• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Gatorubet;1862703; said:
What is funny about this is that for decades many of the southern schools, UF included, used to bitch about the hype everyone paid the Big-10, which we thought was far too great for the reality, and that the national press ignored the south, save for Bama and Tennessee.

In the 70s we used to bitch that the Big-10 (and ND and Penn State) had all of the national press eating out of its hand, the prestige of all of those years of championships, leather helmet wins, and a lock on the Rose Bowl with the PAC-10. That the Heisman and the other awards were dominated by northern schools because the writers favored the north, and the large cities and big newspapers were all up north.

So I find that interesting for reasons other than the ones you think are interesting.
Click to expand...

I can see that. For a long time NYC dominated things which were media related. And along with any regional bias that may have been involved, NYC in general is a place that doesn't understand college football. Out of ignorance and laziness they usually overstate the condition of ND football.

But in the '70s Penn State was an independent that won a lot of meaningless Lambert Trophies (an old "Best team in the East" award, for those not familiar with it. I just looked it up and didn't realize they still awarded it - UConn just won it). So I'm surprised PSU gave you much to complain about - who was their coach way back then? :tongue2:

But I don't think the Big Ten wasn't going out of its way (by design) to dominate the headlines in the early '70s - it wasn't until 1975 they allowed more than 1 team to go bowling. Football had changed, since the AP started always taking their final poll after the bowls in '68, and the Coaches started doing that in '74. That has allowed things like this to happen: Tennessee has 25 bowl wins and tOSU 20, but they both have won 15 since 1975, when the bowl situation evened out.

Back in those days, I think we Big Ten folks were complaining about ND and Alabama basically handpicking their bowl opponent, whereas the Big Ten was usually playing a team from LA in the Rose Bowl.

One things for certain -we'll each always have something to complain about.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1862724; said:
This is the philosophical/ethical difference Deety has touched upon.

I don't think you have to set out with a goal to cut your 3rd string FB to be guilty in the practice of oversigning. You know that is a very real risk and potential consequence of signing that many prospects beyond your available scholarship total.

I disagree that a coach must oversign in order to protect himself against uncertainty - or you know, stay competitive, with other recruiting classes - like verbals flipping, kids not qualifying or getting into legal trouble.

That is the source of the ethical disagreement. I don't think you hate kids, I do think we view what is necessary quite differently.

I agree that it might be required to maintain that competitive advantage (which in this case is just keeping up and thus not an advantage, other than over the alternative), but that does not excuse it imo.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on some of it. Leaving kids in the lurch on signing day - or launching otherwise qualified non-starters to make room for intentional oversigns is bad. Staying competitive is their job and absolutely appropriate. Acting unethically to do so is wrong. In between is the grey that we are in disagreement about.

I think the areas where we disagree are far less than the areas where we agree - FWIW
 
Upvote 0
Diego-Bucks;1862729; said:
Yeah, I botched my writing. I think, though I may have been drunk at the time, that I meant to say "one can have a 'dog in the fight' and still argue from merit and logic". I can never tell what I meant these days...
Click to expand...

Gotcha...that actually makes a lot more sense.
 
Upvote 0
Being the class act he is, Tressel is extending his impact to Gainesville, where he will help Muschamp avoid the temptation of oversigning by relieving him of grant and story.

Unfortunately it seems like too many coaches are taking this approach though.
 
Upvote 0
Here's where I think we'll find the catalyst for oversigning to be truly addressed:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1043130.html


10. How are Lane Kiffin and USC doing with the eye on a few years from now?

The Trojans are bringing in a very talented class. They?re shoring up their numbers for the inevitable loss of scholarships. They?re playing a risky game by trying to be at 85 scholarships for the fall. If their maximum number of scholarships remains at 75 with no relief from the sanctions and a small outgoing senior class, the Class of 2012 could be historically small. They?re recruiting as if they?ll be getting relief from the sanctions, and the talent they?re bringing in is worthy of a Top 10 class.
Click to expand...
When the NCAA upholds the sanctions and the Trojans are left with something like 5 'ships left open for next year's class, does anybody really think he's going to stop there? Dude's gonna throw up his middle finger and sign about 20 guys. USC's gonna have to hire a turk to get down to 75.

NOBODY likes Lane Kiffin, and he's not slick enough to pull something like that off without bringing on anything less than a shitstorm. When Lane Kiffin becomes the poster boy for abuses in oversigning, that will bring on the first real attempt at reform.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
One change I would like to see is changing the measurement of the class of 25. It should be 25 guys who had their last season of high school (or were at a JC or another college) during the previous autumn.

