Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[cjmik_75]

you can probably drop one of our commits now.

4* RB Jeremy Hill was arrested for Oral Sexual Battery.
I'm confident (or at least hope) his offer has been pulled.

He's 18yrs old. Him and another 18 year old "pressured" a 14 year old girl into slobbing thier knobs in the locker room at his high school.

Offers from: Bama, Auburn, Tennessee, Fla St and Houston. Hmmmm

Any early guesses on where he ends up?

 

[Nutriaitch]

Any early guesses on where he ends up?

Angola State Penitentiary

or Auburn.

 

[Nutriaitch]

must not be good enough for the SEC if he had to pressure her into it.

article i read was pretty vague.
not sure what they mean by "pressured'

if they mean they begged her and eventually talked her into it, then it is still a serious (and gross) offense to do to a 14 year old.

if they mean they physically forced (or at least threatened to) her to do it, then we talking about felony charges that he may not walk away from.

 

[Gatorubet]

That OTL segment is excellent...

So if the cause and effect nexus of over-signing to performance was as strong as some would suggest, then it should be apparent that the Big East has better teams and perceived superior programs than the Big-10.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

So if the cause and effect nexus of over-signing to performance was as strong as some would suggest, then it should be apparent that the Big East has better teams and perceived superior programs than the Big-10.

That's only if it was a straight correlation, which is an oversimplification of the problem.

Other variables such as the draw of improper benefits, the self-affirming overexposure of the conference and the often lowered academic standards help to create the perfect storm of skirting the rules to create peak performance.

 

[Bleed S & G]

So if the cause and effect nexus of over-signing to performance was as strong as some would suggest, then it should be apparent that the Big East has better teams and perceived superior programs than the Big-10.

C'mon man.. you're smarter than this.

 

[Gatorubet]

That's only if it was a straight correlation, which is an oversimplification of the problem.

Other variables such as the draw of improper benefits, the self-affirming overexposure of the conference and the often lowered academic standards help to create the perfect storm of skirting the rules to create peak performance.

Sloop, no offense buddy, but you really need to produce some kind of empirical data that shows - by conference - the who and what of "improper benefits" for that to fly. Florida has had a big hand in our conference's recent success, and I challenge you to show me the improper benefits that made my alma mater a success. Or that the SEC is more successful than - say - the Big-12 (where the former SWC programs who had a virtual patent on improper benefits shenanigans) are more honest than the SEC, or that the SEC surpasses the ACC in illegal behavior...or the Big East, etc.

And while I am not going to argue the academic superiority of the SEC to the Big-10 (which would be bat [Mark May] stupid), I will respectfully insist on some kind of conference comparison of admission standards for athletes - to see if what you suggest is true. And I don't want to hear an "everyone knows" response from anyone. Show me some kind of graph of minimum standards for incoming football recruits by program or conference, be it minimum ACT,SAT and GPA scores.

As to "self affirming over exposure", any talking head saying "SEC Rules !!!!!!!!!!11!!!!" will not result in a single win on the field. What a non-SEC fan sees as over exposure has two natures, one legitimate and the other a mis-perception. It is true that over exposure can be seen, in that our (SEC) spectacular BCS and BCSNG record gives the press something easy to talk about. Most of those chuckle heads are hardly analysts. And it is true that the Tebow love-fest was gag inducing - and Tebow and UF were SEC Commodities jammed down your throats. I will indeed grant you that experience. But what is not true is for some to claim insufficient justification for some "All Hail the SEC" type band-waggonism.

I will leave you with this one stat: The SEC has had as many schools (four) win national championships in the past five years (Florida, LSU, Alabama and Auburn) as the Big Ten has in the 74-year history of the AP poll (Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota and Ohio State).

 

[SloopyHangOn]

You misunderstood.

I don't want to argue facts, I just want to disregard your subtle jabs at my already predetermined bias.

 

[Gatorubet]

C'mon man.. you're smarter than this.

Look, we have two different phenomena. One is number of recruits signed. The other is the number of those recruits who replace athletes who currently are a member of the program. If Big-10 School "A" signs 22 kids, and all twenty qualify, School "A" has 22 new bodies. If SEC school "B" signs 29 kids and seven can't qualify, School "B" has 22 new bodies.

