Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[osugrad21]

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

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

Straw man? This entire debate is straw man semantics.

Let me go ahead and point out the obvious bias here and we'll all run off to utopia.

 

[Buckeye86]

Straw man? This entire debate is straw man semantics.

Let me go ahead and point out the obvious bias here and we'll all run off to utopia.

You point to the 50% that don't get replaced and say no advantage, we point to the 50% that do get replaced and say competitive advantage.

I repeat, a competitive advantage 50% of the time is still a competitive advantage.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

If you can sign 20+ players over your alloted 85 during a four-year stretch, there's no way in hell that you're not going to have a distinct advantage, not unless you have the ongodly misfortune of signing nothing but busts with those 20+ oversigns. If not following the 85-scholly limit when signing recruits doesn't pose an advantage, then why even have an 85-scholarship limit in the first place?

 

[BB73]

If the rules were changed to only allow 25 LOIs each signing period, what effect would that have on the kids who are questionable qualifiers on signing day?

Would that make top football programs take less chances on guys with marginal academics? Would that allow programs that aren't traditionally in the top-25 to get better players, since they can more afford to wait or to take chances?

Would it increase parity?

Is there a downside to 25 LOIs from the perspective of the kids?

 

[osugrad21]

You point to the 50% that don't get replaced and say no advantage, we point to the 50% that do get replaced and say competitive advantage.

I repeat, a competitive advantage 50% of the time is still a competitive advantage.

I repeat, if a kid is not going to qualify, his "signing" is nothing...nada. Non-binding.

He is no way obligated to re-sign with that school after his JUCO. My 50/50 comment was pointing to the fact that he will not be replaced as illustrated in the example I gave:

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...

 

[BigWoof31]

Meanwhile, let's look at a talented program which has struggled to keep up:

6-7 UGA - 27, 23, 23, 20, 19 = 112, 22.4 avg, 89.6 every 4 yrs, +4.6

Their un-SEC-like restraint on oversigning matches their totals from the 03-07 span as well (see previous post, +4.6).

Does this make us a candidate for the next B10 conference expansion!?!?!

 

[jwinslow]

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)

how wonderful, another hyperbolic departure from reality. I brought up georgia because they are on equal or similar footing to lsu, bama, uf, aub in recruiting

No one besides ou is in the same galaxy as texas. Ou had more success and signees.

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?

the recruiting gulf between texas and every b12 team is tiny compared to the gulf between usc and the rest of the pac ten. Outside of LA, it is incredibly hard to attract talent to the west coast. It took one of the best recruiters and developers in america in harbaugh four years to stop wallowing in terrible records, and the departure of carroll also played a large role.

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!!

Except you keep using intentionally incomparable programs for your rebuttal, like iowa state and texas, or the big east and the big ten.

the comparison is a top draw school with an 85 man cap or a comparable school with ten to twenty extra spots.

That is why georgia compares to bama and iowa state does not.

most schools have small classes occasionally because they are limited by scholarships, like uf recently.

This should have been a very small class for bama if they weren't abusers of oversigning, with such a tiny senior class. Instead they are signing another huge class, since their scholarship system allows them to circumvent the rules

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.

no, the point is you keep hurting your credibility knoeingly comparing terrible programs like isu to texas, or big east schools to the big ten.

Nope. You strike gold when you ENROLL twenty extra players.

false. You get the benefir even if you have five kids flunk out, because you got to pursue more recruits than rhe school who only accepted one verbal for one spot. When you can accept ten playera over your limit and sort out the details later, you have a lot more freedom and potential in recruiting.

You [censored] off half the coaches in North America when you sign more than you can play.

in big ten country, yea. In the south where it is standard operating procedure, nope.

Short term success versus long term strategy when it comes to developing relationships with high school programs.

most kids want to play and buy the hype and sizzle. Bama and lsu have been roasted for abusing oversigninf, yet their in roads are as strong as ever. Your claim is not supported, even if that is how it should be

Rest coming later

 

[Bleed S & G]

If not following the 85-scholly limit when signing recruits doesn't pose an advantage, then why even have an 85-scholarship limit in the first place?

This.

 

[Buckeye86]

I repeat, if a kid is not going to qualify, his "signing" is nothing...nada. Non-binding.

He is no way obligated to re-sign with that school after his JUCO. My 50/50 comment was pointing to the fact that he will not be replaced as illustrated in the example I gave:

Even if the percentage of players that get forced out for non production is reduced by non-qualifiers in each recruiting class, the point remains the same.

A competitive advantage [insert percentage] of the time is still a competitive advantage.

 

[osugrad21]

Even if the percentage of players that get forced out for non production is reduced by non-qualifiers in each recruiting class, the point remains that same.

A competitive advantage [insert percentage] of the time is still a competitive advantage.

Ok. I disagree.

 

[Buckeye86]

Ok. I disagree.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree, but I just can't help dragging this on a bit further.

If a person cheats 1% of the time, are they not a cheater?

By that same line of reasoning, if a team gets a competitive advantage through oversigning, even if it is only a fraction of the time, do they not have an advantage?

 

[Gatorubet]

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):

The South.....knowing enough not to include Missouri in the North.

 

[osugrad21]

I am fine with agreeing to disagree, but I just can't help dragging this on a bit further.

If a person cheats 1% of the time, are they not a cheater?

By that same line of reasoning, if a team gets a competitive advantage through oversigning, even if it is only a fraction of the time, do they not have an advantage?

Sure. It is. I'll now apply your logic and persistence to my only point in this entire debate.

Ole Miss, LSU, and any other team that has used and abused the oversigning has a distinct advantage in the possibility of success in recruiting.

A team that signs mythical LOIs for kids that are in no way close to qualifying does not gain an advantage.

Now, as I also stated earlier, you can paint this thing with wide, broad strokes that encompass the entire issue...or you can break it down into specific details that are not all a terrible conspiracy. I am 100% for sign and place...I am 100% against screwing over kids.

 

[bassbuckeye07]

The South.....knowing enough not to include Missouri in the North.

Hmmm I always thought Missouri never seceded and was truely brother vs brother oh wait

The Missouri Secession controversy refers to the disputed status of the state of Missouri during the American Civil War. During the war, Missouri was claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy, had two competing state governments, and sent representatives to both the United States Congress and the Confederate Congress. This unusual situation, which also existed to some degree in the states of Kentucky and Virginia (with West Virginia), was the result of events in early 1861.

Yes its Wiki

 

[MaxBuck]

To my everlasting confusion, I can't seem to get anyone to see that oversigning is meaningless ...

Well, you sure can't get me to see things in that way. Again, just very simply: being able to pick the best players from a pool of 96 is an advantage over getting to pick the best players from a pool of 85.

Is this an "overwhelming advantage?" Maybe not, but I will never be able to see it as anything less than very significant.