Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[Gatorubet]

Gator:

This is the best post you've made in months. No wall of text (or any text for that matter), just an entertaining .gif

Thanks!

:p

 

[TDunk]

I don't understand what a baby bag o' dicks has to do with the discussion. Is this another lawyer ploy? :tongue2:

 

[Muck]

ESPN College Insider

I've actually written about the subject several times and helped on a recent "Outside the Lines" segment on the issue. I was also the commentator discussing it in detail right after the near-10 minute piece aired.

One of the points I brought up on the show was about the practice of schools rewarding coaches with bonuses for signing a "top" class (either top 5, top 10 or top 25), or for landing a certain number of four-star players. With coaches having even more of an incentive to meet certain quotas and rankings, they often try to sign certain recruits that they know might have a very tough time qualifying academically.

I wrote about the "Sign-and-Place" method in "Meat Market," and for schools that deal heavily with junior college recruits, that also factors in. The process is this: Sign the shaky four-star prospect so that you can up your recruiting ranking, impress other prospective recruits, appease your fan base (and, in turn, the administration), increase your own chance of landing that recruiting bonus, and then send the players who can't get in academically to a junior college as if it's a farm system. If the kid turns out to be a complete knucklehead or flops on the field, you forget about him. If not, you didn't take up a spot for two years and then the juco coach, who is thrilled you sent him a talented player, has protected him for you and sends you back a more ready-to-play, developed prospect.

 

[BB73]

Andy Staples talks about the topic. He mentions that the Big Ten's rules allow 3 over the limit of 85, rather than 3 over the 25. At the end, he offers 3 possible changes to the system.

SI.com

Oversigning offenders won't be curbed by NCAA's toothless rule

...​

The Big Ten has no issue with oversigning, because it banned the practice in 1956. The conference actually loosened its rule in 2002 to allow schools to oversign by three players, but even that rule is drastically different from the NCAA rule now in effect. According to Big Ten associate commissioner Chad Hawley, schools are allowed three over the 85-man limit, not the annual 25-man limit. If, for example, Michigan ends a season with 20 open scholarship spots, then Michigan may sign 23 players. No more.

If a Big Ten program chooses to oversign, Hawley said, it then must document exactly how it came under the 85-scholarship limit. That way, coaches are less likely to cut a player who has done nothing wrong other than fail to live up to his recruiting hype. "If you've oversigned, you're going to have to report back to the conference," Hawley said. "Come the fall, you're going to have to explain how you came into compliance."​

...​

What's the best way to eliminate oversigning? That working group of SEC athletic directors is seeking a solution now. Here are a few suggestions:

- Look to the Big Ten. That conference has no trouble with oversigning because of its longstanding rules. Maybe everyone else should simply institute the same rules. The Big Ten hasn't tried to push its rules on everyone else, but it might be time for the conference to start. "It's just something we haven't been evangelical about," Hawley said. "It's so ingrained in our culture. It's just the way we've always operated. It hasn't been an issue that we've pushed."​

- Take away the NLI. Membership in the National Letter-of-Intent program is a privilege, not a right. If a school doesn't deliver on the scholarship it promised in an NLI, don't allow that school to take part in the NLI program the following year. The NLI binds a signee to a school for an academic year. If a player hasn't signed one, he can still be recruited by anyone. In other words, without the NLI, even players who have signed scholarship agreements are fair game for other schools until the second they set foot in a college classroom.​

- Hit them where it really hurts. Though they seem careless with their offers, nothing is more sacred to a coach who oversigns than the scholarship itself. So take away those scholarships. If a coach fails to provide a promised scholarship to a signee, he gets one mulligan. Everyone makes mistakes. Do it again, and the program loses five scholarships for a year. Do it a third time, and the program loses 10 scholarships. Use the same rule if a coach is found to be manipulating the medical hardship rule to clear the decks for new signees -- except without the mulligan. A coach whose own stupidity costs his program 10 scholarships also will cost himself his job, and there will be one fewer oversigner to offer scholarships he can't ultimately deliver.​

Cont'd ...

 

[chance]

Andy Staples talks about the topic. He mentions that the Big Ten's rules allow 3 over the limit of 85, rather than 3 over the 25. At the end, he offers 3 possible changes to the system.

