• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
kn1f3party;1862016; said:
Starting to seem like oversigning has become the second amendment. Like guns, not all uses of oversigning are done with ill intent or malice. But like guns, some uses are and need some form of regulation. In that sense, the Big Ten is like San Diego and the SEC is like Detroit.

Can we just agree on that and end the [censored]ing contest?

** EDIT **

I also think we should take a second to point out that some schools, like Florida for instance, do a tremendous job at maximizing their recruiting without taking a shit on kids. So I can understand why Gator and Smoov are somewhat defensive about the generalizations.
Click to expand...

I think this is the first time I've ever seen somebody try to END an argument with a Second Amendment analogy.
 
Upvote 0
sec.jpg


South Carolina's recruiting class thus far

31. Ahmad Christian has committed to SC

Unanimously predicted to land 4 more top-150 prospects:

32. Jadeveon Clowney, 5-star all-world DE
33. Brandon Shell, 5-star OT
34. Phillip Dukes, 4-star DT
35. Sheldon Royster, 4-star RB
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;1862016; said:
Starting to seem like oversigning has become the second amendment. Like guns, not all uses of oversigning are done with ill intent or malice. But like guns, some uses are and need some form of regulation. In that sense, the Big Ten is like San Diego and the SEC is like Detroit.
Click to expand...

picardfacepalmr.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Deety;1861741; said:
Well, Gator, I've been pretty clear that my only concern with oversigning is that kids should know when the scholarship they are accepting is not yet guaranteed to be available, so they aren't all given the impression that theirs is the sure one, and I'd like that to be in writing, so if they still decide to sign, it is with full knowledge of the situation.
Click to expand...

Everyone wants there to be some better way for every program to make their number of recruits - and for the the recruits to not be hurt in any way by the process, and certainly not to be suddenly deprived of a spot on a team at the last minute when, had they known, they could have accepted an offer from a program that really wanted to enroll them.

Deety;1861741; said:
I don't care about the oversigning; I care that the kids know what they are getting into, and to ensure it, that knowledge should be in writing.
Click to expand...
At some point, if a kid and his parents and high school coaches have no idea how the system works after all these years, then they are almost willfully ignorant. And I hear you about the language or the LOI contract. While you could add some kind of mandatory "disclosure" statement, such a warning would likely also have to advise them that they can just ignore all of that [Mark May] on signing day and it go someplace else.

And if you want to change things, change that, because that is a huge part of the problem. Like Urban has stated, far better to make the offers earlier and binding on both parties for the kids who know where they want to go. Then, if an early commit changes his mind, then he sits a year after signing the LOI. Now, making everyone commit early would be a disservice to the kids. Kids change their minds at a whim. To demand the contract be binding on all (i.e., "signing day") kids would lead to boat loads of unhappy and disappointed kids who don't want to go to their first choice. So it is partly to accommodate their immature decision making process that the whole "contract that is not really a contract" thing is done.

Looking at it from the other point of view, it is horribly unfair to institutions to base their recruiting efforts on verbals that have no binding effect. You could theoretically lose every one of your O line recruits - or WR recruits - on signing day. That programs and coaches try to mitigate the harm from unilateral nature of the signing process- by using good faith estimates of how many will sign - by estimating how many will meet academic requirements - is simply the programs trying not to be taken. Which is why it is fine to ask a guy to walk on if he has an academic schollie, or asking a two or three star kid to pay his own way if his folks are rich and he wants that chance to succeed at the school of his dreams.

If, occasionally, there is some mess up, be it a last minute academic enrollment problem like JeJaun, or for the first time EVER in your program's history EVERY kid makes his grades and EVERY kid faxes his LOI to you honoring his original verbal commitment, there may be the odd case of too many LOI for your allotment. And that is why there are grey shirts, and count back rules for early enrollment, and red shirts, and even suggestions to marginal players to transfer if they want to see the field. If they refuse to leave for directional tech playing time, and they believe that their medical condition is such that they cannot red shirt, then in (hopefully) rare situations you may decide not to renew an annual scholarship to make room for a new kid, or, depending on the numbers, to tell a kid who you offered and who signed a LOI that you cannot enroll him on scholarship that fall. When that happens, what is fair to one kid is unfair to the other.

