Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[cjmik_75]

It appears we have very different ethics. If that's the justification for promising what cannot be promised, I can't really argue it, though I suspect academic institutions would have to take academics more into account during recruiting, silly as that would be. But in any case, we're coming from two entirely different mindsets as to acceptable and ethical behavior, so I'm not really sure where else to go with this.

GPA.










FWIW this thread is turning into some epic suck.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

FWIW this thread is turning into some epic suck.

Waaaaaay past that point.

But hell, not much to talk about except THE #1 AND SOON TO BE ONLY UNDEFEATED TEAM IN THE COUNTRY, so hey let's just continue this exercise in futility for a while longer and maybe we'll circle the track enough times Jimmie Johnson* will show up.

*I do not follow or endorse NASCAR or anything NASCAR related, but I figured this would be a more recognizable reference than James Caan.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

But oversigning, in and of itself, isn't what it is being made out to be, and using it as a blunt instrument against the entire SEC is shitty too.

but it's cool for the entire SEC to cheer for the national title they just won?


what do you want people to do......act like there are individual teams in the SEC? that's retarded.

 

[Gatorubet]

It appears we have very different ethics. If that's the justification for promising what cannot be promised, I can't really argue it, though I suspect academic institutions would have to take academics more into account during recruiting, silly as that would be. But in any case, we're coming from two entirely different mindsets as to acceptable and ethical behavior, so I'm not really sure where else to go with this.

I do not know which is worse - the glaring naivete' or the holier than thou attitude that makes no pretense in telling Smoov and myself how ethically challenged we both are...if we had not already heard that from several others here. Deety - occasionally the recruiting system does not work - for whatever reason. That is why you (tOSU) dumped Dejuan Morgan mere weeks before National Signing Day in 04. And when there are the inevitable screw ups that result in a disappointed athlete, you can immediately assume that the cause of the problem is a defective sense of ethics, or you can perhaps view the situation differently - and realize that the matching of interested athletes to interested programs is not an exact science, and that sometimes the fit is not perfect for a number of reasons.

And you have every right to take a view that a verbal offer from a 17 or 18 year old kid - a choice that is as easily swayed by meeting a girl or receiving a text from a buddy to liking the look of new Nike game uniforms - as an absolute iron clad contract by both parties. But it is not an iron clad contract. He can say "screw it" and change his mind the morning of singing day because he watched some team win a basketball game the night before. More accurately, you can say that the contract with that kid, while one-way only, is one that you have to honor by not accepting more offers, and that you cannot do anything to protect your program from - say - six of those kids not qualifying and six of them going somewhere else on signing day.

Now, there are coaches who are hired to run the football programs of their respective universities who are asked to see that their programs attract enough quality athletes to compete in their conference - and hopefully in post-season bowl and BCS bowl games. They are, in fact, paid millions of dollars a year to see to it that they have competitive programs with sufficient quality athletes to compete for the entire year, as injuries and other factors can reduce the two-deep roster.

You have authored an opinion that the only moral and ethical choice to be followed in the recruiting of athletes to any program is this: offers are to be made to athletes by the program, and the athletes will give their non-binding, one-way, verbal acceptances, and the programs are to stop accepting offers as soon as the numbers of verbals reaches the number of possible enrollees, either per year (28 max per year in the SEC) or per total (with no more than 85 scholarships per team).

If, for example, a team with 57 returning athletes gives and receives 28 verbals, and six of the 28 verbals to not qualify or enroll, then you say that is just too damn bad for State Tech, and they should play their 79 players in 2011. If they lose 26 players due to graduation and other reasons, State Tech will have 53 on the roster, but can sign only 28, for a total of 81 enrolled. Again, they will, per Deety's Law, stop accepting verbals at 28. Again, six of the verbals do not result in faxed LOI on signing day. State Tech now has a roster of 75.

In fact, State Tech has always had multiple kids no-show on signing day. Every year for five years in fact. Their coaches see this year in and year out. They just about can guarantee that the number of verbals will not match the number of LOIs that are faxed in on signing day.

