Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[Muck]

How do you know that they won't have 4 guys not qualify or go elsewhere, etc.?

It would be funny if you weren't absolutely serious in using that as a defense without seeing the implications.

 

[Deety]

How do you know that they won't have 4 guys not qualify or go elsewhere, etc.?

How do they know 4 guys will not qualify or go elsewhere? And why bother giving those guys LOIs if you know they won't qualify?

Because if they don't know, or they are wrong, four kids are signing up to get screwed over.

Obviously, if four guys don't wind up signing LOIs, that's fine... but if they promise they will have LOIs and don't, or promise they will have schollies for them and don't, that's wrong. Schools should only promise what they know they can deliver. There's nothing wrong with telling a kid you can't guarantee a spot for them but will likely have one through attrition - since that's the actual situation.

 

[MONTbigBuck]

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1178612

Anybody expect that Alabama, SC, or LSU will "hold a spot open" for Clowney now that his recruitment is expected to run well past signing day?


sarc. intended

 

[SmoovP]

OK, I'm catching up here after a murderous work week. How y'all doing?

First, you guys are making some very good points. I know more about this now than I ever thought I would.

Second, Now I think y'all are jacking with the math.

It's 85 scholarships per year, and using multi-year cumulative numbers skews the perception of what's happening.

With the baseline of 85 per year, if 17 graduate, 3 go pro early, 3 flunk out and 3 transfer out seeking playing time, (for example) you have 26 holes to fill.

I would hazard a guess that the SEC has more kids flunk out, more kids transfer out, and more kids leaving early for the pros than most other conferences do.

Evaluating it on a year-by-year basis is a more appropriately fair way to look at it.

Third, in all of the examples of what Alabama is doing to weed out the scrubs, they are offering the kids a full scholarship to continue their education. If they are never going pro, and won't ever see the playing field at that school, then that is a pretty fair deal.

If they disagree with the coaches evaluation of their pro prospects, or just want to play, they can transfer out. Again, a fair deal.

So depending on what is more important to the individual kid - education or playing time with a chinaman's chance at the NFL - he has a choice to make. Go somewhere else and play, hoping to make it to the NFL, or get an education for free.

But the devil is in the details. That's why evaluating what it is happening on a year-by-year, school-by-school, kid-by-kid basis is the only way to figure out what is really happening. Are some kids getting a raw deal? I'm sure that in some cases they are, but I'm guessing that most kids are taking a known risk when signing with a big name school.

28 LOIs per year is the law of the land and expecting coaches to voluntarily ignore that isn't realistic. Kids that sign with a big-time program like Alabama or LSU should know what they are signing up for - a hyper-competitive, performance-driven situation. The risk/benefit analysis is something that each kid should weigh before accepting an offer.

One of the built-in advantages of a school like Alabama (or OSU) is that kids are dying to play there. Given the choice at a chance to play for the Gumps over accepting a surer chance at playing for Northwest Directional State, I'd guess that most kids will take the risk and sign the LOI for Bama.

Fourth, I'm not defending Bama per se, and yes, Saban is operating in the grey area of the rules. Bama is as competitive as they come, and the only point of pride in that whole god-forsaken state are the Gumps. Auburn is likely even dirtier than Bama due to their inferiority complex to their more 'successful' big brother. We've seen this year what they will do with the rules.

If you want to bash Alabama, Auburn or LSU, I'm all in, and it does taint the perception of the entire conference, I'll give you that.

Coaches are going to exploit anything they can if they think it will help their chances and will push the limits of the rules as far as possible. Many will even knowingly break the rules. Such is the pressure to win and win big and win now. We put that pressure on them as fans and institutions. We pay them outrageous sums of money, far beyond their value to society or school to meet our expectations. Expecting them to voluntarily give up any perceived advantage is unrealistic.

Making a rule that schools could only accept as many LOIs as they have scholarships available appeals to everyone's sense of fairness. But I don't know that in reality that it is the fair thing for everyone. It seems to me that it makes the recruiting process even more cut-throat, more high-pressure and more compressed. Maybe if there were a corresponding loosening of transfer rules, it might offset that.

But again, schools with great tradition, great facilities and ginormous budgets will always have a competitive advantage over those who don't.

So, at this point in the debate, I'm thinking that A) kids aren't being 'hurt' on the scale that seems to be conventional wisdom, B) any 'competitive advantage' is minor and relative and C) trying to legislate an even playing field is likely to have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences that will negatively affect the haves more than the have nots.

But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, as it is a long off season and we need something to talk about.

 

[Deety]

So, at this point in the debate, I'm thinking that A) kids aren't being 'hurt' on the scale that seems to be conventional wisdom,

What scale of hurting kids is good?

 

[SmoovP]

What scale of hurting kids is good?

I'm thinking 2 or 3, per year, per school, give or take.

Seriously though, the answer is zero. If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no institutionalized competitive advantage whatsoever.

All schools would have the exact same budget, the exact same facilities and every player would get the exact same number of reps on the practice field and the playing field.