Nobody disagrees that it is bad for these problems to occur. Nobody feels that you should accept LOIs from far more kids than you reasonably know that you'll have room to enroll. Nobody feels that you should tell otherwise eligible and hard working juniors and seniors that you are done with them just to make up some spots from your intentional oversigning. (and here, "intentional" is not accepting more LOI's than you have spots, but in accepting more LOI's than you reasonably think will meet your limit after a "best guess" that takes into account non-qualifiers and "go else wheres").

If a program has a problem year after year after year, then you can indeed be called to account for it and infer that it is intentional bad faith.

Neither Sloop nor I have ever supported a practice where coaches can habitually and intentionally over-enroll. Sorry for the tone of the last post, but it is maddening to have to hear how Smoov and I are operating under, or advocating a different set of ethics than you. At least not when I'm drinking and reading at the same time. :lol:

Deety;1861741; said:
Every other argument boils down to this - if we stop telling the kids we've got their back and be honest with them, they might go somewhere else. And the ethics of that idea do indeed suck.
Click to expand...
The mechanism and system lends itself to this type of abuse when a program is forced to try to fill needs via the use of a one-way contract. All of the promises to a school are meaningless if the kids signs with your competitor. In a sport where individual program success can mean millions of dollars a year one way or the other, asking coaches to "hope for the best" on signing day is a little naive. They naturally, and rightfully, IMO, should use good faith predictions and past practices to try to fill their slots while avoiding oversigning that hurts a student.

We disagree about the morality of accepting more verbals than a program has LOI enrollee slots. We can agree to disagree as to who bears the risk of oversigning in a good faith miss of one or two spots - the kid or the program - or both - if it is not a habitual thing. I hate overenrolling problems. I have little worry about acceptence of verbals unless you know that they will all qualify and enroll and you do not have the number of slots available.

Edit: now I have to keep people's names straight....I don't have to do that on the ESPN Boards :shake:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
gracelhink;1862308; said:
you are forgetting the SEC using the second ammendment argument for never scheduling a northern cold weather school for a football game.

You know we have the right to bare arms. :wink:
Click to expand...

Buckeye Maniac;147253; said:
With all of the other threads about issues coming out, I thought I'd make one. How do you feel about the death penelty?
Click to expand...

Merge threads????
 
Upvote 0
Sure, kids can take advantage of the verbal agreement, but that does not excuse handcuffing a kid with a one sided LOI.

It isn't just oversigning, coaches also wait until they are legally restricted before making coaching changes (particularly assistants).

A recruit should be free to go elsewhere if his coach leaves or he is not given the spot he was promised.

Nobody disagrees that it is bad for these problems to occur. Nobody feels that you should accept LOIs from far more kids than you reasonably know that you'll have room to enroll. Nobody feels that you should tell otherwise eligible and hard working juniors and seniors that you are done with them just to make up some spots from your intentional oversigning. (and here, "intentional" is not accepting more LOI's than you have spots, but in accepting more LOI's than you reasonably think will meet your limit after a "best guess" that takes into account non-qualifiers and "go else wheres").
Click to expand...
quite false. Read the comments below a national media article talking about oversigning, particularly ones regarding saban. There are a lot of folks which not only enable that behavior but praise saban for his innovative work with the numbers or doing what it takes to compete.
If a program has a problem year after year after year, then you can indeed be called to account for it and infer that it is intentional bad faith.
Click to expand...
we have taken to task a number of habitual abusers, and other than bama (which took a LOT of repetition), those inferences and examinations were fought heavily, even though the pattern is consistent over many years.
Neither Sloop nor I have ever supported a practice where coaches can habitually and intentionally over-enroll. Sorry for the tone of the last post, but it is maddening to have to hear how Smoov and I are operating under, or advocating a different set of ethics than you. At least not when I'm drinking and reading at the same time.
Click to expand...
sure you have gator, you just continue this lawyer dance of semantics to declare it an unintentional practice that teams that sign two dozen extra recruits end up without enough spots.

They know exactly what they are getting themselves into when they sign that many prospects. They are playing a dangerous game, and the stakes are the scholarships of kids. Better to risk their disadvantage than the coaches, apparently.

They do it because the benefit outweighs the complications, particularly since there is little to no consequence awaiting them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1859761; said:
Aside from Alabama, none of those other three SEC schools (Florida, LSU, and Auburn) have more than three NCs (Florida 3, LSU 3, Auburn 2). Three of the four Big Ten schools you mentioned (Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio State) have at least six (Michigan 11, Minnesota 6, and Ohio State 7).
Click to expand...

Yea, but Alabama's 73 make up for it.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top