Oversigning.com
4Feb/11126

Quick Links – Must Read!!!!

Stop what you are doing and read this piece by Tony Gerdeman on Saban and Oversigning. Solid work from someone who really gets it on this topic.

Tony Gerdeman on Oversigning

Also, Stewart Mandel doesn't believe a word Nick Saban said at his signing day press conference; no one does.

Mandel doesn't believe Saban

Nick Saban had every opportunity to put this to bed on Signing Day. All he had to do was come clean on his numbers - instead he tried to keep them a secret.

Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment
Comments (126) Trackbacks (0)
  1. Academics
    February 4th, 2011 - 14:32

    “Um, yes, Players 1, 2 and 3 aren’t going to class enough, and their grades won’t be satisfactory. Player 4′s just not happy here because he’s not going to play, so we’re going to find him a school where he’s a better fit on their depth chart. Signer 1 and 2 have one more shot at the ACT, but we’re not hopeful. I doubt we’ll see them in the fall. There are our numbers. Now that I’ve hung them out to dry in public because various media types are just too lazy to see the context, are there any more questions?”

    ( REPLY )
    • CHB
      February 4th, 2011 - 21:08

      No doubt there are privacy concerns Saban should respect. But let’s not try and kid anyone here with this fantasy that Nick Saban cares about any of his under-performing players being “hung out to dry”. I mean, really, this is the man who stood in front of the media and outright lied about why players were no longer at Alabama.

      It’s a pity that Saban has so many issues from so many players to deal with each year in that regard. If only there were some ways to reduce those numbers…hmm…

      ( REPLY )
      • Academics
        February 4th, 2011 - 22:21

        Your cited article:
        Their version: Four players transferred of their own volition to new schools for more playing time. Two of them had disciplinary issues. Hardly an argument against “oversigning.”

        Saban’s version: The coach said that they weren’t meeting standards in some way, that they weren’t bad kids, and that they were transferring of their own volition. Hardly an argument against “oversigning.”

        Saban as liar: I think “I will not be the coach at Alabama” established that one pretty firmly years ago. Not sure what it has to do with players who think they should be starting walking out the door a month before the season starts, suddenly leaving the team with 4 unused scholarships going to waste. Oh! They didn’t. The Outage!

        ( REPLY )
        • Academics
          February 4th, 2011 - 22:23

          They (scholarships) didn’t go to waste.

          ( REPLY )
        • CHB
          February 4th, 2011 - 23:24

          OK, so we’re now pretending that the linked article doesn’t show Saban to be a liar?

          And we’re also pretending that the article wasn’t linked in order to show that Saban doesn’t give a damn about kids being “hung out to dry”?

          OK.

          ( REPLY )
          • Academics
            February 4th, 2011 - 23:41

            No. I specifically pointed out that “Saban as liar” was hardly news. I just argue that revelation has nothing to do with your precious one and only topic.

            I also never suggested anything relative to Saban’s compassion. I was noting that satisfying the media’s demand for the sort of information that could be used to evaluate the circumstances of departures would in effect hang the kids out to dry, no matter what the coach in question thought about it.

            You read too closely, searching for things that aren’t there. Which, of course, means you usually find just what you were looking for. Which sort of embodies the whole effort here.

            ( REPLY )
            • CHB
              February 6th, 2011 - 23:01

              I specifically pointed out that “Saban as liar” was hardly news. I just argue that revelation has nothing to do with your precious one and only topic.

              Oh, please! Just stop. To the following…

              Nick Saban had every opportunity to put this to bed on Signing Day. All he had to do was come clean on his numbers – instead he tried to keep them a secret.

              …you offered the lame defense that Saban could clarify the numbers situation but he’d end up hanging players out to dry. Nonsense. You know full well all that’s needed in the context of his criticism that no one knows the numbers, is for him to give the number of scholarships currently available. He refused to do so for obvious reasons.

              I also never suggested anything relative to Saban’s compassion

              Implicit in that entire paragraph is the suggestion that Saban wants to avoid hanging kids out to dry – so he avoids that by not giving out the numbers. You crafted the entire paragraph in Saban’s own voice! Are you even reading what you write? Your “compassion” angle is indisputable and it’s laughable in light of the character trait that he has of being a known liar about the very same players you imply he’s protecting.

              You read too closely, searching for things that aren’t there. Which, of course, means you usually find just what you were looking for. Which sort of embodies the whole effort here.

