Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[jwinslow]

OK. Then say that you have no more than one or two redshirts a year, and that number is the max whether you have a string of injuries or not. Simple, non-work aroundable.

That's still pretty high.

OSU had 4 in 10 years.

Saban had at least 12 from Jan 07 - Sep 10.

Your rule would only require him to trim that number to 8 (albeit with no extras for the remainder of Oct 10-May 11)

I think 1 should be more than enough, along with substantial reviews of the jettisoned cases.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Bucket of fail.

To start with, the LOI does not mean they will actually enroll, actually qualify, actually stay in school, not withdraw, not quit, not go pro, or not get hurt.

Maybe in the SEC, but in [STRIKE]most[/STRIKE] all other conferences it would work, seeing as relatively few kids fail to make entrance requirements.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing 92 schollies max (based on 4 x normal 22 positions, plus 2 each for punter and placekicker), with a max of 25 per year (92 schollies gives you an average intake of 23 prospects per year). The caveat for having the extra seven schollies (compared to the current 85) would be that the schollie would tied up to that player for four years. No redshirting the player, and no getting the schollie back for injury, quitting, tranferring, early departure for NFL, etc. The only way to get the schollie back before the four-year term would be if the player graduated early.

 

[BB73]

Bucket of fail.

To start with, the LOI does not mean they will actually enroll, actually qualify, actually stay in school, not withdraw, not quit, not go pro, or not get hurt.

I obviously am aware of those things, and my post addressed many of those topics.

Colleges should recruit guys than are more than likely to qualify, since the football players are supposed to be student-athletes, not just guys with athletic talent that can be brought in to play football and be kept eligible.

I know that the days of Harvard, Yale and Princeton being competitive in college football are as long gone as leather helmets, but I think if the 25/85 LOI limits were put into place, it would improve parity and eliminate a lot of the shenanigans that many schools currently utilize.

It would make things tougher for the marginal kids to get into college, that's true. Well, it's college, so they should have prepared better during high school if they wanted to get a college football scholarship. And if a college wants to get a kid to commit to be an athlete at their school, they should think it's likely that the kid will be able to handle the academics of college life. Rather than just throw out a bunch of schollies each year and not be impacted by several guys not making it since they can just offer a bunch more schollies next year. Because I think that technique is a "bucket of fail".

25/85 LOI limits would also make teams less likely to take two-sport guys, since that scholarship would be tied up for 4 years even if the young stud decides to play MLB after 1 semester of college. Such is life, and the kid who wants a shot at both would be more likely to enroll at Troy or Louisiana (Monroe) than Alabama or LSU.

It might even allow more good-student/good-athlete types to play big-time college football, since a few great-athlete/poor-student types might not get offers from the big-time schools since they'd be nervous about committing a scholarship to a poor student for 4 years. If that happens, I don''t think that's a bad thing overall.

And it would almost eliminate the need to penalize schools for low APR scores. The NCAA seems to believe that the majority of athletes that enter college should stay on a path to graduate - this would give schools more incentive to do so, without the NCAA having to use the APR to penalize schools with a lot of turnover.

A kid leaves early for the NFL, MLB, or wants to drive a truck - too bad - if he didn't graduate in 3 years, the school has to wait the full 4 years before using that schollie again.

Medical hardship - the kid stays on scholarship., but the team can't re-use that schollie until the 4 years are up unless he graduates. I'd rather have a few teams have to live with the bad luck than have the abuse of the medical hardship policy which is now used to jettison unproductive players and free up a schollie.

Transfers - same deal. The kids have to sit out a year unless they've already graduated. But the schollie couldn't be re-used until the 4-years are up. This would cut down on teams running guys off that aren't good enough to start at a big-time program.

I realize this proposal would make oversigning.com obsolete, but they'd just take credit for getting the NCAA to change the rules, and morph into a site that tracks the 25/85 numbers for each school.

