Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[BB73]

How do you propose to stop it?


Fair warning here, I'm setting you up for a takedown.

There was a mention of one idea a while back in this thread by ScriptOhio, quoting an idea that Bo Schembechler had a few years ago.

The 85 scholarship limit could be changed to 85 scholarships that could each be given out only once over a 4-year period. Then if a guy transfers or just isn't good enough, his schollie couldn't be re-issued until 4 years after he was initially given it. If he goes pro after 3 years, that schollie would still have to be unused for another year.

Details would have to be worked out for JUCO (2 or 3-year schollies), true medical reasons that end football careers, etc.

If the NCAA did that, the LOIs wouldn't be a big deal, and the 'weeding out' of non-productive guys that some find so offensive would be almost a moot point.

Ths schollies would have to be formally issued sometime between NLOID and the start of fall camp each year.

Such a proposal would have to phased in over at least a 3-year period. Once in place, I think the current use of APR to reduce scholarships for teams below the 925 standard could be eliminated. Teams would be incentivized to make offers only to guys that they think can be productive for 3-4 years, and there would be almost no upside to kicking anybody to the curb.

 

[MaxBuck]

All this sniffing about 'competitive advantage' is pretty entertaining.

What do you guys want to happen about this 'oversigning' problem anyway?

Honestly, speaking for myself, nothing - except to make schools accountable in those instances when a student-athlete is cut for "lack of performance" when there are too many new young studs coming in to allow him to remain on schollie. I can accommodate different rules in different conferences. Others will likely disagree.

 

[Gatorubet]

There was a mention of one idea a while back in this thread by ScriptOhio, quoting an idea that Bo Schembechler had a few years ago.

The 85 scholarship limit could be changed to 85 scholarships that could each be given out only once over a 4-year period. Then if a guy transfers or just isn't good enough, his schollie couldn't be re-issued until 4 years after he was initially given it. If he goes pro after 3 years, that schollie would still have to be unused for another year.

Details would have to be worked out for JUCO (2 or 3-year schollies), true medical reasons that end football careers, etc.

If the NCAA did that, the LOIs wouldn't be a big deal, and the 'weeding out' of non-productive guys that some find so offensive would be almost a moot point.

Ths schollies would have to be formally issued sometime between NLOID and the start of fall camp each year.

Such a proposal would have to phased in over at least a 3-year period.

If you recruited so well that you had first round NFL picks on your squad as sophs and Jrs and they left, your success would gut you for a few years after. That would have to be tweaked for our two institutions to go for that.

 

[jwinslow]

I love the 4 year scholarship idea.

Pro - if they get drafted, you get the scholarship back. Without that stipulation, jettisoned benchwarmers could "go pro"
Juco - base it on eligibility and redshirting, up to 4 years. If they are a junior and redshirt, they have a 3 year scholarship. If they play immediately, it is only 2.
Medical - Scholarship recouped after 2 years, if 4 isn't reached first.
Expulsion - See above. A 1st yr player who is expelled for drugs costs you that schollie spot until his 3rd year.

I really like the 4 year scholarship idea, and would make a consolation for drafted early departures. It might also keep a few kids in school longer rather than pull a Ernest Shazor and ruin themselves and their school.

If you recruited so well that you had first round NFL picks on your squad as sophs and Jrs and they left, your success would gut you for a few years after.

Kind of like Thad Matta & the APR :(

 

[OSU_D/]

Well, I assume it is not done because it is a negative.

I'm mostly trying to quantify what advantages it really gives, if any, and to find stats that support the theories that it is an advantage for the reasons being suspected/asserted.

Given the 85 limit, there seems to be to be only a limited number of ways that oversigning could produce a benefit. And I have no stats on those factual situations - by conference - to tell me that it is or isn't.

You have NO stats that tell you it is a benefit? How about the fact that the last 4 schools to win national championships are from your conference, the conference that leads in this practice.

Really, it is the west division. Oh wait, that division accounts for 3 of the 4 schools who won the title.