SI.com

Interesting quote from Tuberville.

Tuberville, now the coach at Texas Tech, doesn't need to see any numbers to know oversigning offers a competitive advantage. "Sure it is," he said. "But hey, nobody told [the Big Ten] they had to do that."

Quote out of context reply in 3-2-...

​

 

[cjmik_75]

Interesting quote from Tuberville.



Quote out of context reply in 3-2-...

​

Does Tommy Tuberville have any actual data that can prove there's a competitive advantage? Strawman.

 

[OSU_D/]

Does Tommy Tuberville have any actual data that can prove there's a competitive advantage? Strawman.

Tuberville, now the coach at Texas Tech, doesn't need to see any numbers to know oversigning offers a competitive advantage. "Sure it is," he said. "But hey, nobody told [the Big Ten] they had to do that."

Waiting for Gator and Smoov to appear and tap dance around one of their league's former coaches unabashedly admitting that oversigning is a benefit and doesn't need hard number data to back it up.

Smoov I get b/c we know Petrino takes part in this mess. Gator I don't get; the Gators stand to gain more than almost anyone else. Imagine not having to battle a cheating LSU, Auburn, Alabama every year and knowing the Richt just can't beat UF. Yeah, I know the path isn't supposed to be easy; but it isn't supposed to be playing a half a conference full of cheaters plus a cheater in the east (Spurrier).

 

[Diego-Bucks]

Waiting for Gator and Smoov to appear and tap dance around one of their league's former coaches unabashedly admitting that oversigning is a benefit and doesn't need hard number data to back it up.

Smoov I get b/c we know Petrino takes part in this mess. Gator I don't get; the Gators stand to gain more than almost anyone else. Imagine not having to battle a cheating LSU, Auburn, Alabama every year and knowing the Richt just can't beat UF. Yeah, I know the path isn't supposed to be easy; but it isn't supposed to be playing a half a conference full of cheaters plus a cheater in the east (Spurrier).

I think you simplify the essence of an argument too much. One does not need a dog in the fight in order to argue from merit and logic.

Smoov and Gator have their opinions about it that are different from others; they are also fans of SEC schools. Does not mean that their different opinions are due to their fandom. Correlation is not causation.

I think those two have explained and argued their position clearly enough to back away from the Smoov is a Hog and Gator is just an SEC chump (which I personally believe to be true but realize I lack the evidence to prosecute the claim... I'm watching your interwebs you shady bastard!).

 

[sepia5]

I think you simplify the essence of an argument too much. One does not need a dog in the fight in order to argue from merit and logic.

Smoov and Gator have their opinions about it that are different from others; they are also fans of SEC schools. Does not mean that their different opinions are due to their fandom. Correlation is not causation.

I think those two have explained and argued their position clearly enough to back away from the Smoov is a Hog and Gator is just an SEC chump (which I personally believe to be true but realize I lack the evidence to prosecute the claim... I'm watching your interwebs you shady bastard!).

S-E-C! S-E-C!

 

[Gatorubet]

Interesting quote from Tuberville.
Quote out of context reply in 3-2-...

Does Tommy Tuberville have any actual data that can prove there's a competitive advantage? Strawman.

Waiting for Gator and Smoov to appear and tap dance around one of their league's former coaches unabashedly admitting that oversigning is a benefit and doesn't need hard number data to back it up.

Smoov I get b/c we know Petrino takes part in this mess. Gator I don't get; the Gators stand to gain more than almost anyone else. Imagine not having to battle a cheating LSU, Auburn, Alabama every year and knowing the Richt just can't beat UF. Yeah, I know the path isn't supposed to be easy; but it isn't supposed to be playing a half a conference full of cheaters plus a cheater in the east (Spurrier).

First off, for our journalism majors out there, we are going to look at sentence construction. I'll copy the part of the article y'all have jumped on so we can deconstruct the actual substantive content:

The coaches who signed more players had a chance to erase their mistakes. The coaches who signed fewer had to live with their mistakes. That certainly seems like a competitive advantage. "It hasn't really been a conversation, the competitive aspect of it," the Big Ten's Hawley said. "If you look at the numbers, if I had to pick yes or no, I'd have to say yes."​

Tuberville, now the coach at Texas Tech, doesn't need to see any numbers to know oversigning offers a competitive advantage. "Sure it is," he said. "But hey, nobody told [the Big Ten] they had to do that."

So first off, the question was (apparently) whether the Big-10's self imposed limit on signing kids put them at a disadvantage compared to schools who did not have the limit on signings. The question was not whether the SEC only had an advantage. What everybody here loves to get amnesia about is the fact that every conference than the Big-10 signs more players than them. So number one, if it is an advantage, then it is an advantage for the ACC and the Big-12 (or what is left of it) and the PAC-10 too.

To tell you the truth, until the article I had no idea about your self imposed "3 over" rule. If somebody here posted it, I sure missed that offering.

What Smoov and I have reacted to is a mish mash of claims from some of you about how all SEC operate, about confusing verbals with LOIs, and about the certainty of oversigning because of - let's call it "over-verballing". Lots of our time has been spent explaining why mere numbers of accepted verbals is not a problem, the number of enrollees is a problem if over the limit, and the launching of kids or the refusal to honor commitments of kids who sign a LOI is the real issue. Simply accepting verbals is not in and of itself a sign of unethical behavior or immorality. Some here have taken the position that no verbals beyond the number of squad scholarship limits should be accepted - or if your program does you are unethical. We've spent some bandwidth trying to show how freaking stupid that contention is - and describing why that is not a valid position. (since everyone has adopted oversigning.com like it is the newest testament, here is a quote from it)

3. Verbal Commitment - simply a commitment by a recruit to attend a certain school; this is not binding and does not factor into oversigning.

Which is what Smoov and I have been preaching for a week, and what many refuse to accept. I understand that accepting too many verbals that leads to the faxing of too many LOIs results in "actual" oversigning. And it is also true that informing your zillionth verbal that his services will not be needed the day before national signing day is also a practice that we both condemn. That is very different from accepting verbals from kids you know will not actually be signing.

Tubs said this about the verbals:​

Tuberville, who coached at Ole Miss before Auburn, believes oversigning can benefit certain players. It's no coincidence that most of the schools that engage in oversigning are either in states or border states that allow junior college football. A coach will sign players he knows have no chance of qualifying academically and then place those players in junior colleges. In return, the junior college coaches will feed the best of their players back to the FBS programs when those players are ready to transfer. Tuberville believes the practice allowed some players to reach college when they might have otherwise slipped through the cracks.

"I always liked to oversign seven or eight just to sign kids, to motivate them, and then we're going to put you in junior college," Tuberville said. "Once you sign, then we can continue to call you and motivate you to go to class, get your grades higher. Then you go to junior college, and you'll be in a lot better shape. Now, you're not going to be able to do that."

A bunch of bandwidth has been spent just explaining to y'all why there are sometimes so many verbals. Some of y'all just refused to "get" that verbals - and sometimes signings - were done with the foreknowledge that the kid had no shot at actually enrolling. Not only did the kid not have a realistic shot, but they knew that, and signed anyway. They want to play for a big name program, and to have a ceremony at their H.S. gym where they could show off as going to Auburn. Some of that has positive motivation, no matter what y'all think. And by going to a JUCO program with ties to a major program, they increased their chances of eventually becoming eligible and playing in a big time conference. These are mostly kids who see college as a path to NFL riches. Some have an AA because they followed the JUCO path when they might have just dropped out of college plans entirely after they found out that they could not sign with a big time school.

And mostly I have talked about actual facts. How many grey shirts? How many red shirts? How many early enrolling back counting kids per program or conference? ​

From the article Bill posted:​

The Big Ten has no issue with oversigning because it banned the practice in 1956. The conference actually loosened its rule in 2002 to allow schools to oversign by three players, but even that rule is drastically different from the NCAA rule now in effect. According to Big Ten associate commissioner Chad Hawley, schools are allowed three over the 85-man limit, not the annual 25-man limit. If, for example, Michigan ends a season with 20 open scholarship spots, then Michigan may sign 23 players. No more.

