Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[Gatorubet]

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 wouldn't be so bad if everyone was doing it, but when its only a couple dozen schools it gives them a numerical advantage.

Truly, I do understand what you are saying. The thing is - and I don't know how else to day this - unless there is some way to even marginally quantify or measure the effect of over signing, then it will remain (to me) a pretty speculative argument. If Arkansas over signing does not make them win any more games than they did when they were not over signing, you could say that they are better than they would have - but they still would not have any more wins. If over signing does not make them any better than a team that does not over sign when measured by wins or points scored or yards given up, then you might as well pick any variable out there - alleged team speed, mean temperature of football season, adoption of a spread offense, hiring a Hall of Fame Coach, and say that they had as much or more (or less) effect on the outcome than over signing.

I conceptually agree that over signing should help. That said, just saying it should - without being able to demonstrate in any objective way that it does - sort of makes the question of "how much" it helps pure speculation. I get that many here think it a big deal, a great advantage, and a reason that a team or conference is better than it would be otherwise.

So I guess you are left with an example in your conference of the Buckeyes still winning the Big-10 Championship a gazillion times in a row...and as all but one of the other teams you play in the Big-10 gained an advantage over tOSU by over signing, the best you can say is that you still would have beaten them all, but you might have beaten them even worse than you did save for their over signing.

Pardon me, but....Big Whoop.

 

[BB73]

The one aspect of it that bothers me is that it improves the overall recruiting rankings of the SEC; and while that might not matter much on the field, it allows entities like ESPN to use the recruiting rankings to help them hype the SEC.

And when some entities rank programs, they sometimes include recruiting rankings (which I think is a bad idea in general), and it artificially inflates the program rankings.

Those are just matters of perception, but perception has somewhat of an influence on reality. Perception can influence where future recruits want to go, as well as some less-than-enlightened poll voters.

So anything that hypes the SEC can help perpetuate its success.

 

[Gatorubet]

The one aspect of it that bothers me is that it improves the overall recruiting rankings of the SEC; and while that might not matter much on the field, it allows entities like ESPN to use the recruiting rankings to help them hype the SEC.

And when some entities rank programs, they sometimes include recruiting rankings (which I think is a bad idea in general), and it artificially inflates the program rankings.

Those are just matters of perception, but perception has somewhat of an influence on reality. Perception can influence where future recruits want to go, as well as some less-than-enlightened poll voters.

So anything that hypes the SEC can help perpetuate its success.

Everything you say is reasonable. But thinking about it more I can't help but think that oversigning would not really help any top tier team in a BCSCG. The starting 22 would likely not be affected by the over signing (the kids on the field are likely not among a group of three of four "over signed" kids, but among the first 27) unless some horrible depth problem developed due to injury and one of those three or four over signed kids happened to hit the same position as the need.

It would more likely help a second tier team to obtain some new kids with better talent than the ones on roster. I mean, the over signing thing has a natural limit, in that if you over sign fifty kids there are still only a few that can join the team no matter how much you trick it up by letting on -scholi kids go. For all of the over signing the limit on the 85 is still the limit. And you will have a blow back of sorts, as you replace a kid who is a year or two down the line and familiar with the nomenclature and system, familiar with and already succeeding in the college environment, a kid who is one or two years into a strength program and putting on weight - and replacing them with a kid who is a freshman, no matter if better ranked. So there is no sure impact for the good that first year, at least in many situations. If that kid improves over the kid you let go in subsequent years, then you get better for sure.

At a top program there is less likelihood that a new kid will beat out a two year veteran, and in any event in a top program there is less of a chance that a new kid would start. So I see it as helping the Mississippi States and Illinois more than us.

As to perception, the four Crystal Trophies in a row and the BCS winning % have far more to do with it than perceived recruiting. All of those top recruiting classes the last decade of the Bowden clusterfuck years did not seem to help them win games, or stop the downward perception of their program. Really, winning is the most influential, followed by the Harpies ESPN talking heads I guess. If recruiting stats influence an opinion on Mike & Mike or the Herd, one or two losses should demolish that opinion. So it is winning. And the winning that influences the most is the wins from the top programs. And the top programs seem to be the least affected by the fact of over signing of less successful programs, as we still beat them. So I guess my conclusion is that I agree that it can be a factor, but mostly for not-so-elite programs, and not much of a factor at all among the top programs.

So anything that hypes the SEC can help perpetuate its success.

Help me out here Bill....what is bad about this again? :p

 

[jwinslow]

This is where I think that you get the vague concept of oversigning, but don't grasp the application of it.

the kids on the field are likely not among a group of three of four "over signed" kids, but among the first 27

I don't know what Florida's track record is like, but Tressel has found a number of great gems with his late offers.

