Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[jwinslow]

Oversigning is not the reason teams attract talent, which is a foundation of the greatness for schools like usc, texas, osu, uf, lsu. Even if they stuck with all players until they graduated and never had any attrition and recouping of scholarships, their recruiting base, facilities, coaches and tradition would make them good or even great reams.

The point is that oversigning lets schools play with different limits to minimize risk.

Most kids do not pan out into their full potential. The busts are what cripple your program. It is not the ones you miss that kill you, it is the ones that you get that do. When osu misses on ben martin, they can get heyward and williams to fill that spot. But when they get an OL prospect and he spends five years on the bench, he is costing osu a spot they could use for a young lineman with untapped potential (compared to the plateau that the benchwarmer has in front of him)


The same is true in recruiting. cardale jones is a fine qb prospect with iffy grades. Because they do not oversign, they cannot offer him a spot with a half dozen prospects in play for a few spots. They have to wait for those guys to verbal or lean elsewhere before they can risk oversigning.

Compare that with alabama. Not only would they have room to offer cardale, because they can sign and place him if he qualifies but there is no room, but they go way beyond that.

Osu has 3 spots left, plus a couple more with some attrition, so they dial recruiting back to about 5-6 prospects and will only get a couple, maybe three, of em.

Bama is out of spots, yet they not only recruit eight more prospects, they accept verbals from 8 more kids and are still recruiting others


That is a huge advantage, and over the next six months players will magically disappear from the roster some recruits may not qualify, but that is not where the bulk of the new scholarships come from as they tracked last year.

There also are not that many multi year signees distorting the data. You brought that up before and I counted up all of the multi year individuals for bama and the number was very small. I do not have it in front of me but it is not the factor you are trying to claim it is.

 

[Jaxbuck]

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.

I am with you on the only actually important thing being 100% against screwing over kids.

As far as the competitive advantage discussion goes imo saying that a non qualifier isn't a comp adv is off base.

If I am SEC school X I get to take a free swing at an at risk kid with no "penalty" for him not qualifying. I have a backup. If I am non SEC school Y and I take that same swing then he doesn't qualify I am down 1 warm body. I have no backup.

If I am misinterpreting what you are saying apologies in advance but as I understand the situation the SEC schools get to play a round of golf with more mulligans than everyone else. That isn't always a direct correlation to winning but it sure doesn't hurt their chances.

Another way to think of it is that an 85 man team is like an 85 stock portfolio for the coach. Some will be winners, some break even some losers but as long as the winners help more than the losers hurt you will have a positive return. The SEC teams essentially have an insurance policy against the losers that no one else has. If you run the math of compounding interest over a certain time period the ability to turn losses into even just zero's is a huge advantage.

Also, I will continue to point out the same thing Mili is trying to point out. If there are rules against it and it has no benefit to the student athletes whatsoever then what other reason besides a perceived competitive advantage can be offered for the SEC schools documented proclivity toward oversigning? In Gators world its called lex parsimoniae, in DBB's world its called Occams Razor, in plain English you have to make extra assumptions about why the SEC teams oversign so heavily if you attribute it to anything other than perceived competitive advantage therefore, "they do it for a perceived competitive advantage" is the explanation that should be selected.

Lastly, I do agree with you that B10 teams need to stop whining about it and just overcome it (but it is something that has to be overcome).

 

[osugrad21]

Here is the thing though Jax, you never pass the 85 limit with non-qualifiers.

Let me clarify before anyone takes the tangent route...I am only operating here with sign and place. Nothing else.

The LOI is not a scholarship. It is a binding agreement that says the school must provide the details of the scholarship for one year if the student-athlete meets the established eligibility guidelines. In February, as Houston Nutt said, you can sign 100 LOIs...they are irrelevant. In most cases, it is ceremonial anyway...I'd guesstimate that probably 90% of non-qualifiers know their final status by January of the Senior year....at least the coaches know. Faxing a kid a LOI and getting his signature does not put him in your 85 count until he is deemed eligible by the NCAA Clearinghouse and registered at your school.

I would also point out the difference in the Midwest and South/West in terms of JUCOs and D-III schools. You have to search for D-III down here...there is one every 50 miles in Ohio.

I definitely see your point Jax and I'm sure in some cases the non-qualifier situation is abused (boosters paying for prep school instead comes to mind), but overall, the sign and place aspect of oversigning is not an advantage to me...to me, it is more of a future investment than a present advantage.

Edit: Added Clearinghouse

 

[SloopyHangOn]

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

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

I agree to an extent, but it depends on how close they are to qualifying. I also think that some schools will sign a kid simply to keep him away from other schools, at which he may qualify.

 

[osugrad21]

I agree to an extent, but it depends on how close they are to qualifying. I also think that some schools will sign a kid simply to keep him away from other schools, at which he may qualify.

Well, its the NCAA qualification...not the individual schools. (SAT/ACT score with the core GPA)

I agree on the proximity of qualifying though. Good point. A sudden qualifier causes the types of problems that are screwing over kids already on scholarship.