If you have early enrolling in the Big-10, does that work in the fashion that it does everywhere else? If Michigan enrolls four kids in December, do they count against last year's class and they still get to sign the 23? I'd assume so. So I'd love to know if the Big-10 uses more early enrolling kids to get to the 85 than - say - the SEC? Does the Big-10's better academics mean that Purdue's programs see a greater number of academically eligible to enroll in December kids than a Mississippi State?

So sue me for thinking that an advantage would show up in some statistically quantified manner. That oversigning as a competitive advantage would mean that the programs that oversign the most within a conference will result in enhanced performance in intra-conference play. That the Big-10 would fare poorly against the conferences that oversign like mad...including the Big-12 and Conference USA. How much of a factor is it? Is it as much as the better draw that the Big-10 has when speaking of its academics when compared to the SEC? Is it less than the better weather of the ACC? Does it come into play when both two deep are butting heads - or does it mean that our three deep will kick y'alls three deep's asses, but the starters in both programs likely came from the first twenty LOIs faxed to a jubilant staff? And I get that someone quoted Tubberville as having an opinion? His opinion is also that it is good to oversign eight kids a class as it is better for the kids and allows more to be helped. So value his opinions, but value them all. Or say he is full of shit about the second opinion, but he is speaking truth that sprung from his forehead like Athena from the brow of Zeus in his first. But if you do, then consider the fact that he may be as brilliant in his first opinion as he is in his second.

Nothing I've said is that damn controversial. It would be cool to see accurate stats on the number of shirts, both red and grey, and medical hardship scholarhips, and early enrollments, and how many kids per conference and per program were qualifed and enrolled after the verbals were all said and done.​

I still would. Because as a practical matter I cannot tell you how likely it is that the SEC wins one more game or the Big-10 loses one more game than they would have because of oversigning without more information. The Gators won two MNCs and they are not among the "abusers". I have a hard time saying that it has been that big a deal when we play other programs. I'm sure as shit not going to blame our losses to Bama of late on oversigning. We'll just tee it up again and see what happens.​

 

[Gatorubet]

Gator I don't get; the Gators stand to gain more than almost anyone else. Imagine not having to battle a cheating LSU, Auburn, Alabama every year and knowing the Richt just can't beat UF. Yeah, I know the path isn't supposed to be easy; but it isn't supposed to be playing a half a conference full of cheaters plus a cheater in the east (Spurrier).

If you can't beat the cheating gumps then you will never beat 'em.

And. Shut. Your. Lying. Mouth.

Spurrier ain't Sabin and never will be.

 

[WyoBuckeye]

I'm just glad to see the practice of oversigning finally starting to get the press it deserves. We've heard much ado about it lately and the choir is just getting warmed up in my opinion. You know when ESPN begins jumping on a subject like oversigning that is most widely practiced in its pet conference, things should get moving in the right direction before too much longer. I'd be surprised if the NCAA and/or conferences haven't instituted stricter controls on oversigning in the next five years or so. And if they haven't, it will be to the detriment of whatever integrity there is left in college football.

Also, there was a brilliant response to the Tuberville quote over on The-Ozone forum by DurhamBuckeye. I will post it here because it sums the problem up quite well I believe:

Remember, treating people as a commodity that you could keep or dispose of was part of the South's heritage. No one told the North that owning people was wrong either. We just knew it.

http://forums.the-ozone.net/messages/886962.html

 

[HorticullyBuck]

hey yea, gator brings up a point about the early enrollment. How does that work exactly? im sure its posted somewhere, but anyone care to enlighten?

 

[TDunk]

hey yea, gator brings up a point about the early enrollment. How does that work exactly? im sure its posted somewhere, but anyone care to enlighten?

If OSU has an early enrollee (ie Cash, Hale, Heuerman, Shazier and Miller this year), they count against last years class.

A player who enrolls in January does not count as part of that year's recruiting class since he comes to school prior to that year's class which signs letters of intent in February.
So, for early entrants to be allowed to enroll, there already has to be enough scholarships on hand, either due to attrition or because a team is not at the NCAA maximum of 85 scholarship players on a roster.

http://www.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=889616

 

[Coqui]

Wasn't the best delivery. What does someone have to do to change the topic nowadays? All you had to do in the past was bring up Nazi Germany.

Full size picture of Jaxbuck's avatar