Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[keylime_5]

so people are nitpicking over trifles like LSU signing 27 in a year that they had 29 commitments? 27, 29, it doesn't matter....when you sign 26, 26, 24, and 27 in four consecutive years you are cutting players and taking the 85 best out of 103 during that span while Ohio State took 78 during that span.

As far as JUCO numbers, yes it does increase the class sizes even more, which is why Big 12 #s are bigger than Big Ten and ACC numbers (they take a lot of JUCOs), but it's not like teams usually take more than 2 or 3 JUCOs a year. It just inflates an already large number. The oversigning is still an issue with or without 2 year players.

 

[cjmik_75]

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.

So I click on the link read the guys rant and have one question.

He bitches about oversigning.com not getting their LSU numbers correct and adjusts their "budget" from 12 to 14. Okay I get that. But how is LSU gonna fit 22 current commits into 14 spots? This number 22 is from rivals and I'm assuming that there could be 1 or 2 more commits come in on signing day. BFD if the oversigning.com guy missed by 2 they don't have room for 22. Period.

 

[Deety]

One aspect of oversigning that's annoying to me is the way that the recruiting rankings are used. ESPN hypes the SEC teams as having the best recruiting rankings, ignoring the fact that many of those teams have a few guys that will never make it into the programs that just received their LOIs.

But ESPN uses the recruiting rankings, including the oversignings, as 'proof' that the SEC will continue to have the best teams. It's part of the self-serving hype that actually has an effect on where future recruits want to play.

Some of the sites that do the rankings actually revise them after the players are enrolled, so the final rankings are based on the players that actually became part of the 85, but there's almost no publicity when that's done.

The SEC may in fact get the most good players in a given year, but the diffrerence isn't as great as it's made to be on NLOID.

Wouldn't that make a great new format? Something like,

"Pre-enrollment ranking of #3 with 29 signees for 18 currently available scholarships."

 

[Gatorubet]

One aspect of oversigning that's annoying to me is the way that the recruiting rankings are used. ESPN hypes the SEC teams as having the best recruiting rankings, ignoring the fact that many of those teams have a few guys that will never make it into the programs that just received their LOIs.

But ESPN uses the recruiting rankings, including the oversignings, as 'proof' that the SEC will continue to have the best teams. It's part of the self-serving hype that actually has an effect on where future recruits want to play.

Some of the sites that do the rankings actually revise them after the players are enrolled, so the final rankings are based on the players that actually became part of the 85, but there's almost no publicity when that's done.

The SEC may in fact get the most good players in a given year, but the diffrerence isn't as great as it's made to be on NLOID.

Good subject matter Bill. For years in the early and mid 2000s FSU was getting top five classes. For one, the ranking were skewed, in that FSU would sign a three star guy, and magically he would become a four star guy on the ratings. And for years, FSU signed a bunch, and I mean a bunch of guys that did not qualify academically. They also had a run of guys getting in trouble and quitting or getting kicked off the team for criminal run ins. We (UF fanbase) were forever arguing with the Noles that they were delusiNOLES about their program because their signing classes - when adjusted by numbers actually enrolled and staying - were far, far worse than the lazy press reporting "a string of top recruiting classes". Well they looked good on signing day, but like crap when you dug into it a bit.

So I can agree with you a bit. But here is the rub. The thing that makes the recruiting classes not so good is the very thing that discounts some of the oversigning as competitive advantage theory. Lots of guys sending in faces on signing day does not always equal lots of guys playing for your 85 number squad. Y'all do a better job of signing kids that stick with you - for a variety of reasons.

 

[Steve19]

It's perfectly relevant. I keep hearing how it is a moral and ethical sin to accept 28 LOIs. You guys like to high-horse about the evil SEC, but there are no perfect coaches or perfect programs.

I keep hearing '28 LOIs is bad, bad, bad and wrong, wrong, wrong'.

Conceptually, you have a point. But when it gets down to specifics, its not that simple or clear cut.

Actually, it is that simple. Forget the arguments about the unfair competitive advantage that SEC schools get through this chicanery.

Your teams are promising kids a free university education in exchange for signing to play football.

College football is about college athletics, not a lower-tier feeder system for pro teams. It's college football. Only a handful of these kids will ever play pro ball. Most will need a college education to have any real earning power in the job market in future years. So, it's not about whether you can choose and cut players based on their abilities, so as to push yourselves up the college rankings. It's about representing the university where you will earn your degree.

