Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[Gatorubet]

I understand.

You want to keep hold of your belief of a correlation between oversigning and competitive success when it comes to the SEC, even if there is little or no statistical correlation between oversigning and competitive advantage between conferences - and little or no statistical correlation between oversigning and competitive advantage to programs within conferences.

Come again? Does Georgia not also sign elite talent, yet find themselves mired in mediocrity while LSU, Bama & Florida rule the conference?

Here, you are stating the proposition (whether you intended to or not) that the competitive advantage of a team within a conference, in this case the SEC, is affected by the amount of oversigning.

Here is the site you referenced - but a different page of the site.

http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/

What does it show? It shows that in the Big-12, Texas, (until this year a program with a really good run as an "elite" for a number of years, and a BCSNC) was Dead Last in the number of oversignings within the conference. Last. How can that be, as oversigning is the end-all-be-all of competitive advantage? Surely that is an anomaly, and the mostest, worstest oversigner was kicking ass and taking names in the Big-12! Who could that evil power be that uses oversigning to get a leg up on the conference? Why, Iowa State!!!!
The Mighty Cyclones oversigned their way to a 44-67 win-loss record while mastering the art of the oversign. Auburn's Gene Chizik, then Iowa State's coach, parlayed that Cyclone oversigning advantage to a 2-10 season record in 2008. Bobby Lowder looked at that and said, "That's the oversigning man for me!! Woot!! (TPing small Norfolk pine in office sounds)

So that is a bad example. Let's go to a different conference that uses oversigning to gain an evil edge....the PAC-10. OH MY SUFFERING TEBOW - OREGON STATE LEADS IN OVERSIGNING AND WAS IN THE BCS - point PROVEN!!!

Meh..maybe. For that to hold true, the other power program of the conference for the last ten years - USC - would be one of the oversigning boys, no??

No. They were next to last in the amount of oversignings.

Well, crapola! But I bet the LAST in the oversigning department is so God-awful that it proves the point that oversigning is the reason for lack of success, yes?? Dunno. Stanford is last in oversigning, yet one of the better teams this year. The best, behind Oregon State. WOAH!! So the most oversigning team for a decade, and the least oversigning team for a decade are about tied for having the best PAC-10 team this year? What in the name of Lou Holtz' hairpiece can this mean?

But beyond that, it's common sense.

Yeah, it is. Common sense means that if oversigning is a huuuuge advantage, then it has to show up in the correlation between programs in the same conference. Team Oversigning A gets more shots at good guys. Team B Pasting Wildflowers in its "Ethics made Simple Book" does not oversign so much, thank you Mr. Accuser Guy!!

So what did we find? That within a conference it seems to make no damn difference as to who the stud program is when you try to correlate success at football with how much freaking oversigning you do. Which was my point - the one that got you philosophizing about my credibility.

If you can sign twenty extra players than the opposition, that gives you twenty extra chances to strike gold,

Nope. You strike gold when you ENROLL twenty extra players. You [censored] off half the coaches in North America when you sign more than you can play. Short term success versus long term strategy when it comes to developing relationships with high school programs.

particularly when half of those scholarships are coming from dead weight that transferred, was expelled or got hurt.

Good Lord, Josh, are you saying that part of our devious SEC oversigning strategy is to maximize our number of expulsions and injuries so that we can replace them with brand new freshmen athletes??

We are, indeed, some Tricksey Hobbits to embrace that strategy.

That's twenty more chances for an SEC team to sign or develop the next all-american, or twenty more chances for a borderline student but great talent like Noel Devine to just make it through admissions.

Twenty more chances if they enroll. One last time, show me stats on the number of kids from the oversigning recruiting classes that enroll and contribute! Hell, some kids can be counted as a "signed" new recruit two or three times if he fails to make the grades in H.S. - and then fails again at Juco or a Hooked On Phonics Military Academy in Lower Alabama.

What you fail to address every time I bring this up, is some kind of data that shows how many of the signed recruits actually make it in to enroll and help a program. And then, after we figured out who was qualified to enroll versus a non-qualifier, I'd need to know if the guys who enrolled were there to replace guys going pro, or guys who flunked out, or guys who left because they were homesick, or guys who left because they got hurt. Because if they were, then signing them, and enrolling them, is not evil, not immoral, and just the normal trying to get to the maximum number of scholarship athletes allowed by NCAA rules.*

Arguing otherwise, and doing so by bringing up the big east as a rebuttal (when they sign lousy recruits no matter the total), is pretty frustrating...

As frustrating as debating the merits of a theory that oversigning provides a competitive advantage when there seems to be no correlation between oversigning and success within a conference....and when oversigning (as an advantage) is an advantage when one compares Big-10 versus SEC oversigning stats, but oversigning (as an advantage) is not an advantage when one compares Big-10 versus ACC oversigning stats.

and hurts your credibility.

I'll live.

I accept skepticism or rebuttals. I don't accept sleight of hand like the big east thing.

Well. We must try and get used to it. I have known stranger things.
I once saw a sheep with five legs...