That would prevent calling a bunch of January enrollees members of the previous year's class, which is basically ridiculous. If a guy's first year of availablity to a college program is in the fall of 2011, he should be counted in the class of 2011 - period.

That would also have prevented USC from playing most of the games they're playing right now to get around the scholarship limits.

But it makes so much sense that there's no way that NCAA will make it happen.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
BB73;1864212; said:
One change I would like to see is changing the measurement of the class of 25. It should be 25 guys who had their last season of high school (or were at a JC or another college) during the previous autumn.

That would prevent calling a bunch of January enrollees members of the previous year's class, which is basically ridiculous. If a guy's first year of availablity to a college program is in the fall of 2011, he should be counted in the class of 2011 - period.

That would also have prevented USC from playing most of the games they're playing right now to get around the scholarship limits.

But it makes so much sense that there's no way that NCAA will make it happen.
Click to expand...
And, if an academically qualified upper classman is launched to make room for an oversigned class freshman (which the other rules should discourage), he can sign immediately with any program without waiting a year - and sign with conference rivals.

You might think about it before you launched a third year LSU qb to go to Ole Miss or Auburn with your signs and signals and audibles.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1864677; said:
You might think about it before you launched a third year LSU qb to go to Ole Miss or Auburn with your signs and signals and audibles.
Click to expand...
You presume a third year LSU QB even knows the signs, signals, and audibles!

A) Spike it
B) Call time out
C) Throw a fade with :02 left on 4th down already in FG range
D) Snap it and pray the other team has 17 guys on the field
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1864677; said:
And, if an academically qualified upper classman is launched to make room for an oversigned class freshman (which the other rules should discourage), he can sign immediately with any program without waiting a year - and sign with conference rivals.

You might think about it before you launched a third year LSU qb to go to Ole Miss or Auburn with your signs and signals and audibles.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. Karma sucks.
 
Upvote 0
I'm back after another 90+ hour work week. Aren't y'all glad to see me?

Anyhow, this issue is starting to get more and more attention in the SEC.

For those inclined to step outside their pre-conceived opinions and comfort zone, here are a couple of SEC-centric blog posts on the topic.

The first one makes a very good point about how the JUCO deal skews the raw numbers.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/1/28/1961333/how-to-talk-about-oversigning

All right then, how do we make that table better? By adjusting for the number of JUCO and prep school transfers who come in with fewer than four years of eligibility. If a guy comes in with two years of eligibility, make him worth 0.5, and assign a value of 0.75 to the players who come in with three years of eligibility.

Schools like Ole Miss and Kansas State tend to look bad in the overall charts, but they also sign more JUCO transfers than most schools. I'm not trying to defend Houston Nutt's 37-member class from a couple years ago, but the point is, they're naturally going to sign more players thanks to those higher JUCO numbers.
Click to expand...

The second one takes a look at (among other things) the accuracy of the numbers used by oversigning.com

http://www.andthevalleyshook.com/2011/1/27/1959231/oversigning-redux

Look, oversigning.com has already demonstrated it is a propaganda site that isn't all that interested in facts. I'm not going to go through all of his numbers, but I know his LSU numbers are simply wrong. Oversigning lists LSU has signing 29 players in 2010, and lists Rivals as its source. Well, click on the LSU signee list from 2010, and what do you see? 29 players listed, for sure, but only 27 who signed the Letter of Intent.

Furthermore, on the homepage, LSU is listed as having 85 players on scholarship. Which is wrong. Since LSU got down to 85 scholarships, Zach Lee has left the squad to play pro baseball (it's not like that made news or anything), pushing us back to 84. He also lists only 1 junior leaving early, which is also wrong: Ridley and Peterson are both leaving early. Oversigning has LSU's "budget" as 12 scholarships, when it is 14.

Look, if you're going to run a website which attacks teams for their roster numbers: GET THE NUMBERS RIGHT. These kind of errors show me that he's not the least bit concerned with accuracy. I mean, how do you miss 2 juniors declaring for the draft? It's entirely about attacking the SEC. And that's just LSU. I wonder if his numbers on other schools check out. Somehow, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I don't endorse all the opinions seen in either of those links (which I doubt y'all will look at anyway) but they do have some valid points and raise some valid questions.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top