Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[jwinslow]

The same site has a chart showing that - from 2002 to 2010 - Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State and Illinois had a greater average number of yearly signees than Florida.

Three of those four rely on a lot of jucos & potential non-qualifiers to acquire talent. The fourth - Illinois - came here from florida :p

If it were just Ole Miss, S Car & Miss St abusing the oversigning trend in the SEC, folks would not make a big stink of it. But as these numbers show, the vast majority of the SEC oversigns.


I have an updated chart coming for the last 5 years. Remember that "see? we're watching out for the kids" announcement where they "limited" signees to 28? Well the SEC's oversigning average has increased by 3 players (over a 5 year span).

 

[jwinslow]

The previous study:

The new data:

 

[Gatorubet]

Interesting to note that we're the 4th lowest in the SEC in oversigns, and yet we've have been the most successful program for that period...and the closest to tOSU in numbers in the B10 are Indiana and Iowa.

Hard to say that these numbers have nexity to on-field success.

 

[jwinslow]

Hard to say that these numbers have nexity to on-field success.

Yup, you're definitely a lawyer with that swift dismissal, or an attempt at one anyway.

Is it easier to field good teams from 99 players or 120? 135? 129? The latter 3 are the 3 heavyweights in your conference. Meanwhile the two top programs sit at 99 & 104. Until RR's massive failures and extreme attrition, UM was the other top program and sitting right at 100.

It's not the players you miss that kill you, it's the players you get (and waste a scholarship for 4-5 years). That major difference in attrition is a huge advantage for your athletic conference.

p.s. Ole Miss, Minnesota, Northwestern & Vandy are included just to make the data well-rounded, not as though their numbers are meaningful in comparisons to the big boy programs.

 

[DontHateOState]

Interesting to note that we're the 4th lowest in the SEC in oversigns, and yet we've have been the most successful program for that period...and the closest to tOSU in numbers in the B10 are Indiana and Iowa.

Hard to say that these numbers have nexity to on-field success.

Please, this is a common sense thing. The Gators don't need to funnel players through their system as much as the lower tier SEC schools because they are bringing in higher-level talent. 5 star players have a higher hit rate than lower rated players:

But they still have the opportunity to oversign and phase out the players who aren't cutting it. The process may be smaller from a numbers perspective, but the effect is just as profound as any other place.

 

[Gatorubet]

Yup, you're definitely a lawyer with that swift dismissal, or an attempt at one anyway.

Is it easier to field good teams from 99 players or 120? 135? 129? The latter 3 are the 3 heavyweights in your conference. Meanwhile the two top programs sit at 99 & 104. Until RR's massive failures and extreme attrition, UM was the other top program and sitting right at 100.

It's not the players you miss that kill you, it's the players you get (and waste a scholarship for 4-5 years). That major difference in attrition is a huge advantage for your athletic conference.

p.s. Ole Miss, Minnesota, Northwestern & Vandy are included just to make the data well-rounded, not as though their numbers are meaningful in comparisons to the big boy programs.

While what you say seems logically to follow, all I am saying is that I have not seen any data that correlates oversigning to sucess.

I'm sure it may work out that way. And what you call a "swift dismissal" is merely an observation - one that may or may not be supported by actual data. The limited data on my school does not support that "oversigning to success" correlation - but that may likely be influenced by our better recruiting.

But you know, there might be a counter influence, in that recruiting in lower tier programs may be influenced by a lack of oversigning, in that players want to get playing time, and a school with openings may get a higher ranked class every three years or so than they would have if they were three deep at every position. Again, I think that not as likely, but it seems to me to be unwise to definitively draw conclusions from such as small sample.

I do know that oversigning lots of ham and eggers will not help you as much as having 81 'ships given to studs. But a good topic for discussion.

 

[jwinslow]

While what you say seems logically to follow, all I am saying is that I have not seen any data that correlates oversigning to sucess.

You need data to prove that 15 new recruits have a better chance at success than 3rd/4th year benchwarmers who are fighting the true freshmen and walkons for time on the scout team? Really?

One is an established group of underachievers with maybe 1-2 years left with a good chance that most if not all will stay that way. The other is a group of highly admired prospects with 5 years left. The chances of almost all of them failing as badly as the underachievers is remarkably low.

But you know, there might be a counter influence, in that recruiting in lower tier programs may be influenced by a lack of oversigning, in that players want to get playing time, and a school with openings may get a higher ranked class every three years or so than they would have if they were three deep at every position.