 

[Gatorubet]

That's still pretty high.

OSU had 4 in 10 years.

Saban had at least 12 from Jan 07 - Sep 10.

Your rule would only require him to trim that number to 8 (albeit with no extras for the remainder of Oct 10-May 11)

I think 1 should be more than enough, along with substantial reviews of the jettisoned cases.

Fine. One every three years. I don't really care. My point is you do not need to take out all of the flexibility of the process and change the entire system to combat a few coaches not following the rules. Just like the stipends to kids thing. You do not need to give money to all of the NCAA athletes because a few dimwits cannot follow the existing rules and not sell some stuff.

 

[Gatorubet]

I obviously am aware of those things, and my post addressed many of those topics.

Colleges should recruit guys than are more than likely to qualify, since the football players are supposed to be student-athletes, not just guys with athletic talent that can be brought in to play football and be kept eligible.

I know that the days of Harvard, Yale and Princeton being competitive in college football are as long gone as leather helmets, but I think if the 25/85 LOI limits were put into place, it would improve parity and eliminate a lot of the shenanigans that many schools currently utilize.

It would make things tougher for the marginal kids to get into college, that's true. Well, it's college, so they should have prepared better during high school if they wanted to get a college football scholarship. And if a college wants to get a kid to commit to be an athlete at their school, they should think it's likely that the kid will be able to handle the academics of college life. Rather than just throw out a bunch of schollies each year and not be impacted by several guys not making it since they can just offer a bunch more schollies next year. Because I think that technique is a "bucket of fail".

25/85 LOI limits would also make teams less likely to take two-sport guys, since that scholarship would be tied up for 4 years even if the young stud decides to play MLB after 1 semester of college. Such is life, and the kid who wants a shot at both would be more likely to enroll at Troy or Louisiana (Monroe) than Alabama or LSU.

It might even allow more good-student/good-athlete types to play big-time college football, since a few great-athlete/poor-student types might not get offers from the big-time schools since they'd be nervous about committing a scholarship to a poor student for 4 years. If that happens, I don''t think that's a bad thing overall.

And it would almost eliminate the need to penalize schools for low APR scores. The NCAA seems to believe that the majority of athletes that enter college should stay on a path to graduate - this would give schools more incentive to do so, without the NCAA having to use the APR to penalize schools with a lot of turnover.

A kid leaves early for the NFL, MLB, or wants to drive a truck - too bad - if he didn't graduate in 3 years, the school has to wait the full 4 years before using that schollie again.

Medical hardship - the kid stays on scholarship., but the team can't re-use that schollie until the 4 years are up unless he graduates. I'd rather have a few teams have to live with the bad luck than have the abuse of the medical hardship policy which is now used to jettison unproductive players and free up a schollie.

Transfers - same deal. The kids have to sit out a year unless they've already graduated. But the schollie couldn't be re-used until the 4-years are up. This would cut down on teams running guys off that aren't good enough to start at a big-time program.

I realize this proposal would make oversigning.com obsolete, but they'd just take credit for getting the NCAA to change the rules, and morph into a site that tracks the 25/85 numbers for each school.

GAHHH!!!!!!!!!

Wall of words. :p

 

[ScriptOhio]

Maybe in the SEC, but in [STRIKE]most[/STRIKE] all other conferences it would work, seeing as relatively few kids fail to make entrance requirements.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing 92 schollies max (based on 4 x normal 22 positions, plus 2 each for punter and placekicker), with a max of 25 per year (92 schollies gives you an average intake of 23 prospects per year). The caveat for having the extra seven schollies (compared to the current 85) would be that the schollie would tied up to that player for four years. No redshirting the player, and no getting the schollie back for injury, quitting, tranferring, early departure for NFL, etc. The only way to get the schollie back before the four-year term would be if the player graduated early.