Fast forward ten years with identical signing methods, and you will have School "A" signing 220 recruits, and the SEC School "B" will have signed 290 recruits. "Oh My God!!! How can we compete??!! Unfair, UNFAIR!!!!!11!!!!!....they have seventy more kids than we did!!!"

Actually, under that scenario, School "B" had exactly zero more recruits in the program than School "A". So maybe I missed some of the Josh-onian stats in earlier discussions that addressed this, for which I apologize in advance, but what I need to see is a stat that shows how many of the respective recruits actually entered the program to play for the respective teams. And, I need to know if (here this is a mythical team not based upon y'all, so 'simma down everyone) if Sucky Team "A" has few kids leaving early for the pros versus Bad Boy Team "B", with a constant turn over of sophmore and Junior kids to the pros. In the case of team "B", they have no choice but to add more recruits, having lost more kids due to drops or pro-draft than team "A".

Now, if Team "B" dropped lots of kids due to marginal qualifiers, then you are going to have to explain why it is an advantage to have more freshmen every year, as older kids with even one year of S&C and game plan knowlege is better would be arguabley more valuable than any number of freshmen.

If team "B" boots out 7 marginally performing athletes who have good grades and otherwise meet the program rules, but are launched by the coaches just because they are not studs - and those seven are replaced as part of Team "B" signing and enrolling 29 kids - - - - - - -
then that is a different story entirely.

All I'm saying is that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I can see instances where it makes no or little difference how many kids are signed, and I can see where it could be a competitive advantage. If and how much is open to debate. But what I do not agree with, absent any other information, is that pure nunmbers of scholarships offered is enough to draw the correlation that some are drawing.

"You only won because you oversigned" is what I am hearing from some, without any more evidence to support how any individual team was helped or hindered by turnover within those specific teams.

 

[Gatorubet]

You misunderstood.

I don't want to argue facts, I just want to disregard your subtle jabs at my already predetermined bias.

Well then, I can only offer my sincere and abject apology. (smileyface x10. this was not meant as a pissy reply)

 

[MaxBuck]

Gator, I understand you are a fan of an SEC school, and I fully expect you to be sympathetic to the interests of your team and its conference.

With all that being said, trying to justify the oversigning that occurs in the SEC is just flat bullshit - you really cannot do it with a straight face. (As a lawyer buddy of mine once put it, it doesn't pass the giggle test.) And it has nothing to do with correlations of signing class size vs. bowl victories or anything of the sort.

Is oversigning a threat to our American way of life? Nah. But it sucks for its victims, those kids who thought they had a binding scholarship agreement before Houston Dale or whoever pulled the fast one and sent them packing to a backwoods JC.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

So if the cause and effect nexus of over-signing to performance was as strong as some would suggest, then it should be apparent that the Big East has better teams and perceived superior programs than the Big-10.

I generally like your posts gator but this particular topic annoys me so much it hurts my perception of you and anyone else who defends it. I know we have explained this to you ad naseum so I'm not certain why I'm going to do it again but here goes.

Taking more players than your competition doesnt make you superbowl champions. but in the terms of EA sports, if you were a 85 team, you may now become a 90 team. If the entire big east is a joke, now they are a slightly less funny joke. If the SEC was already one of top perhaps the top conference in the country then giving them a larger talent pool to chose from makes them into what they are now.

If taking these extra players didnt make the teams better, coaches wouldnt do it.

As to "self affirming over exposure", any talking head saying "SEC Rules !!!!!!!!!!11!!!!" will not result in a single win on the field. What a non-SEC fan sees as over exposure has two natures, one legitimate and the other a mis-perception. It is true that over exposure can be seen, in that our (SEC) spectacular BCS and BCSNG record gives the press something easy to talk about. Most of those chuckle heads are hardly analysts. And it is true that the Tebow love-fest was gag inducing - and Tebow and UF were SEC Commodities jammed down your throats. I will indeed grant you that experience. But what is not true is for some to claim insufficient justification for some "All Hail the SEC" type band-waggonism.

