• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

Bill Lucas;1841286; said:
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.

I don't believe that's how it works.

To my knowledge, a coach doesn't hand out an offer, wait for an answer, and then move on to the next player.

I'm pretty sure that a coach has to have a lot of outstanding offers out at the same time.

Are you saying that once the 25th player commits, that the coach should call all the kids who have offers and say "sorry, offer rescinded!"?
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1841292; said:
I don't believe that's how it works.

To my knowledge, a coach doesn't hand out an offer, wait for an answer, and then move on to the next player.

I'm pretty sure that a coach has to have a lot of outstanding offers out at the same time.

Are you saying that once the 25th player commits, that the coach should call all the kids who have offers and say "sorry, offer rescinded!"?

Yes, we are saying that. As the class starts to get full most coaches let the players with outstanding offers know that their time to make a decision is running short.

Tell me which one is better: A) rescinding the offer before signing day, leaving the kid with time to sign elsewhere; B) not "rescinding" the offer but not giving the kid a spot on the team; C) not rescinding the offer and kicking another kid off the team. I'll choose A.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1841279; said:
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?

If the average is 21, and 11 redshirt each year, that's actually 95 players on the roster over a 5-year period (4 * 21, plus 11 5th year seniors), allowing for attrition of about 2 per class. When the attrition is a little higher than that, a couple of walk-ons get rewarded with schollies.
 
Upvote 0
Colvinnl;1841294; said:
Yes, we are saying that. As the class starts to get full most coaches let the players with outstanding offers know that their time to make a decision is running short.

That works out very well for a program like OSU - that lives in a state with an enormous population/recruiting base, that spends more than $11,000 dollars more per player than the next nearest competitor, has an athletic budget nearly 1/3 bigger than anyone else in the nation, is a relatively prosperous state with highly rated kids who can afford to walk on and wait for a scholarship to open up and has the tradition and history - with its attendant recruiting benefits - that OSU enjoys.

OSU can certainly afford to think that way, and I can't find any competitive advantage in that situation. :roll2:


Colvinnl;1841294; said:
Tell me which one is better: A) rescinding the offer before signing day, leaving the kid with time to sign elsewhere; B) not "rescinding" the offer but not giving the kid a spot on the team; C) not rescinding the offer and kicking another kid off the team.

D) Grey shirting; E) Sign-and-place at a JUCO

"I'm sorry Mr. 3 Star Kid, you didn't accept our offer immediately and someone else got your spot. Good luck at Southwest Directional State Teachers College".

Your scenario basically requires that any kid short of a 4 start accept the first offer that comes along out of fear that they won't get a better offer.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1841309; said:
That works out very well for a program like OSU - that lives in a state with an enormous population/recruiting base, that spends more than $11,000 dollars more per player than the next nearest competitor, has an athletic budget nearly 1/3 bigger than anyone else in the nation, is a relatively prosperous state with highly rated kids who can afford to walk on and wait for a scholarship to open up and has the tradition and history - with its attendant recruiting benefits - that OSU enjoys.

OSU can certainly afford to think that way, and I can't find any competitive advantage in that situation. :roll2:




D) Grey shirting; E) Sign-and-place at a JUCO

"I'm sorry Mr. 3 Star Kid, you didn't accept our offer immediately and someone else got your spot. Good luck at Southwest Directional State Teachers College".

Your scenario basically requires that any kid short of a 4 start accept the first offer that comes along out of fear that they won't get a better offer.

Intersting, to hear your fellow Hogs and SEC brethren on their boards Ohio is the bottom of the barrel in living conditions and employment opportunities.

Grey shirting is an option for a marginal kid who just "has" to go to a certain school but for a true Division 1 recruit looking to be in the two deep it's not a viable option...at all.

E) Ohio State has done this with academic casualties but the numbers appear to be far higher at SEC schools. Hell, LSU has a high school in Baton Rouge where they sometimes "place" recruits.

My son is getting some basketball looks. The best advice we've received is that an offer in hand is gold. Don't get caught in always hoping for a better offer because the offer in hand is conditional and could go away at any time then you could be left with no offers.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1841309; said:
That works out very well for a program like OSU - that lives in a state with an enormous population/recruiting base, that spends more than $11,000 dollars more per player than the next nearest competitor, has an athletic budget nearly 1/3 bigger than anyone else in the nation, is a relatively prosperous state with highly rated kids who can afford to walk on and wait for a scholarship to open up and has the tradition and history - with its attendant recruiting benefits - that OSU enjoys.
Quality prospects do not walk on at OSU, you misunderstood our point.

The point was that if there is some unplanned attrition like Duron Carter, that spot becomes open when you don't oversign. A school like OSU has not oversigned assuming that some kids will wash out, flunk out, transfer or be placed on a very questionable medical waiver to reclaim that scholarship. There are a few here or there that are known to be transferring in the offseason, but nothing like the 8-10 cuts that Alabama has to make annually.

The best walkon in recent memory was Bo Delande, who was a fine HS rb, but not really much of a college prospect.

Justin Boren doesn't really count because he was not allowed to be on scholarship at OSU based on B10 transfer rules within the conference. He also preferred OSU coming out of HS, but his father's lineage at UM was too much to overcome (if it was up to Justin, he never leaves Columbus in the first place).

OSU will bring a few kickers in with walkon scholarships, or might get a long snapper (those guys usually get a schollie in year 4 or 5 if there are leftover spots from attrition), but they really don't recruit players with walkon spots.

Antonio Smith was going to be a career special teamer at best when he came to OSU as a walkon. Brilliant guy but not a very gifted athlete. He became serviceable but not great, but his instincts and fundamentals helped him play his way into a starting role, a scholarship, and a semi-finalist for the Thorpe award.

Most of the walkons who get scholarships are guys that just play on special teams or sub in during garbage time but have made a big impact on the practice field.
D) Grey shirting; E) Sign-and-place at a JUCO

"I'm sorry Mr. 3 Star Kid, you didn't accept our offer immediately and someone else got your spot. Good luck at Southwest Directional State Teachers College".

Your scenario basically requires that any kid short of a 4 start accept the first offer that comes along out of fear that they won't get a better offer.
No, it means that an offer is actually an offer, not a potential game of bait and switch.

When OSU recruits players, they tell them where they are on their recruiting board, including when they are 1-2 players decisions (this includes a recruit trending away from OSU, like Clowney from SC) away from getting an offer. They also let them know when spots are tight. They are generally a soft sell, straight forward recruiting staff.

Two years ago, when OSU basically finished their recruiting class by the summer camp (before those prospects began their senior year), they told a number of prospects visiting in June/July that spots were limited and they had to decide then to join the class. That timetable isn't very typical (usually it gets tight in the fall), but that approach is.

They do not pressure them to become a buckeye, and tell them to make the right decision for them, even if they head elsewhere because of the timetable or other factors.

Also, when prospects are visiting OSU, Tressel & co will often tell them to talk things over with their parents, coach, mentor to make sure it is the right decision (often times this includes traveling home without verballing). They take a very different approach to recruiting from most hard sell staffs.
 
Upvote 0
Bill Lucas;1841315; said:
Intersting, to hear your fellow Hogs and SEC brethren on their boards Ohio is the bottom of the barrel in living conditions and employment opportunities.

Grey shirting is an option for a marginal kid who just "has" to go to a certain school but for a true Division 1 recruit looking to be in the two deep it's not a viable option...at all.

E) Ohio State has done this with academic casualties but the numbers appear to be far higher at SEC schools. Hell, LSU has a high school in Baton Rouge where they sometimes "place" recruits.

My son is getting some basketball looks. The best advice we've received is that an offer in hand is gold. Don't get caught in always hoping for a better offer because the offer in hand is conditional and could go away at any time then you could be left with no offers.

Well, my Hog brethren, while long on passion, aren't always the brightest bunch in the world. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in Ohio - I mean, I've been to Cleveland - but by any measure, it's a more prosperous and populous state, has a significantly better k-12 educational system and produces a [censored]-ton more talent than poor little ol' Arkansas.

Which points to another factor in all this eligibility discussion, academic casualties and attrition - the quality of education that kids get in our respective states. Arkansas ranks near the bottom (Thank God for Mississippi) and Ohio, I would assume, ranks significantly higher.

So that, along with an exponentially larger recruiting base, puts OSU in a very different situation regarding recruiting and academics.

So it's easy for you guys to have the recruiting policy you have, and look down your noses at places like Arkansas.

Regardless, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with signing 28 kids each year, as long as there is a real plan for what to do with them placement-wise and kids already in the program aren't getting the boot to make room for them. Which to my understanding, is how Arkansas does things under Bobby Petrino.

But from what I can gather, the belief of those on this board is that Arkansas is booting kids off scholarship left, right and center to make room for new recruits. That is not the case.

Like I alluded to earlier, if you want to make things perfectly fair and square, then we have to put budgets, spending and a lot of other things on the table. And after looking up what y'all spend on athletics compared to the rest of the known world, I'm guessing you guys would be against that.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1841323; said:
No, it means that an offer is actually an offer, not a potential game of bait and switch.