I totally agree; however, I would add: If the player is in good academic standing with the school and within a year (3 quaters/2 semesters) of graduating after his 4 years of football eligibility is up, the school has to give him another year of scholarship (i.e. up to 3 quarters/2 semesters or until he graduates); however, this extra year does not count against the 92 schollies.

 

[Roundabout]

4 days of reading to catch up..... lol

Very enlightening thread really. I have shifted my views allot during the reading of every message in the thread... (admit to skimming some of the walls of text... sorry :P) I won't attempt to change a view because I think its very safe to assume those are set in stone.

I will give my view... I think that overall allot of folks are putting the "football factory" ahead of the kids, and I feel that is just wrong. I think the Big ten is the best current model, but would like an award of 4/5 years instead of the one year renewable model. If the coaches can't be smart enough to get talent to there teams in the "right" way, then they suffer the penalty of looking for a new job.

My only question that I have not seen asked or answered is this.... In the Big Ten if your over you have to explain yourself to the conference.... Is there anybody to be accountable to in the SEC? Its college athletics here guys/gals... not professional sports (well shouldn't be anyways).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

a lot of people confuse your and you're.

 

[Steve19]

a lot of people confuse your and you're.

That's you're opinion.

 

[BB73]

The Hogs are getting attention for this year's scholarships.

Ozone

Arkansas and Bobby Petrino, who were oversigned by ten, have granted releases to five players recently, with an eye towards a medical hardship for a sixth.


Wide receiver Lance Ray, kicker Eddie Camara, tight end Ryan Calender, offensive lineman Cam Feldt, and linebacker Austin Moss have all been granted releases.
Not all of it is nefarious, however.


Ray did not participate in spring practice after being arrested in his dorm room on January 31st in possession of marijuana, and as we all know, possession of marijuana is always dealt with harshly by football coaches (he said sarcastically).

Moss wanted to transfer last year, but his dad talked him out of it.

Offensive lineman Colby Berna is likely to receive a medical hardship. He has yet to play for the Razorbacks in two seasons, and his shoulder problems go all the way back to high school.

Clearly, these are three instances where Petrino knew these guys wouldn't have to take up a scholarship in 2011, and so he prepared by oversigning.

Still, it doesn't account for everybody who will need to be cut yet. Especially since they just received a commitment from a junior college offensive lineman, and could be on the verge of landing a linebacker as well.

Petrino didn't have room for the 30 he signed in the 2011 class, let alone the one or two more he's going to add in May.

Cont'd ...

 

[Gatorubet]

The link has tOSU oversigning recruits even though you have no room for them.

How can it be that your institution participates in this sort of shoddy behavior*, which I have heard - here - is unethical on its face.


Or can we agree that a few kids over the signing amount is not unethical if you think you will have openings and everybody is told up front?

* sarcasm filter engaged.

 

[jwinslow]

The link has tOSU oversigning recruits even though you have no room for them.

How can it be that your institution participates in this sort of shoddy behavior*, which I have heard - here - is unethical on its face.


Or can we agree that a few kids over the signing amount is not unethical if you think you will have openings and everybody is told up front?

* sarcasm filter engaged.

terrific work redirecting the conversation away from an sec team engaging in extreme oversigning.

Ps. I'm pretty sure most have echoed those thoughts.

There is no explaining away ten over, particularly not when those recklessly high numbers are frequent at the same university, let alone when a big chunk of the conference engages in it.

Florida does not have a history of doing so. Bama, auburn, Arkansas, ole miss, s car do, and I believe kiffin used to but my memory is fuzzy there. Kentucky and Vandy don't field football teams.

 

[Gatorubet]

terrific work redirecting the conversation away from an sec team engaging in extreme oversigning.

I'll let smoov try to defend that. That seems totally unacceptable to me. But I've read a constant refrain - either in comments about the SEC in general or in plans to revise the rules - numerous comments to the effect that if one accepts a few - or even one - LOIs over one's 85 total - that team is being unethical. I've seen it (that opinion) expressed enough to know that it is not an aberration - but an opinion held by many people here.