Brian Robiskie, James Laurinaitis, Donald Washington, Larry Grant, Orhian Johnson... and to some extent Troy Smith.

I would not say that quote is accurate, especially since the biggest advantage of oversigning is trading a wasted scholarship for depth at the position. An impact player is a bonus, but first and foremost you want useful depth.

And you will have a blow back of sorts, as you replace a kid who is a year or two down the line and familiar with the nomenclature and system, familiar with and already succeeding in the college environment, a kid who is one or two years into a strength program and putting on weight - and replacing them with a kid who is a freshman, no matter if better ranked. So there is no sure impact for the good that first year, at least in many situations. If that kid improves over the kid you let go in subsequent years, then you get better for sure.

No, because the kid you're letting go is dead weight. Someone who was either a poor decision to offer in hindsight or simply didn't adjust to the college game (physically, mentally, emotionally) well, and is now languishing on the bench burning a hole in your scholarship total.

At a top program there is less likelihood that a new kid will beat out a two year veteran, and in any event in a top program there is less of a chance that a new kid would start. So I see it as helping the Mississippi States and Illinois more than us.

The kid that is usually being ushered out is the 3rd/4th year guy who is already being passed by the underclassmen. He's already sliding down to 3rd or 4th team, and that's while the youngsters are still limited in their S&C maturity & understanding of the offense. Those young pups will likely only distance themselves further from the dead weight.

Like I already said, Connor Smith & Evan Blankenship were 3rd & 4th year OL who were being passed not only by our 1st/2nd year 5-star linemen, but also the lesser heralded 3 & 4 star guys. That's the guy that an SEC school would often have transfer.

You're not having the so-so 2nd teamer transfer, because that guy might play if there is an injury or the starter struggles.

As to perception, the four Crystal Trophies in a row and the BCS winning % have far more to do with it than perceived recruiting. All of those top recruiting classes the last decade of the Bowden clusterfuck years did not seem to help them win games, or stop the downward perception of their program.

Winning certainly trumps it, but kids absolutely follow recruiting rankings and want to play where there is the most talent. A class like Auburn's is a prime example of a overhyped class. They oversigned with 32 kids and thus their total ranking score snuck into the top-6.

The problem becomes worse when ESPN (who is absolutely awful at recruiting coverage) holds their all-star game and gives huge preferential treatment to the players that attended their all-star game. The underarmour game was basically the official SEC all-star game, while the Army AA game had more of a balanced group and saw more of the verbals for midwest powers.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The problem becomes worse when ESPN (who is absolutely awful at recruiting coverage) holds their all-star game and gives huge preferential treatment to the players that attended their all-star game. The underarmour game was basically the official SEC all-star game, while the Army AA game had more of a balanced group and saw more of the verbals for midwest powers.

/thread

 

[BB73]

Everything you say is reasonable.

Great post. I agree.

 

[sepia5]

Everything you say is reasonable. But thinking about it more I can't help but think that oversigning would not really help any top tier team in a BCSCG. The starting 22 would likely not be affected by the over signing (the kids on the field are likely not among a group of three of four "over signed" kids, but among the first 27) unless some horrible depth problem developed due to injury and one of those three or four over signed kids happened to hit the same position as the need.

It would more likely help a second tier team to obtain some new kids with better talent than the ones on roster. I mean, the over signing thing has a natural limit, in that if you over sign fifty kids there are still only a few that can join the team no matter how much you trick it up by letting on -scholi kids go. For all of the over signing the limit on the 85 is still the limit. And you will have a blow back of sorts, as you replace a kid who is a year or two down the line and familiar with the nomenclature and system, familiar with and already succeeding in the college environment, a kid who is one or two years into a strength program and putting on weight - and replacing them with a kid who is a freshman, no matter if better ranked. So there is no sure impact for the good that first year, at least in many situations. If that kid improves over the kid you let go in subsequent years, then you get better for sure.

At a top program there is less likelihood that a new kid will beat out a two year veteran, and in any event in a top program there is less of a chance that a new kid would start. So I see it as helping the Mississippi States and Illinois more than us.

As to perception, the four Crystal Trophies in a row and the BCS winning % have far more to do with it than perceived recruiting. All of those top recruiting classes the last decade of the Bowden cluster[censored] years did not seem to help them win games, or stop the downward perception of their program. Really, winning is the most influential, followed by the Harpies ESPN talking heads I guess. If recruiting stats influence an opinion on Mike & Mike or the Herd, one or two losses should demolish that opinion. So it is winning. And the winning that influences the most is the wins from the top programs. And the top programs seem to be the least affected by the fact of over signing of less successful programs, as we still beat them. So I guess my conclusion is that I agree that it can be a factor, but mostly for not-so-elite programs, and not much of a factor at all among the top programs.