Which 2 schools have signed the most recruits in the past 4 years? Alabama and Auburn. Yep, west division teams and the winners of the last two championships.

The practice exists because it has a benefit to the a program. If there was no benefit then no one would participate in the inefficiency.

I want to know if you think that the practice of oversigning benefits the product on the field. Yes or no?

 

[Deety]

Honestly, speaking for myself, nothing - except to make schools accountable in those instances when a student-athlete is cut for "lack of performance" when there are too many new young studs coming in to allow him to remain on schollie. I can accommodate different rules in different conferences. Others will likely disagree.

I had to re-audition for music scholarships every year. If you are aware it's a yearly scholarship, cuts aren't an issue, but setting up a situation where someone on the team can be cut when it's too late to do something about it is a problem.

How about setting it up so schools had to inform students by January 1 of their decision not to renew a scholarship, and lifting the requirements to sit out a year if the student transfers due to the loss of a scholarship? That way, cut students could contact other schools before NLOID and be counted among that school's new recruiting class.

Schools could then non-renew players to get more LOIs out, but they would have to do so cautiously, lest a non-renewed player turn out to be a position of need after NLOID, with the student already committed to playing for the school's biggest rival the next fall. That seems fair.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

I'd also go for something like that in regards to college basketball.

 

[SmoovP]

You can't, I realize that. Griping about it and publicizing the numbers is the only thing anyone can do about it, and that isn't much.

OK, fair enough. Here's the thing about the 'competitive advantage' complaint.

If the goal is to make a level playing field - because that's what the competitive advantage complaint really is, a wish to level the playing field - then we have to look at all the competitive advantages. Things like:

1. Athletic budgets and spending per player
2. Stadium size and facilities
3. Enrollment standards
4. Coaching and staff salaries
5. etc.

There are lots of different competitive advantages per school and per conference. OSU enjoys several competitive advantages over schools both in and out of the Big Ten.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that none of you guys who are so upset about the competitive advantage are going to be eager to give up any of the areas where OSU enjoys a competitive advantage.

If you look at who is winning on a consistently high level, it is basically the teams that spend the most money, and OSU is near the very top of that list. So when you get involved in my recruit signing business, don't be shocked and outraged when I get into your budget and spending business.

So be careful what you wish for because once you get your way, you can bet the very same argument will be turned against you during the next round.

-----

Having said all that, I agree that what The Gumps are doing is beyond shady, edging into downright dirty. If and when the NCAA puts a stop to it, it will likely be due to some kid bowing up when he gets buttsecksed by Saban and Co. and makes a huge stink about it.

 

[sandgk]

SmoovP - in the alternative to waiting for Nick Saban to have a sex scandal, I'd settle for the NCAA imposing a strict 25 LOI limit. What could be wrong with that? Not anything really, it would at a minimum let some currently smaller schools raise the athletic standards of their squads - those extra, academically qualified kids have to to go somewhere else in that eventuality.

As for the other listed advantages. Nope, not going to give up one of those if I'm the AD at tOSU. Not even to the point of lowering academic standards to "rival" those of some teams elsewhere. Know why? Because those were largely built through long effort and striving for success.

The other schools with lesser budgets and smaller stadia? Well, their new ability to raise their game places them squarely on the road to growing their overall presence and tradition. (Just as might happen someday for the team playing on Blue turf).

 

[SmoovP]

SmoovP - in the alternative to waiting for Nick Saban to have a sex scandal, I'd settle for the NCAA imposing a strict 25 LOI limit. What could be wrong with that? Not anything really, it would at a minimum let some currently smaller schools raise the athletic standards of their squads - those extra, academically qualified kids have to to go somewhere else in that eventuality.

As for the other listed advantages. Nope, not going to give up one of those if I'm the AD at tOSU. Not even to the point of lowering academic standards to "rival" those of some teams elsewhere. Know why? Because those were largely built through long effort and striving for success.

The other schools with lesser budgets and smaller stadia? Well, their new ability to raise their game places them squarely on the road to growing their overall presence and tradition. (Just as might happen someday for the team playing on Blue turf).

OK, but when you get your way on the LOI limit, don't be surprised when people come after your athletic budget and spending per player.

Fair enough?

 

[sandgk]

OK, but when you get your way on the LOI limit, don't be surprised when people come after your athletic budget and spending per player.

Fair enough?

How, precisely, would "they" do that - when the only they of significance is the NCAA?

 

[SmoovP]

How, precisely, would "they" do that - when the only they of significance is the NCAA?

The same way that 'they' are trying to do something about the 'oversigning' issue, by shrieking about 'competitive advantage' and lobbying the NCAA for a rule.

 

[billmac91]

2009 Season (17 Seniors) Name Pos Yr Earl Alexander WR JR SR Eryk Anders DE SR Grad Javier Arenas CB SR Grad Jonathan Atchison LB FR* FR Mark Barron DB SO JR Kenny Bell WR FR FR Undra Billingsley DL FR* SO Chris Bonds DL FR FR John Michael Boswell OL SO JR Michael Bowman WR FR SO James Carpenter OL JR SR Josh Chapman DT SO JR Terrence Cody DT SR Grad Marcell Dareus DL SO JR Drew Davis OT SR Grad Luther Davis DE JR SR Brandon Deaderick DE SR* Grad Preston Dial TE JR SR P.J. Fitzgerald P SR Grad D.J. Fluker OL FR FR Nick Gentry DT SO JR Brandon Gibson WR SO JR Demetrius Goode RB SO JR Terry Grant TB JR Quit Robby Green DB SO JR Jeramie Griffin FB SO JR Darius Hanks WR JR JR Glenn Harbin LB FR* SO Jerrell Harris LB SO JR Dont'a Hightower LB SO SO Baron Huber FB SR Grad Mark Ingram TB SO JR Kareem Jackson CB JR Left Early Star Jackson QB FR* Transfer Marquis Johnson CB SR Grad Mike Johnson OG SR Grad Nico Johnson LB FR SO Barrett Jones OL SO SO Julio Jones WR SO JR Chris Jordan TB SO JR Kendall Kelly WR FR FR Dre Kirkpatrick DB FR SO Eddie Lacy RB FR FR Robert Lester S FR* SO Tyler Love OL SO SO Will Lowery DB SO JR Mike Marrow RB FR FR Ivan Matchett TB FR* Injury Marquis Maze WR SO JR A.J. McCarron QB FR FR Rolando McClain LB JR Left Early Mike McCoy WR SR Grad Alfred McCullough DL SO JR Greg McElroy QB JR* SR William Ming DL FR FR Brandon Moore DL FR FR Brian Motley OG JR SR Kerry Murphy DL FR SO Wesley Neighbors DB FR* SO Kevin Norwood WR FR FR Tana Patrick LB FR FR Colin Peek TE SR Grad Taylor Pharr OT JR SR Cory Reamer S SR Grad Trent Richardson RB FR SO Chris Rogers LC SR Grad David Ross OG JR SR B.J. Scott WR SO SO Darrington Sentimore DL FR FR Ali Sharrief HB SR Grad Travis Sikes S JR Quit Brad Smelley TE SO JR Damion Square DL FR* SO Anthony Steen OL FR FR Ed Stinson LB FR FR Milton Talbert DE JR Medical Hardhsip Leigh Tiffin K SR Grad Chris Underwood TE SO JR Roy Upchurch RB SR Grad Courtney Upshaw LB SO JR William Vlachos OL JR JR Chance Warmack OL FR FR Lorenzo Washington DT SR Grad Alex Watkins DL SO JR Chavis Williams DL JR SR Michael Williams DE FR* SO Rod Woodson DB FR SO Alex Baker LB SO #N/A David Blalock DL SO JR Drew Bullard LB JR JR Ty Burt LB SO #N/A Thomas Darrah QB SO* #N/A Michael DeJohn LB JR SR DeMarcus DuBose LB SO JR Rob Ezell WR JR SR Colin Gallagher K JR SR Hampton Gray DB SR #N/A Daren Hallman LS SO #N/A Mark Holt DB JR SR Alex Jackson WR SR #N/A Kelly Johnson LB SO #N/A Sam Kearns DB SO #N/A J.B. Kern LB SR SR Tyrone King Jr. DB SR #N/A Calvin Lee LB SO #N/A Tyler Maddox DB SO JR Morgan Ogilvie QB FR* FR Kyle Pennington DB JR JR Russell Raines OL FR FR Nick Saban C Chris Scott WR SR #N/A Brian Selman LS SR #N/A Jeremy Shelley K FR SO Allen Skelton OL SO SO William Strickland WR SO JR Melvin Taylor WR JR #N/A Heath Thomas P SR #N/A Carson Tinker LS SO SO Jacob Vane FB SR #N/A A.J. Walker WR JR #N/A David Williams OL FR* SO Nick Williams WR FR FR Justin Woodall S SR #N/A 123 Players