Everyone would get a participation ribbon, every game would end in a tie and we'd all go out for ice cream afterwards.

 

[MaxBuck]

I'm thinking 2 or 3, per year, per school, give or take.

Seriously though, the answer is zero. If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no institutionalized competitive advantage whatsoever.

All schools would have the exact same budget, the exact same facilities and every player would get the exact same number of reps on the practice field and the playing field.

Everyone would get a participation ribbon, every game would end in a tie and we'd all go out for ice cream afterwards.

Well, I don't know about all the other stuff, but going out for ice cream is always a good idea.

 

[Deety]

I'm thinking 2 or 3, per year, per school, give or take.

Seriously though, the answer is zero. If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no institutionalized competitive advantage whatsoever.

All schools would have the exact same budget, the exact same facilities and every player would get the exact same number of reps on the practice field and the playing field.

Everyone would get a participation ribbon, every game would end in a tie and we'd all go out for ice cream afterwards.

Or, you know, schools would only offer scholarships they actually have, and tell the other kids there is a wait list.

But I can see why that would be unfair to the schools. Or, umm, not.

 

[Deety]

Actually, there might be an easier fix here. Let the kids sign LOIs with multiple schools, and assume there will be natural attrition before the first semester starts.

 

[jwinslow]

Or, you know, schools would only offer scholarships they actually have, and tell the other kids there is a wait list.

And when 2 kids take the last two spots while 12 players are in play, you stop and do not sign 2 more, let alone 10-12 more like some schools.

 

[gracelhink]

Second, Now I think y'all are jacking with the math.

It's 85 scholarships per year, and using multi-year cumulative numbers skews the perception of what's happening.

With the baseline of 85 per year, if 17 graduate, 3 go pro early, 3 flunk out and 3 transfer out seeking playing time, (for example) you have 26 holes to fill. . . .
28 LOIs per year is the law of the land and expecting coaches to voluntarily ignore that isn't realistic. . . .
So, at this point in the debate, I'm thinking that A) kids aren't being 'hurt' on the scale that seems to be conventional wisdom, B) any 'competitive advantage' is minor and relative and C) trying to legislate an even playing field is likely to have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences that will negatively affect the haves more than the have nots.

But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, as it is a long off season and we need something to talk about.

Not "Jacking with the math" but the true numbers are 85/ 25
85 total scholarships with 25 maximum scholarships per year.
The total number of team scholarship "offers" and recruit "verbals" can exceed 28, but by Feb. 2 the total LOI's sent out to recruits cannot exceed 28 in the SEC. By August the limitations for those 28 LOI's must not exceed the 85/25 actual scholarship totals established by the NCAA.
If a school accepts 30 verbals, at least 2 will not be able to sign a scholarship LOI on signing day. If 28 sign LOI's only 25 can get a schoalrship, If only 19 leave the program through graduation, early entry, drop out, flunk out, then 6 more will have to grey shirt, transfer, be disappointed.
How the "reduction" process is executed by schools seems to be the heart of the issue.

 

[SmoovP]

How the "reduction" process is executed by schools seems to be the heart of the issue.

Exactly right.

I'm willing to concede that the Gumps are playing dirty here, but that's nothing new and not surprising. Same for the War Tiggers.

I won't concede however, that every school that accepts 28 LOIs is automatically judged to be hurting kids or bending rules.

 

[jwinslow]

Exactly right.

I'm willing to concede that the Gumps are playing dirty here, but that's nothing new and not surprising. Same for the War Tiggers.

I won't concede however, that every school that accepts 28 LOIs is automatically judged to be hurting kids or bending rules.

when a school consistently brings in 25-28 without having to compensate with occasional 15-18 player classes, it raises huge red flags.

there is also the matter of the huge chunk of that incoming 28 man class that redshirts, fsctoring into the 4 year span that starts the year afterwards.

 

[Deety]

Exactly right.

I'm willing to concede that the Gumps are playing dirty here, but that's nothing new and not surprising. Same for the War Tiggers.

I won't concede however, that every school that accepts 28 LOIs is automatically judged to be hurting kids or bending rules.

If a school knows they will be down to 60 scholarships in the fall (how often does that happen?), then 25 of those kids are guaranteed a scholarship, and what exactly are the other 3 LOIs worth, other than a chance to pull a slot machine arm and hope you don't get the grayshirt?

Just because they break even most of the time doesn't mean you tell the kids they'll win every time.

There is no way to justify promising a scholarship that can't be guaranteed. Period. You tell those kids it isn't guaranteed and don't go coercing other kids or hoping your lower performers flunk out to find those spots. Tell 50 of them they're on a wait list, who cares. Just don't promise what you don't have to give.

It's utterly beyond me why anyone would support overpromising when it is utterly unnecessary to achieve the same results in an honest way, and why there is such fervent defense of something that supposedly offers no competitive advantage. And the willingness to trade some undefined not-all-that-many number of kids' futures for that lack of competitive advantage is horribly disappointing to see.

 

[SmoovP]

And if half a dozen of those 25 LOIs don't qualify academically, you've fucked yourself.