Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[jwinslow]

I am not arguing against the obvious.

You say lines like this, or the first sentence in the next post

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

But then follow it up with the inexplicable second sentence. Clearly you are arguing against the obvious, despite admitting that they think oversigning helps. Something that helps correlates to better, does it not?

When one team has 100 chances and the other has 120 (with most of those being mulligans from the failures among the first 100), it's pretty simple math.

It won't make your recruits better than the first 100, but it will significantly tilt your odds given where those 20 spots come from.

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.

When virtually the entire conference is oversigning, this rebuttal does not hold much water.

 

[Jaxbuck]

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.

I don't know that anyone ever made a statistically significant correlation between baseball players using PED's and hitting more home runs either. Those who had an interest in down playing PED's impact often used that very same tactic of questioning correlation to which I always ask the same simple question. If they didn't think it would help then why were they doing it?

Being able to prove statistical correlation isn't the point, by their very actions the SEC coaches are telling us they perceive a correlation between over signing and winning.

Over signing is clearly a competitive advantage for the schools football team in the minds of the coaches and clearly a less than ideal situation for a handful of kids every year.

It is yet another example of the kids interests being subordinate to even the slightest perceived benefit to the school down in SEC land. Much like waiting until the day after NLOI's are signed to announce coaching departures and such.

This is one of those deals where my dad hat trumps my fan hat. I think the practice should absolutely be banned from all CFB and it has nothing to do with the results on the field. The 'meat on the hoof' scenario's should not be allowed to develop anywhere. Ever.

 

[Gatorubet]

You say lines like this, or the first sentence in the next post
But then follow it up with the inexplicable second sentence.

Oh - it kinda is explicable.

Clearly you are arguing against the obvious, despite admitting that they think oversigning helps. Something that helps correlates to better, does it not?

C'mon. All I am saying is that it would be nice to see that the teams that over signed the most also had a better record as a result of that over signing than the teams that did not over sign as much.

And the reason I said in conference is because there may be some reason that out of conference match ups work out in certain ways. (Bowl system matching a #2 with x conference team with a #5 y conference, games in home state, etc.)

When one team has 100 chances and the other has 120 (with most of those being mulligans from the failures among the first 100), it's pretty simple math.

It won't make your recruits better than the first 100, but it will significantly tilt your odds given where those 20 spots come from.
When virtually the entire conference is over signing, this rebuttal does not hold much water.

I see the assertion, obviously, and recognize the logic. All I said was that one would think that the advantage of over signing would show up as an advantage - meaning a better team. A better team should win more games. I did not see a correlation between over signing practices within a conference and better in conference win loss records, as one would think should be apparent. So I noted that.

How you interpret my comments is entirely your deal, and the fact that I wonder about that oddity is not a repudiation of the general concept that more players means less chance of being thin at a position due to injury or transfer.

 

[cjmik_75]

The entire conference oversigns players year after year and proceeds to win the last 4 BCS title games. It's ok to label the SEC the best conference with that type of championship game domination just don't question how it's done, right? It's only natural when recruiting practices of said conference are questioned that people are going to link it with the sucsess of the top programs in it.

15 players X 12 teams is 180 oversigned recruits each year. No advantage there? Then why continue to do it? Does it hurt the team? Or does it improve the their chances of getting the best possible players on the team?

I call BS. They wouldn't be doing this "loop hole" crap if it didn't mean winning more games in CFB's toughest conference. GMAFB

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

C'mon. All I am saying is that it would be nice to see that the teams that over signed the most also had a better record as a result of that over signing than the teams that did not over sign as much.

And the reason I said in conference is because there may be some reason that out of conference match ups work out in certain ways. (Bowl system matching a #2 with x conference team with a #5 y conference, games in home state, etc.)


I see the assertion, obviously, and recognize the logic. All I said was that one would think that the advantage of over signing would show up as an advantage - meaning a better team. A better team should win more games. I did not see a correlation between over signing practices within a conference and better in conference win loss records, as one would think should be apparent. So I noted that.

You point out the variables included in out of conference play as a reason to discount those games as evidence however you dont mention the variables between the schools that you expect to see a better record.

Ole Miss over-signing doesnt make them better than florida, it makes them better than what Ole Miss would have been if they hadnt over-signed. I am certain it does show up in the win-loss record but there is no and never will be a way to prove it since we cant know how good they would have been otherwise since players and coaches and schemes and even population bases change so frequently there is no way to prove how much of a difference there is. I would liken it however to the era before the scholarship restrictions where powerhouse programs were able to stockpile more and more talent to prevent parity and keep their rivals down. Perhaps that in itself wouldnt be so bad if everyone was doing it, but when its only a couple dozen schools it gives them a numerical advantage.

 

[jwinslow]

C'mon. All I am saying is that

No, you're redirecting to avoid admitting that there are benefits to oversigning.

it would be nice to see that the teams that over signed the most also had a better record as a result of that over signing than the teams that did not over sign as much.

Hello, I'm our conference's punchline, have we met? :p

And the reason I said in conference is because there may be some reason that out of conference match ups work out in certain ways. (Bowl system matching a #2 with x conference team with a #5 y conference, games in home state, etc.)

You're also picking a convenient hypothetical where only 3 teams are on the same playing field. The 4th lacks the stability & sanity to be involved (tenn)

1. LSU - two titles, like Florida. Comparable talent to UF when recruiting with Saban. The mad hat-ter (how does one spell that?) compiles similar talent but it isn't enough to overcome his faults (& his staff's).
2. Bama - one title, more soon? Comparable talent to UF.
3. UGA - no titles, none soon? Good but less talent than UF.

One of these three teams does not oversign like the others (only 1 over per year, which is very understandable). Can you guess which one it is?

Thanks for the splendid idea, Gator. :cheers:

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

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.

well....you have to remove the blinders first.

 

[Gatorubet]

well....you have to remove the blinders first.

The new data:

According to this, tOSU should be the second to worst team in the Big-10, as oversigning has given an advantage to the other teams.

How has that been working out lately?

 

[buckeyemania11]

I get from that chart is that teams like Kentucky Mississippi State and South Carolina oversign and still stuck

 

[jwinslow]

How has that been working out lately?

Osu could have competed for a third straight top-5 recruiting class if they had access to the same extra '20 every 4' scholarship luxury as the sec.

Instead they don't oversign or phase out Connor Smith & Evan Blankenship... so they have to be stingy with their offers.

 

[Gatorubet]

No, you're redirecting to avoid admitting that there are benefits to oversigning

You'd have to be drunk, high or illiterate to mean that.

And I know you can read. :p


"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." - A wise man

 

[Gatorubet]

I get from that chart is that teams like Kentucky Mississippi State and South Carolina oversign and still stuck

And Auburn, Ole Missy and the Pigs should be as good as the 'Phants

(What I'm saying is that having less players on scholarship is better for you.* )

* I am here to please you Jwins :p

 

[BUKEsqBuck]

Hey Gator...

your lawyer is showing and not in a pretty way. At this point in the thread you have become the equivalent of an insurance defense attorney whose insurer won't loosen the purse strings when its clear plaintiff has a policy limits slam dunk. I know you like the argument for the sake of the argument, but at some point you have to snatch you adjuster by the collar and get in tune with reality.

More schollies out there increase odds of more "hits" than "misses". Multiply that by manipulating you attrition (see Saban) to suit your needs only jacks up these odds more.

Nutshell... if Tress was a scumbag like Saban, was permitted to habitually oversign, did so, and then essentially was able to repick/resign his team every year out of 95 schollie jocks rather than be stuck with 85 - "legit attrition", the team would be more athletically gifted and what sometimes amounts to 4 years of "buyers remorse" turns into another roster spot for a potential superstar recruit.

How is this not an advantage (except the being a piece of crap like nick saban part)???

Most SEC fans are not able to recognize this due to their inability to do simple math... I am sure you can at least divide by three gator, can you understand the diff between 95 and 85?

 

[Gatorubet]

your lawyer is showing and not in a pretty way. At this point in the thread you have become the equivalent of an insurance defense attorney whose insurer won't loosen the purse strings when its clear plaintiff has a policy limits slam dunk. I know you like the argument for the sake of the argument, but at some point you have to snatch you adjuster by the collar and get in tune with reality.

All I see is your glaring lack of reading comprehension skills. I get the fact that you are getting worked up over a view you ascribe to me that I do not hold.

More schollies out there increase odds of more "hits" than "misses". Multiply that by manipulating you attrition (see Saban) to suit your needs only jacks up these odds more.

Nutshell... if Tress was a scumbag like Saban, was permitted to habitually oversign, did so, and then essentially was able to repick/resign his team every year out of 95 schollie jocks rather than be stuck with 85 - "legit attrition", the team would be more athletically gifted and what sometimes amounts to 4 years of "buyers remorse" turns into another roster spot for a potential superstar recruit.

How is this not an advantage (except the being a piece of crap like nick saban part)???

Tell you what sport - I'll answer that when you find anywhere where I said that there could be no advantage from over signing. Bonus points for finding the multiple times I acknowleged it should be an advantage.

Now, kindly explain why there seems to be an interesting disconnect, in that the degree of over signing does not seem to line up in a way that matches the relative strength of teams within both our conferences.

As I originally said, there seems to be a disconnect in the nexus of over signing to on field success. Stand alone proposition/observation.

That has nothing at all to do with my recognition that over signing should lead to a team that meets the full scholly limit, and that following that practice enables a program to better weed out underperforming players, thereby improving the quality of the overall skill level.

If I sign it in blood, will you tell me why there appears to be no connection to tOSU's recent historic ownage of the Big-10 and the oversigning data that shows that tOSU has the least amount of over signing in the conference, save one team?

Most SEC fans are not able to recognize this due to their inability to do simple math... I am sure you can at least divide by three gator, can you understand the diff between 95 and 85?

Most SEC fans would say "Kiss my fucking ass" to that.

I, however, would never do something so rude. I would tell you that I think your unhappiness with my position is misplaced.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

Now, kindly explain why there seems to be an interesting disconnect, in that the degree of over signing does not seem to line up in a way that matches the relative strength of teams within both our conferences.

I already explained that, go read my post please.


Ill save you the trouble and paste it again.

You point out the variables included in out of conference play as a reason to discount those games as evidence however you dont mention the variables between the schools that you expect to see a better record.

Ole Miss over-signing doesnt make them better than florida, it makes them better than what Ole Miss would have been if they hadnt over-signed. I am certain it does show up in the win-loss record but there is no and never will be a way to prove it since we cant know how good they would have been otherwise since players and coaches and schemes and even population bases change so frequently there is no way to prove how much of a difference there is. I would liken it however to the era before the scholarship restrictions where powerhouse programs were able to stockpile more and more talent to prevent parity and keep their rivals down. Perhaps that in itself wouldnt be so bad if everyone was doing it, but when its only a couple dozen schools it gives them a numerical advantage.