So. Will you please explain why a coach, being paid millions of dollars to ensure the most successful viable on the field product for his employer that he can, is supposed to adopt a position that will put his program at a competitive disadvantage when the likelihood of exceeding the 85 is almost nil? You treat this as if were an exact science; that all verbals have to be honored. For it follows that, under your interpretation, that a coach who accepts a verbal offer and does not find an immediate spot for that player is immoral and unethical.

I would love to hear more about how the LOI per enrollee thing is the only moral way to play football. And after you explain the morality of it all, please explain why it is possible for an athlete to ever find a place on a program's roster if they did not follow a traditional LOI path? I mean, this board has informed us how immoral it is to allow "grey shirt" players to attend school and practice with the team despite the fact everyone knows they will get a schollie as soon as the numbers free up.

More to the point, exactly how is that greyshirt situation not "immoral" - but accepting one extra verbal is immoral - even though you have a 99% feel that all of your verbals will not be enrolling? And by that I mean, why is one practice - the one that got you your starting grey shirt (then red shit) QB for the 2007 BCSCG - not clearly immoral, when you had the numbers to accept him in 2003, but the acceptance of one extra South Carolina verbal that may never result in a problem is clearly a shake your head and lift your nose at the obvious immorality of it all bad???

Back to the problems of an 85 man roster. I take it that your coaches do not even think of such mundane things as the 85 limit.... I mean, far be it from tOSU to have its coaches try to shape and shift the numbers for the advantage of the program. I know you are above that mundane, SEC-ish try-to-win-through-shaping-recruiting-classes mindset.

For giggles, and as I brought out Boeckman's grey shirt status earlier, I found this article on recruiting.

The Recruiting Class of 2003 Revisited​

The Buckeyes' famed recruiting class of 2002 was followed by one of the worst classes in the history of Ohio State football. While the 2002 class was generally ranked the #2 class in the country, the 2003 haul was ranked 25th by Scout and 41st by Rivals, which put the Buckeyes behind such recruiting powerhouses as Stanford, Ole Miss, Minnesota, and Oklahoma State. Only fourteen recruits signed with Ohio State in 2003, and nine of them left the program early due to injuries, academics, and legal problems. Another prospect, Louis "Bigfoot" Holmes, committed to the Buckeyes but never made it through admissions despite one year of prep school and two years of junior college (he eventually ended up at Arizona).

Now, the next bold hi-lited part is interesting to me:

Part of the problem with having a small recruiting class one year is that you are going to have an equally small recruiting class four or five years down the road ... or you are going to have to "undersign" during the following years in order to balance out the class sizes over time. The Buckeyes opted for the latter approach, and "banked" scholarships in 2005 and 2007 so that the 2008 class could be reasonable in size (it should contain 20 or 21 players). ...Of course, the problem only got worse when most of the 2003 class left prematurely, leaving that many more vacancies that couldn't be filled by "typical" scholarship players....

So one of the reasons for the oh-so-noble small average recruiting numbers pointed to by posters in this thread is due to the fact that tOSU decided to intentionally limit the number of scholarships offered so that it could get back to a larger average recruiting class size in the years after 2003. IOW, it had nothing to do with a deeper sense of morality, and everything to do with trying to gain an advantage by maximizing the benefits to tOSU program in increasing future average recruiting class size.

I'm shocked. Shocked to learn that tOSU intentionally undersigns so that the recruiting size of future classes will be larger. Actually, no I am not....because I expect Tress to do whatever it takes to get tOSU in a position to win - so long as it is not immoral or unethical. And Tress shaping the future recruiting classes is not "immoral" or "unethical."

Ohio State's class was further hurt by the fact that four of the top ten prospects in Ohio - Presoctt Burgess (#1), Shawn Crable (#4), Brady Quinn (#8), and Ray Edwards (#9) - opted to go elsewhere, with Burgess and Crable defecting to that school up north. In addition, during the final week of the recruiting season, the Buckeyes lost out on several top national prospects, including defensive end Stanley McClover, who originally committed to Ohio State but did a Signing Day switcheroo and ended up at Auburn.