This is where our viewpoints diverge. That is what is wrong with the argument that you and Ubet put forward. You are arguing that it is just fine to turn these kids lives upside down because, "what the heck, we thought we needed you but it turns out this kid will serve our needs just fine". The college credits that have to be repeated, if completed at all.

It's also about the dishonesty of not playing by the rules as you shift kids onto other scholarships due to "medical" issues. College athletics used to be about winning fairly and teaching eternal values about ethics. This oversigning reeks of something very different. It's high time that alumni and fans such as you guys called your sports administrators to account.

 

[Gatorubet]

Actually, it is that simple. Forget the arguments about the unfair competitive advantage that SEC schools get through this chicanery.

Your teams are promising kids a free university education in exchange for signing to play football.

College football is about college athletics, not a lower-tier feeder system for pro teams. It's college football. Only a handful of these kids will ever play pro ball. Most will need a college education to have any real earning power in the job market in future years. So, it's not about whether you can choose and cut players based on their abilities, so as to push yourselves up the college rankings. It's about representing the university where you will earn your degree.

This is where our viewpoints diverge. That is what is wrong with the argument that you and Ubet put forward. You are arguing that it is just fine to turn these kids lives upside down because, "what the heck, we thought we needed you but it turns out this kid will serve our needs just fine". The college credits that have to be repeated, if completed at all.

It's also about the dishonesty of not playing by the rules as you shift kids onto other scholarships due to "medical" issues. College athletics used to be about winning fairly and teaching eternal values about ethics. This oversigning reeks of something very different. It's high time that alumni and fans such as you guys called your sports administrators to account.

Its like some of you just turn your reading comprehension skills off when you post on this subject. You completely fail to differentiate the dozen or more different threads within this titled thread and fail to see which ones our posts address - and which ones they purposely do not rebut or address at all, much less advocate or defend. The last time you did this is was similar. You refused to look at any discussion of one related but separate (and valid) subject actually in front of you because you could not remove yourself emotionally from the other subject in the thread, even though one had nothing to do with the other, and could be addressed separately. Nobody is [censored]ing in favor or ruining kids futures Steve, and we are not the "pro-dishonesty" camp on here, no matter how much you try to spin that. Both of us are trying to bring perspective and balance to a discussion and move it from the "villagers with torches thing" that it easily could be on almost any other site than BP. And believe it or not, we both are aware of that, and appreciate it.

Since your mind is made up and you'd rather talk in generalities and hyperbole, and since the only thing you can do is attribute straw man positions to us both that we do not hold and have not advocated, I am going to skip the useless attempt at discussion.

 

[Class'13]

My question is, are we oversigning this year?

With the addition of Haynes, we're at the magic number of 22. We're still actively recrutiting Curtis Grant, Cardale Jones, Ja'Juan Story, and Aundrey Walker, as well as Keith Wells planning on rejoining the team. Are there some people still looking at transfers, because I just can't see JT oversigning.

Note: Not sure if the 22 included Longo's transfer.

 

[jwinslow]

There are others seriously considering it because of pt. Their departure is because of existing players not newcomers. And no, berry is not one of them.

Cardale is not going to be a 2011 scholarship. If he comes, it would be as a gray shirt. I have always been against forcing a regular prospect to grayshirt because you brought in extra guys. I have never minded one where the staff is upfront, particularly when the kid has alternatives still.

Also, the long snapper offer is pretty typical, it just usually goes to a walkon in years like this. They just switched the order of when the snapper gets his schollie

Also odds are hagan never plays and gets a medical exemption. That was the projection two years ago, and it remains. Rather than cut bait with him in hs, jt brought him in to get a degree

 

[Gatorubet]

There are others seriously considering it because of pt. Their departure is because of existing players not newcomers.

[sarcasm meter pegged] How can you possibly know that before signing day? [/sarcasm meter pegged]

The reason I say that is because according to oversigning.com, if tOSU accepts a LOI on National Signing Day from an athlete - whether that athlete will be academically qualified or not (I realize that you rarely have that situation) - and regardless of whether on NSD you have advanced knowledge of players on current scholarship who plan to quit, transfer, or will given a valid medical red shirt - NONE of those caveats matter, and receipt of a faxed LOIs in a number greater than a formula [# of players on scholarship at the end of the Buckeye Season + # of LOIs on NSD] > 85 will subject you to charges of unethical oversigning.