By and large players want to play for a winner. They don't go to Purdue or Vanderbilt for PT. There are some exceptions due to depth charts, but more often than not kids sprint towards disastrously deep depth charts due to arrogance, deceptive promises or simply reckless love for the school.

I do know that oversigning lots of ham and eggers will not help you as much as having 81 'ships given to studs.

But no one does that, because every recruiting class has their share of failures. Some have more or less than others, but you get stuck with dead weight on your roster that will never be a contributor outside of the bench or special teams, let alone a multi-year starter.

There's a big advantage when your conference is able to magically free up 15-20 extra spots to give to fresh meat who have more upside than that benchwarmer.

Florida doesn't magically start signing more talented kids with those extra 15-20 spots, but it gives them a lot more leeway to give out offers when numbers are tight, knowing they have more guys "freed up" than some of their big ten counterparts up north. This seems to be more prevalent at other SEC schools, but the numbers are still there for UF.

 

[matcar]

You need data to prove that 15 new recruits have a better chance at success than 3rd/4th year benchwarmers who are fighting the true freshmen and walkons for time on the scout team? Really?

One is an established group of underachievers with maybe 1-2 years left with a good chance that most if not all will stay that way. The other is a group of highly admired prospects with 5 years left. The chances of almost all of them failing as badly as the underachievers is remarkably low.
That's a useless example because no one does that. Every recruiting class has their share of failures. Some have more or less than others, but you get stuck with dead weight on your roster that will never be a contributor outside of the bench or special teams, let alone a multi-year starter.

There's a big advantage when your conference is able to magically free up 15-20 extra spots to give to fresh meat who have more upside than that benchwarmer.

I don't follow this statement. Are you suggesting that those that oversign ultimately pull scholarships from older kids who are benchwarmers? I'm not aware that this is happening on a regular basis...but perhaps I'm wrong about that. Having said that, you don't need to oversign to pull a kids scholarship (if you're that ruthless...) and thus make space for young pups.

 

[jwinslow]

Scholarships are technically a 1 year commitment, it's just pretty harsh to treat them that way for kids who work in practice & class (whereas there's no loyalty owed to troublemakers who have worn out their welcome)

I don't follow this statement. Are you suggesting that those that oversign ultimately pull scholarships from older kids who are benchwarmers? I'm not aware that this is happening on a regular basis...but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

The SEC has had a reputation for that for a long time. Whether Meyer is doing it, I don't know, but it's pretty clear others are, like Mr. Saban who has to cut weight every offseason. Last year it was about 4-6, this year it was 10 spots over.

Before the APR, the SEC had a reputation for pulling or switching tutors for kids they wanted to scoot out of school. Most writers won't talk about it in hard print, though the Meat Market (or was it Blind Side?) touched on it a little bit (while not including a ton of ugliness observed with Ole Miss & Orgeron).

It's not like kids are called into the office and told they don't have a scholarship any longer (barring misconduct). They are just put into situations where they are encouraged to transfer (whether directly or subtly).

Having said that, you don't need to oversign to pull a kids scholarship (if you're that ruthless...) and thus make space for young pups.

But when that scholarship is pulled and eventually given out again a year or two later, the numbers will show an extra body.

 

[matcar]

Scholarships are technically a 1 year commitment, it's just pretty harsh to treat them that way for kids who work in practice & class (whereas there's no loyalty owed to troublemakers who have worn out their welcome)The SEC has had a reputation for that for a long time. Whether Meyer is doing it, I don't know, but it's pretty clear others are, like Mr. Saban who has to cut weight every offseason. Last year it was about 4-6, this year it was 10 spots over.

Before the APR, the SEC had a reputation for pulling or switching tutors for kids they wanted to scoot out of school. Most writers won't talk about it in hard print, though the Meat Market (or was it Blind Side?) touched on it a little bit (while not including a ton of ugliness observed with Ole Miss & Orgeron).

It's not like kids are called into the office and told they don't have a scholarship any longer (barring misconduct). They are just put into situations where they are encouraged to transfer (whether directly or subtly).
But when that scholarship is pulled and eventually given out again a year or two later, the numbers will show an extra body.

Got it. If that's what's going on, that's just crap. Frankly I feel a whole lot worse for the kids than I do for the programs who are "punished" by not doing it.

 

[jwinslow]

While what you say seems logically to follow, all I am saying is that I have not seen any data that correlates oversigning to sucess.

It occurred to me that we may be having two different arguments.