Help me out here Bill....what is bad about this again? :p

Look Gator. Just admit that all the schools in the SEC essentially cheat, OK?

 

[Gatorubet]

Look Gator. Just admit that all the schools in the SEC essentially cheat, OK?

Dammit - pay attention. The question is, does the cheating help us?

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

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?

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.

these are the blinders you need to remove.

Minnesota and Illinois are not over signing the quality of players that Ohio State would be able to over sign if they were a team that over signed. The same way Ol Miss and Ketucky over signees aren't the same quality of LSU and Alabama.

Ohio State's over signees...if they existed....would be comparable to LSU and Alabama over signees. Being able to replace the 5 star busts that JWins listed with new 5 stars would make Ohio State better overall if those new 5 stars were actually good.

The simple act of over signing doesn't determine the rank of teams. Who they over sign is what is making them better. Overall, Illinois is a better team than if they didn't over sign......but that doesn't make up for the coaching, players, and however many other advantages Ohio State holds over them.



But, you know all of this already. I'm not going to insult your intelligence and play unfrozen caveman lawyer with you.

 

[BayBuck]

I conceptually agree that over signing should help. That said, just saying it should - without being able to demonstrate in any objective way that it does - sort of makes the question of "how much" it helps pure speculation. I get that many here think it a big deal, a great advantage, and a reason that a team or conference is better than it would be otherwise.

This is true, it is a speculative discussion on the benefits of over-signing, but what seems without dispute is that the coaches who do it think they are gaining a greater advantage than by not over-signing. It may not help at all in the big picture, but over-signing coaches sure think it does. And I think this all fits with a widely-held view of the motivations and methods of SEC coaches, who clearly do it more often than Big Ten coaches (for instance).

 

[Gatorubet]

these are the blinders you need to remove.

Minnesota and Illinois are not over signing the quality of players that Ohio State would be able to over sign if they were a team that over signed. The same way Ol Miss and Ketucky over signees aren't the same quality of LSU and Alabama.

Ohio State's over signees...if they existed....would be comparable to LSU and Alabama over signees. Being able to replace the 5 star busts that JWins listed with new 5 stars would make Ohio State better overall if those new 5 stars were actually good.

The simple act of over signing doesn't determine the rank of teams. Who they over sign is what is making them better. Overall, Illinois is a better team than if they didn't over sign......but that doesn't make up for the coaching, players, and however many other advantages Ohio State holds over them.



But, you know all of this already. I'm not going to insult your intelligence and play unfrozen caveman lawyer with you.

I guess I'm maintaining that the post-over signing "ranking" within our respective conferences does not seem to have appreciably changed from the pre-over signing ranking within our respective conferences - despite the existence of over signing.

Which - to me - would seem to negate some of the bump from it.

But one thing is as true now as it was 50,000 years ago....

....that the SEC is the premier football conference in the land because
the Big Ball of Fire in the Sky......what you call "God"....Wills it so.

 

[billmac91]

Les Miles has to be loving the good press coming from this...

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5935634

 

[FrancisSoyer]

Les Miles has to be loving the good press coming from this...

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5935634

Business as usual in the SEC.

 

[kchogfan]

http://www.theozone.net/football/postseason/oversigning.html

Really interesting article by our friends over at the OZone about signing trends in the Big Ten compared to the SEC.

I'm curious what our Hog friends think of this trend. Are there recruits that are "pushed out"? I know there are in other programs, just curious if it happens at Arkansas. There's a huge discrepancy in signing that would seem to suggest it, but I wonder if you're aware of specific cases that could illuminate the subject more clearly than a "statistic" would. How does that reflect on these programs, particularly when you're in a living room trying to convince a kid's parents that you truly have his best interests at heart?

I am certainly NOT the spokesperson for any school. However, as many of you have pointed out, sometimes the edukation at the ellimentary and high skool level in the South is not up to Kollege standards. Therefore, some. not all, but some kids, do NOT qualify academically to attend college and must attend Junior College for up to 2 years. Those that attend JC can then attend some other Div-1 school after JC.

So, if a school does sign more than 25, it tells the prospect we like you a lot, but it looks like you may have to go to JC for a while before you come here. No school may have more than the NCAA allows on its rosters.

 

[kentuckbuck]

I am certainly NOT the spokesperson for any school. However, as many of you have pointed out, sometimes the edukation at the ellimentary and high skool level in the South is not up to Kollege standards. Therefore, some. not all, but some kids, do NOT qualify academically to attend college and must attend Junior College for up to 2 years. Those that attend JC can then attend some other Div-1 school after JC.

So, if a school does sign more than 25, it tells the prospect we like you a lot, but it looks like you may have to go to JC for a while before you come here. No school may have more than the NCAA allows on its rosters.

Ooooooo a minor league system, I like it!