It seems that Mr. Boeckman could have had a spot in the 2003 class, given the fact "the Buckeyes lost out on several top national prospects, including defensive end Stanley McClover, who...did a Signing Day switcheroo and ended up at Auburn..." but no! He had to pay his own way and wait for 2004. Y'all had to "bank" your scholarships. He then red shirted the next year, didn't he?

Anyway, morality will always be in the eye of the beholder. I think some of those eyes are wearing S&G shades.

 

[Gatorubet]

Waaaaaay past that point.

Quitter.

 

[Onebuckfan]

Its amazing on an OSU website just saying SEC gets the most comments and they don't come from tOSU fans

 

[jwinslow]

helping one kid to consider transferring is usually questionable at best, but that has been done for the coach's benefit at every university. I don't condone that but realize it is going to happen.

The reason I have a such a problem with oversigning is that it intentionally places your kids at risk for not having spots if the gamble does not pan out. I don't like Jim Tressel or Urban Meyer making it clear to a backup where he stands on the depth chart, but I have a bigger problem when a coach has to do that annually and on a wide scale because of his oversigning plan

If, for example, a team with 57 returning athletes gives and receives 28 verbals, and six of the 28 verbals to not qualify or enroll,

The complaint is not that they're filling 28 scholarships, but that they're taking 28 per year over a 5 year span, meaning they won't have 28 signing day openings down the road without some major recycling.

I'm still working on the spreadsheets for that data, life is getting in the way lately

then you say that is just too damn bad for State Tech, and they should play their 79 players in 2011.

Yes, it is, because I'm not willing to screw over 3 kids because the oversignings do qualify or stick with their verbals. If I have to pick between screwing over kids or a coach, I'll pick the coach every time.

If they lose 26 players due to graduation and other reasons, State Tech will have 53 on the roster, but can sign only 28, for a total of 81 enrolled.

85-26 = 59.
59+28 = 87.

Again, they will, per Deety's Law, stop accepting verbals at 28. Again, six of the verbals do not result in faxed LOI on signing day. State Tech now has a roster of 75.

87-6 = 82.

In fact, State Tech has always had multiple kids no-show on signing day. Every year for five years in fact. Their coaches see this year in and year out. They just about can guarantee that the number of verbals will not match the number of LOIs that are faxed in on signing day.

If they can count on it, then their totals on signing day should be lower, no? Or are you saying they are oversigning by even more outlandish numbers?

So. Will you please explain why a coach, being paid millions of dollars to ensure the most successful viable on the field product for his employer that he can, is supposed to adopt a position that will put his program at a competitive disadvantage when the likelihood of exceeding the 85 is almost nil? You treat this as if were an exact science; that all verbals have to be honored. For it follows that, under your interpretation, that a coach who accepts a verbal offer and does not find an immediate spot for that player is immoral and unethical.

No, asking a recruit upfront about grayshirting while he is unsigned is not unethical.

What is unethical is telling 28 players that they have a scholarship when you only have room for 20 of them and then not giving them one when your gambling fell apart and you were overstretched, forcing you to cut existing players or force qualified recruits to delay enrollment by various methods.

More to the point, exactly how is that greyshirt situation not "immoral" - but accepting one extra verbal is immoral - even though you have a 99% feel that all of your verbals will not be enrolling? And by that I mean, why is one practice - the one that got you your starting grey shirt (then red shit) QB for the 2007 BCSCG - not clearly immoral, when you had the numbers to accept him in 2003, but the acceptance of one extra South Carolina verbal that may never result in a problem is clearly a shake your head and lift your nose at the obvious immorality of it all bad???

Ridiculous hyperbole. This isn't about accepting one extra verbal, it is about a pattern of grossly oversigning. Continuing to bring up South Carolina as though they've mildly oversigned is laughable, considering they have signed 136 players in the last 5 classes, bringing in about 30 in 3 of the last 5 classes.