At first I would have agreed with this too, but not anymore. It has gotten out of control. This DOES affect games and outcomes. It affects the perception people have of teams. I have heard countless "fans" in Buckeye Nation spewing the same crap that they've heard mark may and kirk herbstriet and colin cowherd say on ESECPN. If the fans are believing it, recruits are believing it. If recruits are believing it then they have changed the games on which they are reporting. I wish the entire organization of ESpn would just fall into a black hole, I'd rather listen to games on the radio if it meant the venom spewed by that vile propaganda machine never reached another persons ears.

In the end.. its a giant vicious circle. The SEC cheats and ESPN suck their ass, Thus the SEC gets better recruits, and then BECOMES better. The SEC continues to cheat and ESPN has justification and ramps up their love affair even more. The SEC really is the strongest conference. I'm not questioning that, I am disgusted by the way it has become so powerful.


Perhaps college football should just divide in two. One - where teams can pay their players(or cut them) and let them ignore school and do whatever it takes to make them the best football teams they can ever hope to become. and one where athletes are still expected to be students and treated like such. Right now they arent playing the same game.

 

[Gatorubet]

I generally like your posts gator but this particular topic annoys me so much it hurts my perception of you and anyone else who defends it. I know we have explained this to you ad naseum so I'm not certain why I'm going to do it again but here goes.

Taking more players than your competition doesn't make you superbowl champions. but in the terms of EA sports, if you were a 85 team, you may now become a 90 team.

I say this will all due respect. Please read the post after the one you quote for a better understanding of the issues that I am concerned about. You are right that if certain circumstances apply, then if would be an advantage. But over signing may not always equal over enrolling of excess numbers in a program. Please see my different examples. I agree with you that if the SEC is kicking otherwise eligible kids out of their program to make room for better prospects (assuming there is not some deadbeat who will not lift or do film work to get better...they can launch those, IMO, sans guilt) it is an advantage.

If the number of new recruits enrolled every year is about relative, then the number of oversigns is not so damn important. If they offer kids who will not be eligible, and that is what makes up the bigger classes, then those kids will have little bearing on how Team "A" and Team "B" do on the field over the four years. Launching Team "B" players to make room for better Team "B" players is an entirely different story.

But I have seen very little break down of what the oversigning numbers actually represents when all is said and done, after looking at early departures for the pros, and academic dis-qualifiers, etc. So forgive me for not just admitting that our success is only due to our cheating and improper benefits without a greater body of evidence as to just how that is a dead lock fact.

 

[Gatorubet]

Gator, I understand you are a fan of an SEC school, and I fully expect you to be sympathetic to the interests of your team and its conference.

With all that being said, trying to justify the oversigning that occurs in the SEC is just flat bull[Mark May] - you really cannot do it with a straight face. (As a lawyer buddy of mine once put it, it doesn't pass the giggle test.) And it has nothing to do with correlations of signing class size vs. bowl victories or anything of the sort.

Is oversigning a threat to our American way of life? Nah. But it sucks for its victims, those kids who thought they had a binding scholarship agreement before Houston Dale or whoever pulled the fast one and sent them packing to a backwoods JC.

Max, the only thing I was addressing was the competitive aspect of the equation. I said nothing - nothing - about morality or fairness to the athletes signed.

Look at the bold language from your quote above. I agree with every word of that sentence. Comparative competitive edge is different in scope and substance from honoring your word to a kid who committed to you. Nothing about my posts preceding this one was meant to condone leaving a kid out to dry. I was only talking about the leap from pure commit numbers to "you signed umpti-squat more kids than us over the 4 years.."

That may or may not be so, but almost certainly there is no evidence that athletes signed equals athletes ending up playing for that program. There are other issues of fairness, to be sure...but not what I was discussing previously Max.

 

[osugrad21]

Translation to tOSU terms...players like "insert any 4th or 5th year senior who never cracked 2 deep for whatever reason" would have been cut 2 years ago at a handful of schools in the SEC.

Legal? Yes.

Moral? Define morality and outline its standards.

College football is a business. Period. Bad things happen every day on every campus. Some are more bold than others...but that does not at all excuse the less bold.

Oversigning is an issue...but not that much of an excuse.