I don't get how making an offer and then pulling it because a recruit wasn't fast enough to accept it is any less of a bait-and-switch than anything else.

Under your scenario, how many programs would have kept a scholarship available for Terrelle Pryor, who waited something like 6 weeks after signing day to make his choice?

Could programs afford to hold a scholarship open for someone who was wavering, or would they be forced to take the next person on the list?

I don't think it's nearly as black and white as you make it seem.

While it's your wish to put the responsibility for making smart decisions on the school with your plan, what you are actually doing is forcing kids to accept the first decent offer that comes along.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1841157; said:
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;

Am I the only one completely nonplussed by the seeming lack of concern over this?


SmoovP;1841340; said:
Well, my Hog brethren, while long on passion, aren't always the brightest bunch in the world.

Sigworthy :wink:
 
Upvote 0
Facts:

1. Oversigning gives a school a competitive advantage.

2. Oversigning schools have been known to pull a players scholarship (i.e. even though he is academically eligible, has not broken any rules, and is physically able to play the sport) just to have a schlorship available for an oversigned player.

3. Pulling a schlorship (per #2 above) is not fair to the student athlete and will lessen if not eliminate his chances of ever graduating.

4. The NCAA pretends to care about the graduation rates of the school's student athletes.

OK, why doesn't the NCAA do someting (i.e. pass some legislation) about "oversigning" and go after the schools that with the the same reckless abandon that they go after players with that sell a ring or a gold pants charm?

Bo Schembechler had an idea on this (in his book) for a new NCAA rule to address this.

x8868.jpg


Each school has X number of football schlorships. Currently it is 85. The school can only give out each scholarship every 4 years. You give a scholarship to a player this year, even if the player flunks out, quits the team, is convicted of a crime and goes to prison, and/or leaves early for the NFL; you can't give that scholarship to another player for 4 years. The only exception would be in the rare instances when the player is no longer physically able (i.e. medical condition) to play the sport anymore. In which case he can stay on a "medical exception" scholarship and his athletic scholarship can be awarded to someone else.

Bo's idea has some merit.

:osu:
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1841351; said:
Am I the only one completely nonplussed by the seeming lack of concern over this?

Sigworthy :wink:

What exactly am I supposed to be concerned about on that?

1. The state of the k-12 education system that doesn't properly prepare kids for college?

OK, you got me. I am concerned about that. I have 4 sons currently in k-12, and it concerns me a great deal.

II -- The fact that a coach takes a chance and offers a kid who doesn't quite make it academically when it's all said and done?

OK, you got me. That's a horrible, horrible thing to do. Gosh.

C: That a percentage of kids who want to play D1 ball have to go to D2 or lower to play?

OK, you got me. That is indeed a crime against all humanity.
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio;1841354; said:
Facts:

1. Oversigning gives a school a competitive advantage.

2. Oversigning schools have been known to pull a players scholarship (i.e. even though he is academically eligible, has not broken any rules, and is physically able to play the sport) just to have a schlorship available for an oversigned player.

3. Pulling a schlorship (per #2 above) is not fair to the student athlete and will lessen if not eliminate his chances of ever graduating.

4. The NCAA pretends to care about the graduation rates of the school's student athletes.

1. As evidenced by what?

2. Please give some hard data on the number of times this has happened, where and when.

3. Agreed.

4. Oooo-kay
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1841370; said:
II -- The fact that a coach takes a chance and offers a kid who doesn't quite make it academically when it's all said and done?

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't think the sign and place is the issue...most kids who will not qualify know so by NLOID. I think most here have the LSU/Alabama situations in mind...kids being denied schollies due to a lack of production or needed slots.

SmoovP;1841370; said:
C: That a percentage of kids who want to play D1 ball have to go to D2 or lower to play?

Is this in regards to qualifying? Many kids find D-II tougher to qualify due to the hardline test score needed instead of a sliding scale.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1841370; said:
What exactly am I supposed to be concerned about on that?

1. The state of the k-12 education system that doesn't properly prepare kids for college?

I'm not speaking about Arkansas specifically (remember you were referring to the conference as a whole).

You've done a good job trying to explain how Arkansas doesn't generally participate in most of behavior that causes many people to find oversigning particularly objectionable and then you casually throw out that SEC schools as a whole intentionally target kids en masse who are not prepared for college.

I absolutely see problems with signing a large number of athletes who are marginal students knowing that only half of them will make it on campus. To see it glossed like the potential for abuse (especially when discussing a group of institutions that aren't known for toeing the straight and narrow) isn't staggering really does make my draw drop.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top