Only fourteen recruits signed with Ohio State in 2003, and nine of them left the program early due to injuries, academics, and legal problems. Another prospect, Louis "Bigfoot" Holmes, committed to the Buckeyes but never made it through admissions despite one year of prep school and two years of junior college (he eventually ended up at Arizona).

And why did you bold this part, Mr. Gator?

So one of the reasons for the oh-so-noble small average recruiting numbers pointed to by posters in this thread is due to the fact that tOSU decided to intentionally limit the number of scholarships offered so that it could get back to a larger average recruiting class size in the years after 2003.

No, they limited their scholarships for many years after that so that half a decade later their numbers would be balanced. They are consistently restraining themselves so they don't have to cut players in the springs of 09, 10 & 11. That means OSU is putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage numbers wise as an alternative to oversigning recycling.

If they were Alabama or South Carolina, they would just keep recruiting 28 players in each class and find ways to squeeze out the numbers.

IOW, it had nothing to do with a deeper sense of morality, and everything to do with trying to gain an advantage by maximizing the benefits to tOSU program in increasing future average recruiting class size.

I'm shocked. Shocked to learn that tOSU intentionally undersigns so that the recruiting size of future classes will be larger. Actually, no I am not....because I expect Tress to do whatever it takes to get tOSU in a position to win - so long as it is not immoral or unethical. And Tress shaping the future recruiting classes is not "immoral" or "unethical."

Another ridiculous argument. There's nothing wrong with maximizing your total scholarships, or even offering kids grayshirt scholarships upfront.

What is wrong is sculpting your scholarship totals to maximize your success rate in a way that requires you to make cuts each offseason.

It seems that Mr. Boeckman could have had a spot in the 2003 class, given the fact "the Buckeyes lost out on several top national prospects, including defensive end Stanley McClover, who...did a Signing Day switcheroo and ended up at Auburn..." but no! He had to pay his own way and wait for 2004. Y'all had to "bank" your scholarships. He then red shirted the next year, didn't he?

Anyway, morality will always be in the eye of the beholder. I think some of those eyes are wearing S&G shades.

He was asked if he would grayshirt so he could have two years to start after Troy & Zwick graduated.

Grayshirting or spending a year in juco is not wrong. What is wrong is springing it on a recruit because you accepted too many offers and too many of those qualified.

 

[SmoovP]

Yes, it is, because I'm not willing to screw over 3 kids because the oversignings do qualify or stick with their verbals.

Winslow, I'm not specifically cracking on you about this and I hope that my reply is seen as respectful as it is intended, but this is sort of you guys "go to" argument.

Again, the assumption around here seems to be that those '3 kids' are being blindly screwed over - that they are all naive waifs without a clue - and I'm just not seeing it that way.

I really can't fathom a scenario where those 3 kids are blindly walking into a situation where they aren't aware of the possibility that they may get bumped in favor of a more highly rated recruit.

I would think that those 3 kids aren't sure-fire 4 and 5 star recruits, but are the marginal 3 star and below kids who are offered for depth issues, or because they are legacies, or home-state heroes or something like that.

I would also think that those 3 kids have other options before signing day. That there are other offers on the table from the Northwest Directional States of the world and that they have a choice - the sure thing at NDS or the unsure thing at StateU - not to mention that StateU has a plan for those 3 kids, be it a sign-and-place, grey shirt, walk-on or what have you.

An athletic scholarship is not a guarantee of a 4 or 5 year free ride and kids should be aware of that fact. Those marginal 3 star and below kids should know that if they aren't getting the job done on the field that they are in danger of losing a scholarship. You guys can try to frame that as an ethical or moral issue if you like, but I think it is well understood by everyone involved on the front end.

The point is that those 3 kids have options and should be fully aware of of what those options are, and the pros and cons of the decision.

In your response to GatorBoy pointing out that kids are no-shows and late-switchers, you say:

If they can count on it, then their totals on signing day should be lower, no?

The problem with that is that coaching staffs have no idea of who might be a no-show or a late switcher. Verbals aren't binding. Many kids change their minds multiple times before signing day. There is really no predicting what they might do.

In a perfect situation, all verbals would be honored and both coaches and kids could count on one another's word, i.e., "I will play for you" matches "I have a scholarship for you" in every instance, but it just doesn't work that way.

What you seem to be demanding is that A) Schools only make as many offers as they have scholarships available B) Schools only offer to kids they are 100% positive will sign and C) that kids never, ever change their minds - none of which is even remotely possible in the real world.

What would be worse: Accepting 28 LOIs while having a plan for those 3 kids, or the minute you get to 25 LOIs received on signing day, that you call the other 3 and say "Sorry, no place for you"?

Do you tell the half-dozen or so kids at the bottom of your recruiting list "Don't send us your LOI until after signing day, because we have to make the numbers work before we decide if we want you or not"? That puts the burden of guessing what may or may not happen on the kid, something you are an avowed opponent of.

Regarding the kids who are 'forced out' of a program in favor of a more highly rated recruit.

forcing you to cut existing players

With the possible exception of The Gumps, I haven't seen that proven to be anything but an exceptionally rare thing. I think that natural attrition - graduation, injuries, grades, transfers and quits - are the overwhelming percentage of occurrences.

Even so, I would think that the kids who are getting 'cut' are kids who are A) at the bottom of the depth chart B) will never see the field C) have no chance of going pro D) could be valuable contributors at a lesser program E) can earn a scholarship elsewhere F) choose to continue their education at any school of their choice G) discipline problems and so forth.

The kids who are getting 'cut' are likely some of those very same marginal 3 star and below kids we talked about earlier. To think that this is coming as a blind surprise isn't realistic. The kids know where they are on the depth chart, they know by now that going pro is out of the question and they know that this was always a possibility.

Do some kids end up being disappointed? I'm sure that they do. Do some kids end up feeling like they got 'screwed over'? I'm sure that happens at times as well, but it doesn't seem to me that these kids are being launched out into the world with "loser" tattooed on their foreheads.

Scholarships are a one year contract. That is understood by the kids when they sign. If that kid isn't getting it done on the field, keeping him around is denying another kid an opportunity. It is sort of a solipsistic argument that one kid is being hurt by being 'cut', when keeping him on football scholarship is doing no one any good and taking up a space that another kid could use.

The accusation (again) that I am a cold-hearted, unethical, immoral bastard is sure to follow, but I fail to see how these kids are being damaged in any significant or lasting way. The world is a tough place and big time college football is a cut-throat business. I don't think we are doing any kid a favor by keeping him around if he is not living up to the performance standard of any particular school. I've had to fire people for not performing - people with kids and families and responsibilities and obligations - and as hard as that is, and as bad as it makes me feel, I owe it to the larger organization to do my best to keep it healthy and competitive and I'm not doing that person any favors by keeping him in a position where he can't perform to standard.


If the concern is about 'competitive advantage' then the discussion must include all areas where one school, or one conference, has any sort of competitive advantage over another.

But we all know that isn't about to happen.

If we were really concerned about 'hurting the kids' we would be talking about a complete overhaul of the recruiting process, and not just a band-aid solution that affects the competitive advantage of one conference while maintaing the competitive advantage of another.

Perhaps a good starting place in that discussion would be the article GatorBoy and I linked above. That would be as good a place to start as anywhere.

I don't know if the members of Buckeye Planet haven't bothered to read it, are ignoring it or what, but it does have some common sense ideas worthy of discussion. Of course, there is some danger in it for programs like OSU regarding academic standards, so maybe it is being ignored because of the potential it holds for damaging the OSU recruiting process.

What it all boils down to is that one conference is resentful of another conference for what they perceive to be a competitive advantage, while using the 'hurting the kids' as a strawman argument in favor of their position. What the one conference actually wants, is to force uniformity to their own recruiting standards on everyone else, while ignoring or actively trying to maintain the things that give their own conference or school its competitive advantage.