According to the definition used as the baseline factor on oversigning.com it is irrelevant whether "others (are) seriously considering it because of pt." It does not matter if "their departure is because of existing players not newcomers", and it does not even matter if you possess foreknowledge that "Cardale is not going to be a 2011 scholarship"... ALL of them count as "[# of players on scholarship at the end of the Buckeye Season" in the formula, and if you accept LOIs in excess of "# of players on scholarship at the end of the Buckeye Season + # of LOIs on NSD" then you are oversigning and violating the sanctity of college football......per oversigning.com

But you and I know that if the math turns out in excess of 85 when you use that formula, it will have nothing at all to do with the reality that here - in the real world - we know that the number of players on scholarship at the end of the season is not going to be the real number coming back in August of 2011. And if you exceed that number - no matter how many you exceed it - as long as you are not forcing kids to leave because they are not "good enough" despite meeting team and academic goals - and as long as you are not creating fabricated medical red shirts - NOTHING about the excess number of LOIs is dishonest, or unethical, or wrong.

Simply asking that each situtation be judged on individual program and player status rather than some arbitrary formula that does not reflect how the process works is not somehow condoning ruining kids lives or endorsing a policy of launching otherwise good kids.

 

[Deety]

Its like some of you just turn your reading comprehension skills off when you post on this subject. You completely fail to differentiate the dozen or more different threads within this titled thread and fail to see which ones our posts address - and which ones they purposely do not rebut or address at all, much less advocate or defend. The last time you did this is was similar. You refused to look at any discussion of one related but separate (and valid) subject actually in front of you because you could not remove yourself emotionally from the other subject in the thread, even though one had nothing to do with the other, and could be addressed separately. Nobody is [censored]ing in favor or ruining kids futures Steve, and we are not the "pro-dishonesty" camp on here, no matter how much you try to spin that. Both of us are trying to bring perspective and balance to a discussion and move it from the "villagers with torches thing" that it easily could be on almost any other site than BP. And believe it or not, we both are aware of that, and appreciate it.

There are some non-SEC issues to discuss. How could the NCAA better ensure the kids are treated fairly, and how could schools meet their goals ethically?

Since your mind is made up and you'd rather talk in generalities and hyperbole, and since the only thing you can do is attribute straw man positions to us both that we do not hold and have not advocated, I am going to skip the useless attempt at discussion.

Or maybe Steve19 doesn't see "perspective and balance" as an ethical basis without first agreeing on the basic principle that schools should, universally, only promise that for which they can guarantee delivery. I would agree that nobody here has been in favor of treating kids with dishonesty, and that any assertions that oversigning always means unethical behavior are incorrect. However, I continue to be suspect of the intentions of anyone who disagrees that protecting students from abuse from oversigning should be the first requirement in favor of offering many obfuscations that boil down to an assertion that honesty, while nice and all, isn't really needed and is simply too dangerous for the schools. This is especially unsettling when the whole matter is so easily resolved - LOIs where scholarships are known to be available, conditional LOIs where scholarships are yet to be identified, and students fully aware of which camp they are getting before they sign. Then oversign as many as you want - with the conditional LOIs.

As for schollies removed from current players - I don't like it one bit, and if I had a kid who was offered scholarships, I would definitely make sure loyalty to and treatment of players was an issue on the table, and high transfer rates would be a red flag. However, most types of scholarships are conditional based on continued performance in the area the scholarship covers. The ethical issues here seem to be whether the kids have sufficient notice to arrange a college loan or contact schools about a transfer before NLOID, and if rules about in-conference transfers and sitting out a year are unfairly detrimental to the players, which I believe to be the case. Transfer of hours is problematic, but not an ethical issue in my opinion given that the one-year nature of the scholarships is something we know to be in the original agreements.

The abuse of medical exceptions is an ethical issue, though. Since it is subjective, maybe the only way to measure abuse would be to treat it a bit like the APR issue, though that system has its own issues.

 

[SmoovP]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that while a signed LOI is a legally binding contract between school and player - scholarship money in exchange for athletic services for a period of one year - that a school may release a player who has signed an LOI before that player enrolls in school without penalty to the player.

Meaning, that a player may then go to another school without the one year sit out penalty that a transferring player is saddled with.

Is that correct?

 

[Gatorubet]

Or maybe Steve19 doesn't see "perspective and balance" as an ethical basis without first agreeing on the basic principle that schools should, universally, only promise that for which they can guarantee delivery.

Perhaps he sees it in your ivory tower way, where the kids signing are under no duty to honor a commitment up to the end of NSD, but the institutions that have relied to their detriment on the verbal offers are prohibited from taking any actions to mitigate the fall out from the real world reality that all of the kids will not sign and/or qualify?

I would agree that nobody here has been in favor of treating kids with dishonesty, and that any assertions that oversigning always means unethical behavior are incorrect.

Thanks. I agree with you.