Oversigning doesn't make a team better at recruiting. Ole Miss can't become Georgia, let alone Florida, by signing 20-30 more kids. Likewise, Florida is still going to have about the same percentage of booms & busts with individual recruits whether they sign 100 or 120 every 4 years. Their eye for talent, persuasion skills and selling points will be the same in a 16 man class as 25, just with a little more wiggle room on who they can offer.

I wish I had my data where I compiled the percentages for star, starter, contributor, benchwarmer, because that was a little more useful (but much harder to do on a large scale) for evaluating star rankings.

edit: here it is, albeit a smaller sample size. Check lower on the page for the comparison to 3/4 star players:
http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/football-recruiting/618882-do-5-stars-pan-out.html#post1652495

But in lieu of that, I'll refer to DontHate's chart:

Taking an extra 20 kids won't make your team better at recruiting. But when you get to pass 120 kids through those percentages instead of 100, you now have a lot better odds of filling out your depth chart with better players, especially since most of those 20 freed up spots are coming from the busts (a smaller percentage from the draft declarations)

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The same site has a chart showing that - from 2002 to 2010 - Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State and Illinois had a greater average number of yearly signees than Florida.

Which means something, but I'm not sure what.

It means Urban Meyer didn't get to Florida until 2005...

 

[Jaxbuck]

While what you say seems logically to follow, all I am saying is that I have not seen any data that correlates oversigning to sucess.

I'm sure it may work out that way. And what you call a "swift dismissal" is merely an observation - one that may or may not be supported by actual data. The limited data on my school does not support that "oversigning to success" correlation - but that may likely be influenced by our better recruiting.

But you know, there might be a counter influence, in that recruiting in lower tier programs may be influenced by a lack of oversigning, in that players want to get playing time, and a school with openings may get a higher ranked class every three years or so than they would have if they were three deep at every position. Again, I think that not as likely, but it seems to me to be unwise to definitively draw conclusions from such as small sample.

I do know that oversigning lots of ham and eggers will not help you as much as having 81 'ships given to studs. But a good topic for discussion.

If they don't think over signing helps why does the entire SEC do it?

 

[Gatorubet]

If they don't think over signing helps why does the entire SEC do it?

I think they also want to get a pattern of certain kids with a tie to their programs. Get one kid to commit to your program and it gives props to your program, creates relationships with that kid's HS coaches, and naturally forces that kid's teammates to look at your program a little more positively. And once they are a (fill in the blank SEC mascot), the fact that you send them to Hargrove or some JUCO school still means you have the psycological "leg up" on getting the kid later if the kid if he gets his gpa or other academic issues worked out.

Bear Bryant used to sign kids just to keep them from signing with rival schools. He'd sign six QBs just to decrease the possibility of a good QB signing with Tennessee. There is some of that. If he signs with me, he is not signing with you.

Again, Jax, I am not saying that "they don't think over signing helps." That would be silly. All I am saying is that I have not seen any data that correlates oversigning with better on the field success. I mean, how can it be bad not to be thin at positions????? It should be an advantage to be at full scholarship at all times for depth reasons. I am not arguing against the obvious. But I did take a quick look at the numbers given, and I did not see an obvious correlation of success within a conference to the practice of oversigning.

 

[Meyer]

I think they also want to get a pattern of certain kids with a tie to their programs. Get one kid to commit to your program and it gives props to your program, creates relationships with that kid's HS coaches, and naturally forces that kid's teammates to look at your program a little more positively. And once they are a (fill in the blank SEC mascot), the fact that you send them to Hargrove or some JUCO school still means you have the psycological "leg up" on getting the kid later if the kid if he gets his gpa or other academic issues worked out.

Bear Bryant used to sign kids just to keep them from signing with rival schools. He'd sign six QBs just to decrease the possibility of a good QB signing with Tennessee. There is some of that. If he signs with me, he is not signing with you.

Again, Jax, I am not saying that "they don't think over signing helps." That would be silly. All I am saying is that I have not seen any data that correlates oversigning with better on the field success. I mean, how can it be bad not to be thin at positions????? It should be an advantage to be at full scholarship at all times for depth reasons. I am not arguing against the obvious. But I did take a quick look at the numbers given, and I did not see an obvious correlation of success within a conference to the practice of oversigning.

Forget in conference. The fact of the matter is you still sign more recruits than everyone else except your SEC brothers (seriously you guys are weird with that shit). Being in Florida helps, but along with that you don't see the correlation between the SEC's success in BCS games in the recent past and oversigning. It's a clear and unfair advantage. Ohio State doesn't take those at-risk kids and sign them up later at the expense of someone else. You don't see an advantage there?????

Whatever though, we'll still get our championship.:osu: