1. 

   Lake Bum
   May 28th, 2010 - 09:49

   Lumping all schools into the same bucket is not right. If Auburn were guilty of oversigning and running folks off the team to make room for more, then why were they playing with only 77 scholarship players last year? Georgia Tech was another team that was way under the limit of 85. There are a lot of reasons other than a coach running folks off, like leaving early for the NFL, graduating early and getting a real job, legit career ending injuries and kids who quit because they figure out there is more to life than playing football. If a school loses a coach (fired or broken contract for better offer), guys often transfer because they don’t like the situation with a new coach. On the flip side, you need to count for red-shirting, which actually adds to the problem of 85. For schools that like to red-shirt their freshman (Wake Forest?) to stockpile and get them stronger and more mature, the run into the problem of 125/85 rule. In those cases, their average signings per year should be more like 17. I would bet EVERY school is higher than that average, so just being under 25 doesn’t make those schools (Big Ten?) a whole lot better.

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     Lee Roi Jordan
     May 29th, 2010 - 08:40

     Laker, you make some reasonable points as to why abuse of the 25 annual signee limit is not the primary problem. When Houston Nutt made a mockery of the limit, the SEC did reign it in some, but there is little problem with a school signing 25 or even 28 or 30 in a given year if they have room on their roster for the new signees. My reading of the signing numbers reported on this site is this is the readily available data and not that every school that has signed more than 25 in a single year or 85 over the past four years is being labeled a signing abuser. A class of 28 or even 30 is not necessarily a competitive advantage for a school as long as the total roster is still at no more than 85 and none of the signees are disadvantaged unless the amount over 25 is not eligible to be back dated.

     The real problem is abuse of the 85 man roster limit. Schools that go through spring practice with signees in excess of 85 do have some advantage and when it is absolutely necessary for a school to trim its roster, it makes normally routine events such as transfers seems suspicious. This site has proposed that schools publish their recruiting budget each year on or before signing day (publicly acknowledge the number of returning scholarship players and thus the available number to get to 85). Past attrition (much of it legitimate) can be difficult to track from outside and because of this, we can not simply look at the gross signing numbers and determine if a team has oversigned.

     Alabama has signed 113 players over the past four years according to the signing chart. They also have fifth year seniors such as Greg McElroy that are not in this total. They also have some players that show up as signees in multiple years becaused they failed to qualify initially. We do not know the true extent of Alabama’s oversigning (if any) by only looking at the signing numbers. Because the numbers were published elsewhere, we do know that Alabama returned 66 players this season. When they signed 29 this February their committed roster went to 95. The owner of the site has challenged fans across the country to identify other schools that are similarly over the limit of 85. He has also begun a countdown to track Alabama’s progress down to 85. I don’t believe any other schools have yet been identified that were oversigned by as much as ten student-athletes, but I’m sure that new countdowns could be established if other major abusers were identified.

     Let’s not be confused by the complications of the rules with different limits for annual numbers and total numbers. The key question is whether a school can sell 85 tickets for its flight or whether it can sell more tickets, but still only leave the ground with 85 athletes on board. The airlines were as smart as Nick Saban and wisely began to overbook so they left as few seats as possible unused. When it became obvious that some passengers were being involuntarily bumped, new regulations were instituted to mandate compensation for the bumped passengers. Now, bumped airline passengers are inconvenienced and sometimes arrive at their destination a few hours late or occasionally even the next day and it is appropirate that they are compensated. How much more inconvenienced are the student-athletes that are bumped because of oversigning practices? They have to either transfer to a lower class school or else sit out a year as well as face issues such as transferring credits to maintain eligibility. Vast numbers of schools do not oversign because they already recogize the hypocrisy of recruiting a student to come to your school and then telling them two or three years later that they can only stay if they pay their own way. It seems easy enough to change the rules so that the few coaches who do not see this hypocrisy are forced to eliminate this practice.

     ( REPLY )
     • 

       SoccerMike
       May 29th, 2010 - 10:07

       Very good post and done so with no bias.

       A few things to consider though. In regards to recruiting budgets it will not make a difference to incoming players. Those players are set to come in no matter how many are currently there. All it would do it let the already present players know that the roster will be shaken up to accomodate them. In that case even the players that are not going to be returning I would bet for the most part already know that. So other than to raise questions what does the recruiting budget bring to the table other than to inform fans hey the roster is going to see some attrition something most fans already realize. I posted elsewhere that it is already easy to know the number of players on the roster that are returning that are currently on scholarship. So it is not like the issue of oversigning and attrition is hidden from the players or even the fans if they look. Alot of these players do not even participate in the spring if they are leaving. There is also the situation where players are border line grades after the first semester and might become an academic casualty the 2nd semester, so how do you annouce that prior to signing day, and how do know how it will play out for the semester. Local newspapers put the names of all players you might not get to play next fall because they might end up on academic probation. Yeah as a player I want that known if that was me to the fans. See alot of the lower schools that these players are transferring to also have different academic standards that big Div I schools. Also a lot of players have off season surgeries and no on knows for sure how that will end up and how they recover. J Jones WR had 3 after his freshman season. So if the rehab doesn’t work you put the player on medical hardship. Now the arguement here his you should still recruit based on the info at hand but yet oversigning is a gamble at this point because there are so many unknowns that might happen.