However, I continue to be suspect of the intentions of anyone who disagrees that protecting students from abuse from oversigning should be the first requirement in favor of offering many obfuscations that boil down to an assertion that honesty, while nice and all, isn't really needed and is simply too dangerous for the schools.

Holy Humping Hamsters Deety, you sound like me on a "Ubet offers up emotional word salad" roll there. Which is to say, you lost me, but I think you mean to take back what you said in the paragraph above, and are saying that unless we agree with whateverthefrick you mean by "protecting students from abuse from oversigning" without defining that, we are bad guys who hate sudents and want to punch kittens.

Maybe you could reconcile the second paragraph with your suspicions of intentions offering of your third, because you really did lose me.

This is especially unsettling when the whole matter is so easily resolved - LOIs where scholarships are known to be available, conditional LOIs where scholarships are yet to be identified, and students fully aware of which camp they are getting before they sign. Then oversign as many as you want - with the conditional LOIs.

I'm glad that you brought that up Deety. Because that goes well with my post about the comments Josh was making in response to a question about tOSU oversigning. The only difference between what you said and what I and Smoov have largely been saying is that you assume that any openings because of players quitting or transferring, kicked out because of violations of team rules, etc, are somehow done differently at all SEC schools than they are with you. You all knee jerk to the conclusion that all LOIs are accepted by SEC schools without any inkling of what the real numbers might be at the end of summer. That none of us give a [Mark May] about what the real status of the team's 85 cap is; that we just sign them all up and then start kicking the poor not-so-great kids off while we laugh maniacally.

You all assume that none of the kids have had a discussion about anything but "come on down". That they never know in advance that the LOI is more a courtesy before the kids goes to JUCO, that kids never know in advance that they may have to accept a grey shirt. Now, there is no "formal" conditional LOI offer program under NCAA rules. But the equivalent is like you say, get a real good idea about the real world number of scholarships you will have in the fall. Do not offer more than that amount to kids unless you make it clear that they may have to grey shirt. If, despite your best, good faith efforts, you have one or two more kids than 'ships, then their should be some rule to let the freshman go to any program without waiting a year, or let the kid who volunteers to leave to make room for him transfer without penalty. And let the number of these special case opportunities result in a reduction of the number of LOIs you can sign the next year by the amount of screw ups. That way there will be a real world impact on the practice of oversigning.

As for schollies removed from current players - I don't like it one bit, and if I had a kid who was offered scholarships, I would definitely make sure loyalty to and treatment of players was an issue on the table, and high transfer rates would be a red flag. However, most types of scholarships are conditional based on continued performance in the area the scholarship covers.

I agree with you totally on all of this.

The ethical issues here seem to be whether the kids have sufficient notice to arrange a college loan or contact schools about a transfer before NLOID, and if rules about in-conference transfers and sitting out a year are unfairly detrimental to the players, which I believe to be the case. Transfer of hours is problematic, but not an ethical issue in my opinion given that the one-year nature of the scholarships is something we know to be in the original agreements.

I agree here too, and that is why I proposed a rule to mitigate the harm in my post a couple back.

The abuse of medical exceptions is an ethical issue, though. Since it is subjective, maybe the only way to measure abuse would be to treat it a bit like the APR issue, though that system has its own issues.

Here, the hardest problem is that the medical information is private by federal law and NCAA rules. But it seems to me that one can waive any rights, and that any kid who thinks that they were treated unfairly after the fact can ask for a review of his case. It is hard to put a limit on these, as the facts are so subject to luck, but as we have discussed before, the fact that Sabin does it so much (Bama # = Rest of the SEC #) it is a very good sign of abusing the system. Maybe there is some statistical data that could be used as a mark, with no more than twice the average number being allowed?

 

[cjmik_75]

So I click on the link read the guys rant and have one question.

He bitches about oversigning.com not getting their LSU numbers correct and adjusts their "budget" from 12 to 14. Okay I get that. But how is LSU gonna fit 22 current commits into 14 spots? This number 22 is from rivals and I'm assuming that there could be 1 or 2 more commits come in on signing day. BFD if the oversigning.com guy missed by 2 they don't have room for 22. Period.

Huh? What say you?

Oh. Nothing.

Alrightythen.

 

[Deety]

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.

 

[jwinslow]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that while a signed LOI is a legally binding contract between school and player - scholarship money in exchange for athletic services for a period of one year - that a school may release a player who has signed an LOI before that player enrolls in school without penalty to the player.

Meaning, that a player may then go to another school without the one year sit out penalty that a transferring player is saddled with.

Is that correct?

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.