by oversigning, it's the kids that are eligible that pay for it when the plan doesn't work. THEY unwittingly take the risk while being told how important they are to the team. It should be the schools whose math failed that take the hit, not the kids. Recruit the 25, and the schools that jump after those with marginal academics take the risk of a competitive disadvantage - not some kid who now has to figure it all out again. Maybe the word will get out that academics are actually going to matter to a school, and prospective players will start to get it done, and in doing so, prepare themselves for better futures regardless of football.

I just wish the NCAA would step in and enforce the 25 limit, since the schools seem utterly disinclined to do so.

BTW, there are ethical ways to fit kids into a class. Tressel has asked guys to grayshirt before. The difference is, it wasn't a Plan B to salvage some semblance of the broken promises of Plan A - it was a choice the players were able to make up front.

 

[SmoovP]

To me, this means the SEC is willing to recruit people who are unlikely to be or stay academically eligible, and willing to hedge their bet with the futures of those who were eligible, who believed in the promises made them, but just weren't as good.

If the schools aren't recruiting for likely eligibility, by oversigning, it's the kids that are eligible that pay for it when the plan doesn't work. THEY unwittingly take the risk while being told how important they are to the team. It should be the schools whose math failed that take the hit, not the kids. Recruit the 25, and the schools that jump after those with marginal academics take the risk of a competitive disadvantage - not some kid who now has to figure it all out again. Maybe the word will get out that academics are actually going to matter to a school, and prospective players will start to get it done, and in doing so, prepare themselves for better futures regardless of football.

I just wish the NCAA would step in and enforce the 25 limit, since the schools seem utterly disinclined to do so.

BTW, there are ethical ways to fit kids into a class. Tressel has asked guys to grayshirt before. The difference is, it wasn't a Plan B to salvage some semblance of the broken promises of Plan A - it was a choice the players were able to make up front.

I don't know if I agree with that. It can be a very fine line about who qualifies and who does not, and there are still grades to come out after signing day.

Doing a sign-and-place in a JUCO for 2 or 3 players a year is a perfectly legitimate and ethical thing to do in my opinion.

Signing a LOI might be just the incentive to get a borderline qualifier over-the-hump academically.

 

[jwinslow]

I don't know if I agree with that. It can be a very fine line about who qualifies and who does not, and there are still grades to come out after signing day.

Doing a sign-and-place in a JUCO for 2 or 3 players a year is a perfectly legitimate and ethical thing to do in my opinion.

Signing a LOI might be just the incentive to get a borderline qualifier over-the-hump academically.

A player should not be allowed to sign with a school if they don't have room for him.

The school should take the risk, not the kid.

If the player is talented enough to take a risk on offering him, then the school should risk not using that scholarship if he does not qualify in the end.

With oversigning, the kid might qualify and be rewarded with a royal screwjob because another kid also qualified and took his spot.

 

[SmoovP]

A player should not be allowed to sign with a school if they don't have room for him.

The school should take the risk, not the kid.

If the player is talented enough to take a risk on offering him, then the school should risk not using that scholarship if he does not qualify in the end.

With oversigning, the kid might qualify and be rewarded with a royal screwjob because another kid also qualified and took his spot.

So what happens if the kid is qualified at Christmas, signs an LOI, and then fails a class in the second semester of his Senior Year rendering him academically ineligible?

Are you saying that the school should not have offered him in the first place since his grades were that close to being behind the line?

 

[osugrad21]

So what happens if the kid is qualified at Christmas, signs an LOI, and then fails a class in the second semester of his Senior Year rendering him academically ineligible?

Are you saying that the school should not have offered him in the first place since his grades were that close to being behind the line?

I understand what you are saying, but if a kid fails a class in the second semester when he knows he is walking that line:

1) He probably isn't ready for college anyway
2) His test scores are likely awful
3) His teacher is a first rate POS

For the record, I have no problem with sign and place situations...I do have issues with scholarships being removed from kids who simply did not athletically perform as expected.

 

[SmoovP]

I understand what you are saying, but if a kid fails a class in the second semester when he knows he is walking that line:

1) He probably isn't ready for college anyway
2) His test scores are likely awful
3) His teacher is a first rate POS

For the record, I have no problem with sign and place situations...I do have issues with scholarships being removed from kids who simply did not athletically perform as expected.

Perhaps you are right, but I had rather err on the side of giving a kid an opportunity to get an education and a scholarship than drawing a hard line.

I don't know that scholarships are being removed from under-performing kids on any kind of grand scale - be it in the SEC or anyplace else.

I'd bet that's a pretty rare thing.

And I understand the wish to make it an even playing field for all the NCAA schools, I really do.

While I'm not one to put much stock in 'slippery-slope' arguments, when taken to an extreme, we could push the 'even playing field' wish out into athletic department budgets, spending per player and beyond.

 

[MaxBuck]

... I had rather err on the side of giving a kid an opportunity to get an education and a scholarship than drawing a hard line.

Many of us, I believe, agree with you on this Smoov. My problem with oversigning really relates to the flip side of this: student-athletes who believe they have a scholarship because of the offer tendered by a school, then find out they no longer have a spot because of the oversigning practice.

To the extent more kids get a shot at a college education, I'm not complaining (regardless of the impact on "competitive advantage"). To extent kids get left in the lurch through no fault of their own, I'm fully opposed.

Edit: to the extent further discussion of this topic presents all of us more views of Mariah Carey's tits, I'm also fully supportive.

 

[SmoovP]

Many of us, I believe, agree with you on this Smoov. My problem with oversigning really relates to the flip side of this: student-athletes who believe they have a scholarship because of the offer tendered by a school, then find out they no longer have a spot because of the oversigning practice.

To the extent more kids get a shot at a college education, I'm not complaining (regardless of the impact on "competitive advantage"). To extent kids get left in the lurch through no fault of their own, I'm fully opposed.

Edit: to the extent further discussion of this topic presents all of us more views of Mariah Carey's [censored], I'm also fully supportive.

I agree that kids getting left in the lurch is wrong. But again, I'm not convinced that is happening on a scale that would be statistically relevant.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.

But there is a lot that goes into this.

Clearly you couldn't limit scholarship offers to 25 - meaning that a school could only issue 25 offers - because I don't know that any program gets every single player they offer a scholarship to.

And I have no idea what the batting average is on offer/acceptance, but I'd be shocked if it's more than .500.

I am curious though, as to what explains OSU's under-signing. You guys have only signed 25 one time in the past 9 years.

How do you keep your team fully stocked with 85 players?

 

[Bill Lucas]

I agree that kids getting left in the lurch is wrong. But again, I'm not convinced that is happening on a scale that would be statistically relevant.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.

But there is a lot that goes into this.

Clearly you couldn't limit scholarship offers to 25 - meaning that a school could only issue 25 offers - because I don't know that any program gets every single player they offer a scholarship to.

And I have no idea what the batting average is on offer/acceptance, but I'd be shocked if it's more than .500.

I am curious though, as to what explains OSU's under-signing. You guys have only signed 25 one time in the past 9 years.

How do you keep your team fully stocked with 85 players?

It's not about offering 25 scholarships. It's about turning the spigot off once you get 25 commits in a year.

To answer your question about Ohio State's numbers. Coach Tressel has a history of offering available scholarships to deserving walk-ons. I believe Antonio Smith earned a scholarship this way a few years ago. This year two players received this honor IIRC.