* An entirely different discussion is the discussion of whether qualified student athletes are told to leave so that a stud frosh can enroll, and yet another entirely different discussion is the discussion of whether it is wrong to leave kids who committed early to a program out of a scholarship at the last minute because some unforeseen stud was available, or because your program signed ten more guys than they knew they could use.

 

[Gatorubet]

So you're saying that signing 96 players rather than 80 over 4 years does not constitute a substantial competitive advantage? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying. And that seems absurd whether you're spinning it clockwise or counterclockwise (i.e., northern or southern hemisphere).)

To my everlasting confusion, I can't seem to get anyone to see that oversigning is meaningless unless the oversigned kids actually find their way into a program to replace players who are not hurt, have not gone pro, not flunked out, not transferred to be next to his mom, baby, gf, skiing, elk herds, etc. but WERE ONLY OVERSIGNED AND ENROLLED SO THAT AN UNDERACHIEVING, BUT OTHERWISE ON-THE-SQUAD-DISAPPOINTMENT-TO-COACH DUDE CAN BE LAUNCHED AND REPLACED BY A NEW FRESHMAN STUD!!!....OR....OR......WERE OVERSIGNED TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT THE SEC WERE ABLE TO MONOPOLIZE RECRUITS AND TO PICK AND CHOOSE FROM BETWEEN MANY "I WANT TO COME TO YOUR SCHOOL" RECRUITS, ONLY TO GIVE THE HEAVE-HO TO THE LESS SKILLED OF THE 5 STAR RECRUITS ON SIGNING DAY.

I must now refresh myself with some strong spirits while I recline on the fainting couch, as I appear to have caught the vapors...

 

[osugrad21]

at my next poker home game, i'm going to play with four hole cards, while the others will play with two. i don't expect that it will make much difference, though after all, i'll end up using only two (just like everyone else) after discarding the other two that add the least to my hand. there will be no competitive advantage.

If two of your four hole cards are Uno cards that you know will not be allowed in the game, there is no advantage.

 

[kentuckbuck]

If two of your four hole cards are Uno cards that you know will not be allowed in the game, there is no advantage.

I disagree as I think Cam Newton could be considered a UNO card in that example. :).

 

[jwinslow]

this might be the best one yet. You want us to talk about how guys are cut during oversigning but just excluded every way it is done, by placing backups on bogus or overstated medical redshirts, encouraging a kid to transfer (either through direct advice or subtly by a number of coaching techniques), expelling a kid when a starter would not have been jettisoned, or dialing back his tutor help or strategy to cause his grades to slip.

It is primarily done by medical redshirt or transfers, or forcing an incoming kid to delay enrollment for six months - until the next recruiting class - either by grayshirting or placing a borderline kid in prep school when he could probably slide in if he were needed in year 1.

There is also the occasional pulled scholarship, either directly or by lack of contact, which usually leads to a decommitment.

Asking us to prove you wrong by using examples you know do not exist is your most disappointing argument yet. players do not leave the program with the tag line "not good enough to keep spot vs underclassmen"

To my everlasting confusion, I can't seem to get anyone to see that oversigning is meaningless unless the oversigned kids actually find their way into a program to replace players who are not hurt, have not gone pro, not flunked out, not transferred to be next to his mom, baby, gf, skiing, elk herds, etc. but WERE ONLY OVERSIGNED AND ENROLLED SO THAT AN UNDERACHIEVING, BUT OTHERWISE ON-THE-SQUAD-DISAPPOINTMENT-TO-COACH DUDE CAN BE LAUNCHED AND REPLACED BY A NEW FRESHMAN STUD!!!....OR....OR......WERE OVERSIGNED TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT THE SEC WERE ABLE TO MONOPOLIZE RECRUITS AND TO PICK AND CHOOSE FROM BETWEEN MANY "I WANT TO COME TO YOUR SCHOOL" RECRUITS, ONLY TO GIVE THE HEAVE-HO TO THE LESS SKILLED OF THE 5 STAR RECRUITS ON SIGNING DAY.

I must now refresh myself with some strong spirits while I recline on the fainting couch, as I appear to have caught the vapors...

 

[Buckeye86]

 

[BB73]

To my everlasting confusion, I can't seem to get anyone to see that oversigning is meaningless unless the oversigned kids actually find their way into a program to replace players who are not hurt, have not gone pro, not flunked out, not transferred to be next to his mom, baby, gf, skiing, elk herds, etc. but WERE ONLY OVERSIGNED AND ENROLLED SO THAT AN UNDERACHIEVING, BUT OTHERWISE ON-THE-SQUAD-DISAPPOINTMENT-TO-COACH DUDE CAN BE LAUNCHED AND REPLACED BY A NEW FRESHMAN STUD!!!....OR....OR......WERE OVERSIGNED TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT THE SEC WERE ABLE TO MONOPOLIZE RECRUITS AND TO PICK AND CHOOSE FROM BETWEEN MANY "I WANT TO COME TO YOUR SCHOOL" RECRUITS, ONLY TO GIVE THE HEAVE-HO TO THE LESS SKILLED OF THE 5 STAR RECRUITS ON SIGNING DAY.