       In regards to transferring I still have yet seen someone look at it like this. But think about it if you are a player and someone who wants to conitinue to play would you really want to practice day in and day out if you know that your chances to see the field will probably never happen. I know the movie Rudy has inspired a few but as an athlete myself there is no way I would want to stay if an opportunity to play is elsewhere. I understand that some might have to go a lower division, but atleast they are playing now and that is not always the case some including UA players end up at other Div 1 schools like C Jackson who transferred to GA Tech. Also as many have posted alot of the transfers have taken place because of a new coaches or players become homesick. That is really not the fault of the new coach. One of my earlier arguements is most of the schools in question especially in the SEC are during the first 3 or 4 years of a new coach who has come in. It does draw so criticism when you compare a coach that has tenure in today’s environment vs a new coach at a program.

       I understand that this site and others look at it being suspicious but all the players I have seen in question so far have either transferred and continued playing or received their diploma. So based on your airline analogy they were all compensated. Now I agree about issues concerning transferring credits and siting out a year. Again I think your post is very good and appreciate the unbiased approach with it.

       ( REPLY )
     • 

       Joshua
       May 29th, 2010 - 11:45

       LRJ,
       If we run a poster of the year contest we’re just going to hand you the trophy. You completely get oversigning and the purpose of this website. Thank you so much for taking the time to write.

       ( REPLY )
       • 

         deepsthboy
         May 29th, 2010 - 13:36

         Josh, it just so happens that Lee Roi is a buddy of mine. Doesn’t that name sound just a little too familiar? Wasn’t there an Alabama and Dallas LB with a similar name?

         Anyway, Lee Roi is not without bias, although SoccerMike was kind enough to say that he thinks he is. Let’s just say Lee Roi likes stadiums named after footwear and his favorite mascot looks like he has a milk dud (or worse) as a head.

         The number of signees seems to be one of the favorite numbers to quote, because it allows the nature of the process vis-a-vis the number of kids on a roster at various points to sound very exaggerated. That 113 number is especially good, because it suggests that WOW, Bama was almost THIRTY over the limit, just in signees.

         But Lee Roi knows this, and I think that Joshua, you do as well, that when a player SIGNS in ’08, for example, doesn’t qualify academically and goes to post-graduate school and signs again in ’09, then YES he has SIGNED again, but it’s the SAME FREAKING KID, not two kids. This happens with grey shirting and any number of other instances.

         The number you guys really care about is this alleged (like the “alleged” bias) 91 that is 6 over the 85. Let’s assume this is the number,whether it is or not. Fine. But let’s not throw this 113 number around, when we know there is significant double (and in the case of Kerry Murphy TRIPLE) counting going on. Don’t purposely mislead people.

         ( REPLY )
         • 

           Joshua
           May 29th, 2010 - 13:41

           The numbers are not misleading – we count them the same way for every school. If a player is counted twice he is counted twice for every school. Carlos Hyde was counted twice towards Ohio State’s numbers. If we were only counting players 2 or 3 times for Alabama and not everyone else and then Alabama was so much higher than everyone else, then yes, you would have point.

           ( REPLY )
           • 

             Joshua
             May 29th, 2010 - 13:44

             And even if you take out the kids signed twice Alabama is still over. You need to just face reality that there is no excuse for this and there is no way to rationalize or twist the numbers. Just be a man and own up to the fact that certain teams oversign, they know they are oversigning, and they don’t care as long as they stay under 85 and don’t face NCAA violations. The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.

             ( REPLY )
             • 

               deepsthboy
               May 29th, 2010 - 15:06

               If you saw my previous response, Josh, I said that I was happy to discuss the number of kids that are over the 85 limit. I am not attempting to avoid that. I saw in another entry you made several days ago that you “count” all the players the same. My beef is with Lee Roi’s gratuitous harping on a number that isn’t specifically germane to the 91 (or whatever the “excess” is), even if he attempts to subsequently “qualify” his reference to it. Throwing the signee number around is just clouding things and doesn’t help.

               As to whether there is “no excuse” for this, isn’t that the whole reason that anyone is bothering to take exception to the concept of the website in the first place? Of course there are REASONS for the approach Saban and other coaches take. They are making sure they have a full roster, and past experience tells him and his staff that they need to make allowances for several different types of attrition.

               The “recruiting budget” idea has been one you have seized on repeatedly. I get the idea, I just don’t think it’s practical for most staffs, and I seriously doubt that it will ever be mandated, or certainly that it will ever be voluntarily adopted by those teams not currently doing so. If you currently oversign, it’s because you have no idea what your budget is going to be, or it’s uncertain enough that you can’t commit in January or February what that number should be for the next 6-7 months.

               We aren’t going to agree on the overriding theme of the website, Josh. As far as having a problem goes, it’s only a problem now if August 1 rolls around and there are more than 85 kids on schollie. I am not saying this cavalierly. It is simply so.

               ( REPLY )

Leave a comment