 

[cjmik_75]

I'm confused on exactly what oversigning is. Do athletic departments allow more than 85 scholarships? or are the coaches just accepting signed LOI's and not actually bringing in more than 85 kids to practice. So is oversigning actually like over enrolling? I guess my question is are these schools actually breaking rules? Do they give actual scholarships to more than 85 football players each year? Or are they accepting LOI's that would put the scholarship total to more than 85? Okay I'm asking the same questions in different ways I'll stop.

 

[osugrad21]

Or are they accepting LOI's that would put the scholarship total to more than 85?

Yes.

 

[billmac91]

I'm confused on exactly what oversigning is. Do athletic departments allow more than 85 scholarships? or are the coaches just accepting signed LOI's and not actually bringing in more than 85 kids to practice. So is oversigning actually like over enrolling? I guess my question is are these schools actually breaking rules? Do they give actual scholarships to more than 85 football players each year? Or are they accepting LOI's that would put the scholarship total to more than 85? Okay I'm asking the same questions in different ways I'll stop.

While most people recognize a football scholarship as a 4 year commitment, schools have to annually honor the scholarships. So an example would be a team with 70 scholarship players after a senior class graduates.

If said school were to accept 20 letter of intents, they'd be at 90 scholarship players. To stay within NCAA guidelines they effectively have to cut 5 players to get to 85.

The controversy comes into play in how they "cut" those players. Most schools recognize the bad publicity they'd receive for just not-honoring another year of the scholarship so they get creative. Position coaches recommending transfers, tutors becoming less available, poor treatment, etc...

The SEC is known for "medical" issues causing players to remain on academic scholarship, but they do not remain on the football roster. That helps squeeze in additional recruits, and force guys who were never going to pan out, out of the program.

In essence, it should help a program like Bama become deeper and "hit" on more of their recruits because the weed the non-productive players out.

 

[sandgk]

I'm confused on exactly what oversigning is. :: ::
Or are they accepting LOI's that would put the scholarship total to more than 85?

Yes.

Or - another way to explain it is the Houston Nutt way ..

paraphrasing ... "I can accept as many LOIs as I want, there's no rule setting a number on those, I just have to make sure I only have 85 kids on scholarship .."

 

[Deety]

I'm fine with sign-and-place of a sort - kids should be aware an LOI means little if they aren't eligible, so that is okay. The only problem I have is when schools guess about attrition and the kids have to pay the price. You know for sure Recruit A won't qualify this year, okay, he doesn't need an actual LOI - get him in JUCO and give him an offer letter for the next year, contingent on eligibility as they all are, and sign Recruit B. If you think Recruit A probably won't qualify and oversign Recruit B as insurance, but Recruit B doesn't know your actual plan is to grayshirt him if Recruit A pulls it together, that's playing with the kid's future and wrong. In that case, I think you tell Recruit B there will most likely be room for him if he waits a few months, and it's up to him to decide whether to move forward without the LOI or go somewhere else. Give him an "LOI waitlist" letter - just don't commit to a scholarship without being 100% certain there will be one for him.

That whole debate about competitive advantage seems like a red herring to me. Schools are free to seek competitive advantages within the rules as much as they like. Let the kids know exactly where they stand, and don't offer an LOI unless there is definitely a scholarship for them - that covers the moral obligation. From there if you want to tell 50 kids they can come in without an LOI and compete for attrition scholarships, have at it.

 

[OSU_D/]

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).

Florida is the only school to have done so cleanly on your list of SEC schools.

If you are telling me that Alabama and Auburn received no on-field benefit from having signed the most players in the NCAA in the past 4 years then anything else you say will be judged in that light.

The same is true in recruiting. cardale jones is a fine qb prospect with iffy grades. Because they do not oversign, they cannot offer him a spot with a half dozen prospects in play for a few spots. They have to wait for those guys to verbal or lean elsewhere before they can risk oversigning.

Compare that with alabama. Not only would they have room to offer cardale, because they can sign and place him if he qualifies but there is no room, but they go way beyond that.

Osu has 3 spots left, plus a couple more with some attrition, so they dial recruiting back to about 5-6 prospects and will only get a couple, maybe three, of em.

Bama is out of spots, yet they not only recruit eight more prospects, they accept verbals from 8 more kids and are still recruiting others


That is a huge advantage, and over the next six months players will magically disappear from the roster some recruits may not qualify, but that is not where the bulk of the new scholarships come from as they tracked last year.

Bingo



I would love to see a 85 scholarship limit continue with a hard cap of 95 signees (maybe 100) in a 4 year period. A school could earn an exception from 1 of 2 things:
1. If a player is drafted by the NFL in rounds 4 and above. Why? Because we are all in school to enable us to have careers whether it be athletic or not. If a player can be drafted and make a career of it then the school shouldn't be punished. Why only round 4 and above? It prevents unscrupulous coaches from pushing a player to the draft if he knows that player isn't ready but he needs to make room. It also eliminates a potential excuse loophole from pushing someone out that has no shot at playing in the NFL.
2. If players leave a school because they have a new coach then that school could sign "replacements." With players no able to leave because a coach leaves (and I agree with this rule) then we should allow the school the opportunity to not compete shorthanded.