I must now refresh myself with some strong spirits while I recline on the fainting couch, as I appear to have caught the vapors...

None of Gator's posts made any sense to me, but now that it's bolded and in caps, I completely agree with him.

And I wanted to show him my new T-shirt (posted by Dave Biddle at BN):

 

[matcar]

Here, you are stating the proposition (whether you intended to or not) that the competitive advantage of a team within a conference, in this case the SEC, is affected by the amount of oversigning.

Just my two cents here (which aren't worth the 2 two cents you wont pay for it). In the post above from you I reference, you note that statistically, there is no huuuuuuge advantage based upon the actual results on the field. Personally, I'd have a hard time arguing with that. I don't think there's really a great advantage in it. I suspect there is a slight advantage that comes from this, but really the crux of this, for me, seems to come from the fact that a larger percentage of SEC schools have reduced admissions criteria and take a larger percentage of kids who are borderline students. I presume that oversigning enables them to mitigate that risk somewhat because they have a larger pool of borderline applicants (signees) to choose from. Is that a huge advantage? Absolutely not. But the ability to choose from a larger pool of at-risk kids must have some value. In the end, you can only have X number of kids on scholly, but being able to choose from a wider pool and mitigate risk couldn't hurt.

Meanwhile, from a morality standpoint, I don't think any of us like to see decent kids kicked to the curb or forced to stop playing. It does happen, and although probably not statistically very often, it should be stopped.

 

[Jaxbuck]

If two of your four hole cards are Uno cards that you know will not be allowed in the game, there is no advantage.

The oversigning allows you to replace your Uno cards with real cards while other guys in the game still have to use Uno cards if they get dealt one.

It absolutely allows a team more room for error (busts, flunk outs) and is therefore a competitive advantage.

To Gator or anyone else arguing its no big deal I still ask the same question I did way back when; If the SEC doesn't think oversigning helps them win football games then why do they do it? To help the student athletes?

 

[bassbuckeye07]

I always figured over signing was a competetive advantage in the same way scholarship limits created parody....when Ohio State,Oklahoma,USC,Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, ND, PSU, Alabama ruled the land scape in the 60's and 70's and the Northwesterns of the world had no shot at competing because those schools could offer just to keep kids from going elsewhere without ever intending to play them. Only difference now you have to make room for the next blue chipper by forcing a transfer to Troy.

 

[osugrad21]

The oversigning allows you to replace your Uno cards with real cards while other guys in the game still have to use Uno cards if they get dealt one.

Not always true.

It absolutely allows a team more room for error (busts, flunk outs) and is therefore a competitive advantage.

...but only if those options present themselves. I am only defending the sign and place aspect of oversigning...any form of cutting kids, forcing transfers, whatnot is absolutely unacceptable and the ugly possibility of the issue. However, a 5th year senior who has already received his degree but never made an impact on the field...well,

However, that is not the only aspect but in our recent broadstroke assessment of oversigning, it is the focal point.

 

[Buckeye86]

Not always true.

I know you are trying to be the counter balance in this conversation, but the fact that it doesn't always lead to a competitive advantage is a pretty weak defense.

It's like saying a gun doesn't always have an advantage in a knife fight, you could miss with your first shot!

...but only if those options present themselves.

Which speaks directly to why the Big East doesn't see the same results that the SEC does when it comes to oversigning. The opportunities present themselves a helluva lot more with the fast and loose academic and admission standards in the SEC, not to mention the superior pool of talent that they draw from.

 

[osugrad21]

I know you are trying to be the counter balance in this conversation, but the fact that it doesn't always lead to a competitive advantage is a pretty weak defense.

It's like saying a gun doesn't always have an advantage in a knife fight, you could miss with your first shot!

Not at all weak. His example is as two-sided as my original which is my exact point here...as much as the player could be replaced by the oversigning, there is just as much chance that he is not. However, as soon as we hear "oversigning" we are bounding the the conclusion that something immoral is about to take place or it is a definite competitive advantage.

As stated, that is not always true. If I receive 29 LOIs and I know for a fact that X amount will not qualify but I can place them in a friendly JUCO...

Which speaks directly to why the Big East doesn't see the same results that the SEC does when it comes to oversigning. The opportunities present themselves a helluva lot more with the fast and loose academic and admission standards in the SEC, not to mention the superior pool of talent that they draw from.

I thought I was the one with the weak argument here? This is pure speculation.

 

[Buckeye86]

However, as soon as we hear "oversigning" we are bounding the the conclusion that something immoral is about to take place or it is a definite competitive advantage.

If we take this straw man out of the equation and focus entirely on this:

as much as the player could be replaced by the oversigning, there is just as much chance that he is not.

a 50/50 shot at a competitive advantage is still a competitive advantage.

I thought I was the one with the weak argument here? This is pure speculation.

The SEC having low academic standards and a lot of local talent to draw from is pure speculation?

 

[Coqui]

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).

Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State have all won AP championships. (Now granted, I don't know if PSU was before or after joining the Big 10). As well as one of those mentioned may no longer have a championship in a few years.