Not sure how this chart will show in the post but I went and researched Alabama 2009 vs. 2010. Essentially, Alabama signed 29 players. From what I could tell, Alabama had 15 seniors in 2009. It looks like they had 4 Bear Bryant scholarship players, which would open 4 additional scholarships for 2010 as long as those players never played a snap. By my math, they would only be able to sign 19 players max. Of the 29 players signed last year a couple of interesting situations.

1. Darious McKeller as a freshman goes on medical leave. Doesn't count this year.

2. Terry Grant a soon to be senior quit the team.

3. Travis Sikes a soon to be senior safety quit the team.

4. Ivan Matchett a Redshirt freshman RB took a medical leave, doesn't count against scholarship limits.

5. Milton Talbertt a Junior DE takes a medical hardhip leave from football team. Doesn't count anymore towards team.

6. Harrison Jones forced to grey-shirt http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/08/scarbinsky_late_grayshirts_a_b.html

7. Deion Blue - late issue surfaced forcing him to go JUCO

8. Wilson Love took medical leave after breaking leg as early enrollee


So remember Alabama had 29 commits last year. They should of had max room for 19.

2 early enrollees came down with "injuries" allowing Bama to put them on medical scholarships. Gets you to 27 signed players.

1 player forced to grey-shirt. Down to 26.

2 upper-classmen quit the team (Travis Grant and Travis Sikes). Down to 24.

Ivan Matchett a redshirt freshman gets hurt getting you to 23.

Deion Blue had a last minute issue forcing him to go JUCO getting you to 22.

You had 3 juniors leave early.

Seems shady to me....

 

[sandgk]

The same way that 'they' are trying to do something about the 'oversigning' issue, by shrieking about 'competitive advantage' and lobbying the NCAA for a rule.

Maybe if the drum pounded was the one labeled - "treat the kids right" instead of "competitive advantage" - the NCAA would listen.

Parenthetically, there was certainly a time when power programs had a huge advantage over others - when scholarships were unlimited. That argument was won on behalf of the smaller schools by touting the competitive benefits of a schollie limit. Now there are so many up and coming teams, it is probably unreasonable that a similar argument would win the day to propose further constraints on Conference or school action. Hence, after reading through much in this thread, my belief is that the politically more potent argument is about fairness to the kids.

It is also precisely because of that parenthetic background that I do not believe any effort to go after money per kid will work, it is unpersuasive because the number of schollies are already limited, for fairness and competitive advantage. Besides it would introduce unexpected asymmetries - I mean, consider, do you reckon that would work out well for ND, Stanford, Duke when they are only allowed to pony up bucks to a kid at the level of NC State, or Indiana U, or SD State?

 

[Gatorubet]

I'd also go for something like that in regards to college basketball.

Pasties on the cheerleaders? Ubet