NOTHING about tOSU signing two over your limit is unethical. Nothing about that says that Tressel is not about positive that two slots will free up. And so while it is a good chance to dump on the piggies, for me - it is a good chance to get some of you to finally see - using a model you will like more - that the simple signing of a few players over the limit is not in an of itself evidence of unethical behavior. tOSU did nothing wrong. An SEC team signing a few over the limit is doing nothing wrong. Signing that many over the limit while launching that many guys looks absolutely shady to me.

But I do not follow the porkers that closely, and Smoov may have an explanation.

There is no explaining away ten over.

I would think you are correct - but we have an avid follower of the program to give us his take.

Ps. I'm pretty sure most have echoed those thoughts.

I usually try to take the time to acknowlege the opposite view's points I agree with, and I do it often enough that you know my opinion on all aspects of this. I, however, have not seen very many people here agree with my proposition that accepting more LOIs than existing slots is not inherently improper...depending on the number, use and disclosure. Hence my comment.

I'll bold part of it so I don't have to read more nonsense about how we have different moral codes again.

 

[jwinslow]

No offense Gator, but you can see how it comes across when two red-flag filled articles pop up:

Slive taking a hard line stance to fight oversigning
Arkansas abusing the practice again

And you dodge both of those subjects, dig up an obscure OSU statistic (wrt the article discussions), dial up the sarcasm and change the subject to whether isolated & small oversigning prove those vague BP claims wrong.

Not until I called you on it did you actually show interest in discussing the article itself.


Do you remember where we started? When many of us claimed this was an SEC problem and you scoffed at that claim for a LONG time, as though it were an isolated thing or the byproduct of incomplete data.

Now that there's finally substantial data showing how many different SEC teams are way over the limit, you pop in to discuss a different sub-topic.

The reality is there is a major oversigning problem in the SEC. The WLOCP participants are the exception to the rule, but half of the conference doesn't just oversign, they do so at an outrageous level in both individual classes and repetition.

As for the morality of minor oversigning, I'll have to dig that up since this thread turned into a schollie guarantee thread.

 

[jwinslow]

Alright, my eyes are glazing over. I'll do some digging tomorrow, there's a portion from months ago that I'm trying to track down.

I can't speak for everyone. I can say that I have been pretty fired up about this issue because it has been shown to be systemic to the conference. That doesn't mean membership in it means you are doing it, it means there has been blatant abuse at a large volume of schools in the SEC.

And yes, there is a big difference between oversigning by 1-3 based on kids you know are leaving after spring ball and signing 7-10 extra kids and having to find ways to get the remaining 5+ guys off the books. I'm pretty sure we discussed that awhile back, and my argument was that we weren't talking about a small number like the one you brought up with OSU.

The SEC does not have the oversigning reputation because they oversign by a few. They would attract very little attention at all, and honestly sad stories about backups being given medical walking papers wouldn't be a very big topic, as that's not that rare.

It becomes a huge story when the stats aren't just a few isolated oversignees, but rather high volumes of them year after year, leading to unnaturally high turnover like Bama's medical redshirting.

As for the ethical question:

I don't mind a coach having a kid grayshirt infrequently, or regularly if they are upfront when the offer is extended that it may need to become a grayshirt.

I don't mind a coach oversigning by a few spots if he knows a few kids are definitely fed up and leaving later that offseason once they get their credits, destination & everything else in order.

I don't mind a coach occasionally taking a chance on a kid who needs to raise his test scores.

I have a big problem with cultivating a system which annually snowballs all three categories into one huge mess every year, so that each season you need washouts - both on roster and incoming - just to be in striking distance of your 85 scholarship limit. That's the reason I take such offense to the practice of oversigning, because they are taking such huge risks on so many fronts and asking the kids to shoulder the risk when those scholarship bets don't work out, particularly back to back to back.