Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[Gatorubet]

Gator, I swear I have no idea where you are getting all these assumptions I am supposedly making.

Again - this simple - we need this system:

If the coaches can point at a scholly and say "That's yours," you get an LOI.

If the coaches say, "We think this medical redshirt request will free up a scholly," you don't get an LOI. But maybe you get something similar with a notice added that the school has not yet guaranteed your scholly. Because while they may think they have one, it isn't officially available yet.

That's it. And I can only think of one reason someone wouldn't agree to that... seeing as all it does is accurately reflect reality.

And yes, I want OSU held to the same standard. Everyone. The whole system. Not just the Borg.

Oh Hell, Deets..I have no problem with your hypothetical system in the abstract. It is just that there is no binding contract on the athlete. And your system does not in any way account for what to do about verbals. [Mark May], Auburn would tell ten of its guys to verbal to Bama so that on NSD they could switch to Auburn and leave Bama understrength. And no, the ones left who are "conditional" would not have the same numbers of stars as the ones who were the LOI guys.

As long as the kids do not have to honor a commitment, they put a recruiting class at risk if enough of them bolt - let alone the problem of giving LOIs to kids who do not qualify. I think the current system can be tweaked without adopting one that lets the vagaries of a group of 18 year olds' emotions determine if you will be signing a strong class or looking at trying to find enough conditionals to meet your 85 man roster.

And if you cannot find any reason not to agree with your idea without assuming nefarious motives, then respectfully, that may not be the result of a lack of ethics on the part of the person not embracing your opinions, but an unfortunate inability to put aside your own viewpoint and see another's side on this issue.* Or you could be correct of course. If you must go with the Ubet is ethically challenged theory as the only possible mental path to my not signing on 100% with you, then I can easily live with that.

* it's not like you are a closed minded gal, and I do not imply that. I get we see this differently.

 

[jwinslow]

Oh Hell, Deets..I have no problem with your hypothetical system in the abstract. It is just that there is no binding contract on the athlete. And your system does not in any way account for what to do about verbals. [Mark May], Auburn would tell ten of its guys to verbal to Bama so that on NSD they could switch to Auburn and leave Bama understrength. And no, the ones left who are "conditional" would not have the same numbers of stars as the ones who were the LOI guys.

As long as the kids do not have to honor a commitment, they put a recruiting class at risk if enough of them bolt - let alone the problem of giving LOIs to kids who do not qualify. I think the current system can be tweaked without adopting one that lets the vagaries of a group of 18 year olds' emotions determine if you will be signing a strong class or looking at trying to find enough conditionals to meet your 85 man roster.

And if you cannot find any reason not to agree with your idea without assuming nefarious motives, then respectfully, that may not be the result of a lack of ethics on the part of the person not embracing your opinions, but an unfortunate inability to put aside your own viewpoint and see another's side on this issue. Or you could correct of course. If you must go with the Ubet is ethically challenged theory as the only possible mental path to my not signing on 100% with you, then I can easily live with that.

you are sacrificing honesty because of uncertainty, and using that unpredictability as justification for it. That is not remotely ethical, even if you feel it is necessary to stay competitive and assure your class is full.

are you being nefarious? Eh, that is a pretty strong word, but you are valuing the coach's stability over the kids future. Perhaps if you were threatening Jajuan Story's scholarship eith the oversigning, there would be more sympathy for 'well they are playing games with our offer so we will return the favor'. But it is rarely the game players (which are usually endured because of their alluring talent) that pay the price for oversigning, it is usually the loyal less talented kid who would kill to be a gator, and that includes accepting a tough pill by suddenly being asked to delay enrollment. Note, I am not really calling uf out for it as much as using a relevant game player like story.

 

[SmoovP]

Huh? What say you?

Oh. Nothing.

Alrightythen.

Well, if oversigning.com can't be bothered to get the basic math right on one school, one has to assume that they are either A) negligent B) stupid C) manipulating or D) wrong.

I'm going to start a website called Overbudgeting.com and start screeching about the competitive advantage it gives certain schools and how it hurts the kids.

 

[SmoovP]

a school can release a player, but outside of extenuating circumstances (head coaching change, life changing event at home, behavioral issue where it is best for both to part ways), that almost never happens.

also, by the time the spots are proven to be unavaiable in late spring or early summer, their alternatives are extremely limited.

I'm not sure I made it clear what I'm asking.

If a school accepts 28 LOI's but only has 25 scholarships, can that school release a signee from their LOI without penalty to the player?

Can they not go to another D1 school without having to sit out for a year?

 

[Deety]

Oh Hell, Deets..I have no problem with your hypothetical system in the abstract. It is just that there is no binding contract on the athlete. And your system does not in any way account for what to do about verbals. [Mark May], Auburn would tell ten of its guys to verbal to Bama so that on NSD they could switch to Auburn and leave Bama understrength. And no, the ones left who are "conditional" would not have the same numbers of stars as the ones who were the LOI guys.

As long as the kids do not have to honor a commitment, they put a recruiting class at risk if enough of them bolt - let alone the problem of giving LOIs to kids who do not qualify. I think the current system can be tweaked without adopting one that lets the vagaries of a group of 18 year olds' emotions determine if you will be signing a strong class or looking at trying to find enough conditionals to meet your 85 man roster.

And if you cannot find any reason not to agree with your idea without assuming nefarious motives, then respectfully, that may not be the result of a lack of ethics on the part of the person not embracing your opinions, but an unfortunate inability to put aside your own viewpoint and see another's side on this issue.* Or you could be correct of course. If you must go with the Ubet is ethically challenged theory as the only possible mental path to my not signing on 100% with you, then I can easily live with that.

* it's not like you are a closed minded gal, and I do not imply that. I get we see this differently.

I understand the concern - neither the school nor the players necessarily have to make formal what they've been promising on NLOID, making it a horrible mess all around. I consider that a valid concern, but a side issue to the basic principle involved.

However, would you please explain the difference between what you just said and, "The kids might not be upfront with the schools, so the schools shouldn't have to be upfront with the kids." Still having issues with that concept. Is that an accurate representation, and if so, are you coming at it from an "ends justify the means" set of ethics? Which many consider valid... but would definitely show we're working off different ideals.

 

[jwinslow]

I'm not sure I made it clear what I'm asking.

If a school accepts 28 LOI's but only has 25 scholarships, can that school release a signee from their LOI without penalty to the player?

Can they not go to another D1 school without having to sit out for a year?

yes, they have that right the penalty is just for enrolling iirc.

Navybuck is the authority in buckeye circles about ncaa rules.

 

[buckeyemania11]

my favorite is still the 3rd string QB that LSU basically told to get lost

THEN LSU told him where he could and couldnt transfer too........

gotta love the SEC

 

[SmoovP]

Huh? What say you?

Oh. Nothing.

Alrightythen.

OK, all snark aside, here's my problem with oversigning.com.

It appears to me that he started with a basic opinion, i.e., "oversigning gives the SEC a competitive advantage" and then works backwards to fill in some facts that support that opinion, while ignoring facts that don't - while fudging the numbers that support his opinion via poor research or outright manipulation.

Basically, he's cherry picking data to support his opinion.

In the science world that's known as junk science and it's no better here. It's not an intellectually honest way to debate an issue. If he won't be bothered to get the basic facts correct, then his opinion is tainted to the point of irrelevant.

 

[cjmik_75]

Okay. That clears it up. You can't answer my question.

You said nobody here would bother to click on the link. Well, not so much. And when someone does you cut any reaction to it down by saying ONE clear case of oversigning doesn't prove anything. Alright. Now you sound like the guy that was whining about 2 numbers. 2. I'm asking about 8. So, if the oversigning.com dude can't count he's a moron. But how many scholarships is he responsible for handing out? And how many is LSU responsible for?

Now you want to talk in circles and not answer a simple question, fine. But don't say nobody will read that crap and then dismiss a simple question as irrelevant when somebody does read it. It's real simple.

I don't care what oversigning.com says or what weird science experiments y'all do. I'm asking how is LSU going to fit 22 or more committs on a roster that appears to only have 14 open spots. 14 open spots the author of the article seems to agree with. If there's 8 guys transferring or 7 guys leaving the program then whatever. Does anybody know how they're fitting 22+ committs? That's all I'm asking. I don't care about unfair comparisons, cherry picking data, junk science or any other misdirection bullshit. Just how they're getting to 85. That's it.

 

[Oh8ch]

Okay. That clears it up. You can't answer my question.

You said nobody here would bother to click on the link. Well, not so much. And when someone does you cut any reaction to it down by saying ONE clear case of oversigning doesn't prove anything. Alright. Now you sound like the guy that was whining about 2 numbers. 2. I'm asking about 8. So, if the oversigning.com dude can't count he's a moron. But how many scholarships is he responsible for handing out? And how many is LSU responsible for?

Now you want to talk in circles and not answer a simple question, fine. But don't say nobody will read that crap and then dismiss a simple question as irrelevant when somebody does read it. It's real simple.

I don't care what oversigning.com says or what weird science experiments y'all do. I'm asking how is LSU going to fit 22 or more committs on a roster that appears to only have 14 open spots. 14 open spots the author of the article seems to agree with. If there's 8 guys transferring or 7 guys leaving the program then whatever. Does anybody know how they're fitting 22+ committs? That's all I'm asking. I don't care about unfair comparisons, cherry picking data, junk science or any other misdirection bull[Mark May]. Just how they're getting to 85. That's it.

binomials

 

[SmoovP]

Okay. That clears it up. You can't answer my question.

You said nobody here would bother to click on the link. Well, not so much. And when someone does you cut any reaction to it down by saying ONE clear case of oversigning doesn't prove anything. Alright. Now you sound like the guy that was whining about 2 numbers. 2. I'm asking about 8. So, if the oversigning.com dude can't count he's a moron. But how many scholarships is he responsible for handing out? And how many is LSU responsible for?

Now you want to talk in circles and not answer a simple question, fine. But don't say nobody will read that crap and then dismiss a simple question as irrelevant when somebody does read it. It's real simple.

I don't care what oversigning.com says or what weird science experiments y'all do. I'm asking how is LSU going to fit 22 or more committs on a roster that appears to only have 14 open spots. 14 open spots the author of the article seems to agree with. If there's 8 guys transferring or 7 guys leaving the program then whatever. Does anybody know how they're fitting 22+ committs? That's all I'm asking. I don't care about unfair comparisons, cherry picking data, junk science or any other misdirection bull[Mark May]. Just how they're getting to 85. That's it.

First of all, I said:

(which I doubt y'all will look at anyway)

So that's one thing you got wrong already.

And to answer the question that has been answered ad nauseam, we'll assume that it will happen as it happens in 99.314% of the time in these cases.

Some will be JUCO sign-and-places, some will be academic casualties - both the LOIs and existing players - maybe a grey shirt or two, maybe a quitter or two and maybe a medical or two.

Is that so hard to figure out?

 

[Gatorubet]

I understand the concern - neither the school nor the players necessarily have to make formal what they've been promising on NLOID, making it a horrible mess all around. I consider that a valid concern, but a side issue to the basic principle involved.

All due respect, kids getting to hurt a program's signing class is not a side issue. One can mourn the good old days of "pure" college athletics if one wants. And one can pretend to ignore (here I am referring to Steve's post) the impact of millions of dollars in revenue to a school that finances their entire athletic department from football revenues, the impact of SEC and Big-10 and Texas and Notre Dame TV deals, and the fact that fans are still fans who want to win. Only now coaches don't risk possible unemployment and a return to high school coaching and subbing as a driver's ed instructor, they risk millions of dollars a year personally if they do not succeed.

So again, you can decry the fact that college athletics is not the pure form of, say, the Ivy league...but much of the good old days was far worse than anything going on today, and the historical truth is that when Brown and Yale were competing for national titles they did it using far more corrupt methods than anything seen now.

And I am not saying "we've always had cheating so we can cheat now". Far from it. I am saying that it is now a billion dollar industry as well as "dear old State Tech U". And today it is unreasonable - given the stakes and careers and money involved - to expect a 3 to 4 million dollar a year coach to allow one's recruiting class to be shredded purely because some kids stiffed you, and some kids flunked their finals, and for that coach to say "so what if if screws your program, too damn bad." And I am again saying that it is not OK to cheat or lie or fabricate injuries or force kids to leave. And I am again saying that it is not unreasonable to use honest estimates of the number of no-quals and red-shirts and grey shirts and transfers and quitters to obtain a good faith estimate of how many kids you can accept LOIs from that you think will actually enroll.

However, would you please explain the difference between what you just said and, "The kids might not be upfront with the schools, so the schools shouldn't have to be upfront with the kids." Still having issues with that concept. Is that an accurate representation, and if so, are you coming at it from an "ends justify the means" set of ethics?

I will. But I ask you to bear with me first. Sincerely. Honestly. Could you read my last - say- three (or thirty) posts in this thread and bold any part that would support the language you quoted - that my position is "the schools shouldn't have to be upfront with the kids" because the kids don't have to sign their LOI in accordance with their verbals. Because it is utterly mystifying to me how you can get that from the language of my posts unless you possess a hard wired preconception that everyone in the SEC (or just me) supports lying to kids or misleading them. Every damn post I have made addressing the subject has called for being up front with kids. And when I point out that coaches assume a duty (for millions of dollars) to make their program as successful as they can, that includes a duty to try to land the best signing class that they can sign, none of what I said then - or said now - equates with me saying that coaches can lie and cheat to do it.

Jesus Deety, maybe I can get a refund on the bandwidth for all of the time I specifically sprinkled the terms or phrases "good faith" or "best efforts" or "due diligence" or "reasonably" or "really, really believe" over and over to try to shake y'all from your mindset that "he ain't agreeing, so he must favor cheating and lying..."

Which many consider valid... but would definitely show we're working off different ideals.

<sigh>

 

[Gatorubet]

my favorite is still the 3rd string QB that LSU basically told to get lost

THEN LSU told him where he could and couldnt transfer too........

gotta love the SEC

Fab 5. Gotta love Big-10 basektball.

See how that works? Not so well.* We could pick a more recent example but it would not matter.

As to the qb, it looks to me like they treated the kid poorly at LSU. And I do not care as much if they decided not to renew his yearly scholarship. They can do that. It bothers me if they did it because they oversigned. It [censored]es me off that they apparently lied to him and did not give him a head's up, and that Les was too cowardly to tell him face to face what he was going to do. I have less problem with someone insisting that once you sign a LOI you have a scholarship for life. I don't agree. But you do not meet with our coach, go over your future at your school, and then get blind sided with a letter releasing you the next day or two...or weeks even.

*Your over-generalization brings nothing to this discussion.

 

[Deety]

Coaches shouldn't lie, but putting the truth in writing would constitute a dereliction of duty. Now it all makes sense.

I'm just going to agree with the <sigh> and write this one off.

 

[jwinslow]

You cannot claim you are against something if you turn right around and defend it as a necessary evil. It makes the first part really hollow.

I get why they feel compelled to do it. That is a terrible reason to justify something though.

Paying recruits is something programs feel compelled to do. Same with steroids, extra practices, sweeping scandals under the rug, etc.

And no, they do not have to oversign to compete. They just know it is easier that way.

Either way, you are making a pretty open and shut case for the competitive advantage of oversigning with how devastating it could be if they do not do it and risk not having a full class. And like we always said, the advantage is over the same squad without oversigning, in this case having fewer recruiting options and fewer scholarship players at times.