 

[Gatorubet]

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


Yes its Wiki

Mostly just messin' with you. Kansas was the site of the "free soil" state controversy. Kansas-Nebraska Act. Missouri was a slave state, after all. Interesting factoid, President Truman as a young man was not allowed to wear his Missouri national guard uniform into his grandmother's home in Independence, Mo. "Harry," she said, "this is the first time since 1863 that a blue uniform has been in this house. Don't bring it here again." As a middle aged wife and mother she saw her home burned down by one of the maurading pro-Union bands.* Harry was named after his uncle Harrison, who as a 10 year old boy was strung up by the union band because he would not divulge information about the whereabout of his male relatives. Although lifted into the air by the neck several times, he did not talk.

Truman's integration of the military was a great thing, given the mindset of his family and his upbringing. ( BTW, the David McCullough bio of Truman is the bomb if you have nto read it.)

I just think putting Missouri (Clay County anyway :p) in the Union side is a bit much, considering the actual views of its citizens and the bloody civil war in the state itself.

On to oversigning.
*Needless to say, Bloody Bill Anderson and William Quantrill (the James brothers and the Youngers) gave back in blood what they got.

 

[Gatorubet]

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

If there is one vendor of hyperbole in the room, it is you, and your dedicated efforts to talk in generalities, to make sweeping claims without any factual back up, and to ignore any fact that does not fit your over-broad conclusions. It is starting to get annoying. It is not hyperbole to ask you for any statistical support when you make the sweeping claims that the SEC is engaged in dishonest behavior, while the rest of the country does it the better way. Where are the grey shirt stats by conference. The list of who was healthy and making grades yet asked to leave by conference....the list of all of the nefarious [Mark May] you say we do oh-so much more than anyone else?

You insist that the mere fact of oversigning gives the SEC an advantage. You say that Georgia does not oversign, so is at a disadvantage, see the fact that Georgia has struggled. So I point out using your link that there is no seeming correlation between oversigning by programs within a conference and on the field success. "That does not count", you say. You point to Iowa State and say, "Oversigning won't help bad schools". You do this in the same post where you say "Lack of oversigning at Texas and USC has nothing to do with why they are successful."

So oversinging is not a factor in the success of successful programs....and oversigning is not a factor in the lack of success in unsuccessful programs....and not a factor in the Big-12.....and not a factor in the PAC-10. And the fact that oversigning does not correlete to ACC success is....almost insulting to you. You say that with the same brain that insists that oversigning IS a big factor, though, when the SEC does it.

And it seems you still think that, no matter whether oversigners are successful of not. Ole Miss does it a bunch and remains an also-ran. "Never mind", you say, "Ole Miss does not count, look at LSU and Alabama". OK. Alabama oversigned like a mofo in the early 2000s and it was so successful Shula was fired.

So according to you, to re-cap, the fact that oversigning does not seem to correlate to increased program competitiveness in the Big-10, or the PAC-10- or the BIG-12 - or the ACC - none of that matters. It is, however, a problem when the SEC does it. Gotcha.

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

Which is you coming up with your own justification to explain why oversigning has NO correlation to increased athletic success, at least not when you look at the schools who are successful and the ones that are not.... and who oversigns more than others.

It just does not match up.

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

I just went to the link you gave out and looked to see if the oversigning had any casual connection to success. Looks like it does not match up.

It is like you are saying that mumps vaccines cause autism, but when you get the cold unbiased stats showing that in areas with higher percentages of children vaccinated for mumps there is NO increase in autism. In fact, some times there are increased vaccinations and LESS autism.

Science would come to a conclusion about that.

Here, you are selling the fact that although there is no correlation between oversigning and intra-conference success, and no correlation between oversigning and inter-conference success for any conference not the SEC, there IS an evil competitive advantage for a conference when it oversigns - if it is named the SEC.

When the smoke clears, your argument has as much validity as saying that mumps vaccines causes autism - but only in the SEC. Pardon me if I look astounded.

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

But I do not look as silly as someone who insists that the SEC has as advantage when it does something - while maintaining that it is not an advantage to programs who do it when they are not SEC programs.

In the south where it is standard operating procedure,

At some point you need to come up with statistical support for your sweeping statements about the way things are done in the SEC versus other places or just STFU. Well, not really, but if you continue to pitch the image of Big-10 coaches disdaining to fill up their classes because it would not be morally right if recruit Sluggo was launched for recruit Flasho...because who needs the couple mill a year head coaching salary anyway....I might take your damning with total absence of facts more seriously.

 

[BB73]

Big-10 coaches disdaining to fill up their classes because it would not be morally right if recruit Sluggo was launched for recruit Flasho

I can see right through this example - Sluggo is clearly a Big Ten guy, and Flasho an SEC recruit.