 

[Muck]

Yes. Because a program having two potential verbals over their scholarship LOI limit - before National Signing Day and before any of the athletes have graduated and enrolled - can only be explained as "unethical".

You'll notice I have not a single word about the situation at South Carolina despite your repeatedly trying to drag them into the conversation.

I've spoken about the potential for abuse under the practice from a general sense. You are the one who wants to repeatedly go back Y focus on a single school and a single recruiting class to the exclusion of everything...and yet you again and again resort to the cry of straw men from others.

With the possible exception of The Gumps, I haven't seen that proven to be anything but an exceptionally rare thing. I think that natural attrition - graduation, injuries, grades, transfers and quits - are the overwhelming percentage of occurrences.

And why exactly do SEC schools in general have a natural attrition rate that is so much higher than schools from other conferences?

 

[Deety]

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. 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.

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.

 

[SmoovP]

And why exactly do SEC schools in general have a natural attrition rate that is so much higher than schools from other conferences?

I can't say with any authority exactly why that is, but I suspect that there are a lot of facets to the answer.

Small, poor rural states with crappy public schools that do a poor job of preparing kids for college life, parents that do a poor job of preparing their kids for college life, Universities that do a poor job of keeping kids in college, kids transferring out seeking playing time, kids simply quitting for whatever reason, etc., etc.

I don't know about Ohio and its recruiting area, but southern states public school systems are a giant pit of suck in general and with the exception of Vandy, our universities aren't much better. Single parent homes, absentee fathers and kids ill prepared to take responsibility for their future and their choices is all too common.

But we've gone pretty far afield of the topic at hand, and this board doesn't seem to put up with much topic drift, so perhaps this discussion is better suited for another thread.

 

[jwinslow]

Smoov, I appreciate the depth and reason behind your response. It is true to some extent that kids that sign with saban are choosing to get in bed with a snake. I was speaking generally about whether the coach is honest that he might get left out for a year if they have too many.

I am not sure I agree that these cuts or delays would be the marginal players. First, it is hard to feel marginal with a bama offer, and the coach is talking about how much they love your film.

But furthermore, before the 08 pryor class, a significant portion of the five stars (at one point in their hs career) on osu's squad were underachievers or riddled by injuries. Justin Zwick, Mike Kudla, Mike D'Andrea, Alex Boone, Jamario O'Neal, Maurice Wells, Connor Smith, Rob Rose were all premiere recruits who might be cut after 2 or 3 years had they signed with bama (boone would be the exception), with rose getting a medical schollie while still active. There is a correlation between stars and success, but the sample size is very small for the portion that get delayed. Before 08, the most successful five stars exceptions were in decreasing order: ted ginn, donte whitner, beanie wells, larry grant, doug worthington (who underachieved until late in year 4)... Plus a few talented washouts like clarett and clifford.

You make some other valid points which I will address further tonight or tomorrow.

 

[jwinslow]

Mild topic drift which is relevant is ok, such as you did above. Talking about the politics, parties and policies to blame is not ok and must remain in the poli forum.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

I don't know about Ohio and its recruiting area, but southern states public school systems are a giant pit of suck in general and with the exception of Vandy, our universities aren't much better. Single parent homes, absentee fathers and kids ill prepared to take responsibility for their future and their choices is all too common.

ok... so my southern wife wanted me to respond to this for her so I'm gonna give you the highlights of what you just set off in my living room.

dickshit
how dare you further the terrible stereotype of the south.
not only am i fully aware of who my father is, i speak to him regularly as he is still married to my mom and the only time you can blame him for anything resembling absenteeism is desert storm.
living in the south and being southern has nothing to do with having degenerate parents, that is universal and can and does happen anywhere.
the south doesn't need your help to make us look worse.
dickshit


there was probably more that i couldn't type fast enough... you may now continue with your defense.

 

[kn1f3party]

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.