              You should read your own writing as closely as I do so that perhaps I wouldn’t usually readily find the tortured logic you present as a defense of Saban and oversigning.

              ( REPLY )
              • JasonH
                February 10th, 2011 - 09:18

                So why is it your right to know the numbers? You seem to think you have a right to all knowledge and information. New clue: You don’t.

                ( REPLY )
  2. Academics
    February 4th, 2011 - 14:42

    Also, your characterization of Mandel’s position indicates either a clear bias or a total lack of reading comprehension. He asks some good questions. He also acknowledges that Saban makes some good points.

    ( REPLY )
    • UA_Class_of_86
      February 4th, 2011 - 15:21

      That’s exactly correct.

      Mandel is far more even-handed and fair than the proprietor of this site ever has been. Anyone who reads the piece without mental horseblinders will see that.

      ( REPLY )
      • SEC_Fan
        February 4th, 2011 - 18:27

        This site isn’t any more biased than Tide fans. Even sadder is Tide fans actually think they deny, spin, deflect, or twist the truth to protect their precious coach.

        Numbers don’t lie except in Alabamistan I guess. The entire college football world knows exactly what’s going on in Tusky (Ditto Baton Rouge, Oxford, & Arky).

        If Tricky Nicky really wants to put an end to the negative press or suspicions all he’s to do is release the roster scholly numbers. Simple. Until that’s done the miraculous fact that Bammer always manages to have just the right number of current guys leave, move to medical, etc., to match up with those signed above their known budget is gonna continue. IMO Saban can’t cause he knows the s*%t storme he’ll unleash upon himself.

        In the meantime, Bammer’s better wake up cause time’s running out on the despicable practice of oversigning.

        ( REPLY )
        • mb21
          February 4th, 2011 - 18:39

          Yeah, the end of oversigning is inevitable. That’s why most of the discussion in the comments here is just pointless unless you’re looking for a laugh. There have been some very funny (and disturbing) comments from SEC fans over the last few weeks on this page.

          The end may not be in 3 years or 5 years or even 10 years, it will end. All one has to do to realize that is look at the momentum. Even the SEC created limits for the first time. It won’t be long before the NCAA creates some stricter rules prohibiting teams from oversigning. It’s as obvious as day that will happen.

          The real humor is going to be when it does happen and seeing some of these people support the NCAA decision while others dig in even more than they are now. Any time someone digs in like many of the SEC fans, it’s just hilarious.

          ( REPLY )
        • Sanford
          February 4th, 2011 - 20:13

          Great point about Saban releasing the numbers to the media.

          Saban could have ended a lot of this, but his evasiveness during the PC is going to force the press to keep looking, and digging…and writing. He just bought himself another year of negative media attention.

          ( REPLY )
        • JasonH
          February 10th, 2011 - 09:20

          With or without it, Alabama will still continue to be elite. I don’t see the problem in oversigning so long as it isn’t illegal. Which is isn’t.

          ( REPLY )
  3. Catch 5
    February 4th, 2011 - 14:58

    Also, Stewart Mandel doesn’t believe a word Nick Saban said at his signing day press conference; no one does.

    And you wonder why Saban is so gruff with the media. Why should he reveal this information, especially if nobody will believe it anyway?

    ( REPLY )
    • mb21
      February 4th, 2011 - 18:41

      Facts are irrefutable. Produce some evidence and then nobody can say they don’t believe him. It’s actually very simple.

      ( REPLY )
      • Academics
        February 4th, 2011 - 19:29

        You obviously don’t watch MSNBC and Fox News daily spin the same basic facts into absolutely opposite conclusions.

        There’s no such thing as an irrefutable fact. News flash – Plato and Aristotle figured that out 2,500 years ago. Or perhaps even someone before them.

        ( REPLY )
        • mb21
          February 5th, 2011 - 22:09

          You’re telling me if Alabama produces evidence that shows X number of players on scholarship that people are going to be led to believe that there are more or less than X on scholarship? What possible conclusions could there be? If Alabama had 84 on scholarship, they had 84. Not 82. Not 79. Not 85. They had exactly 84. I don’t know why this is so difficult. The information is there to be presented if they want to. The information would be supported with evidence and would be undeniable.

          ( REPLY )
      • Little Joe
        February 4th, 2011 - 20:30

        If the facts are irrefutable, and the truth is so immutable, then it’s interesting that you seem to feel the need to keep restating it.

        ( REPLY )
  4. SoccerMike
    February 4th, 2011 - 15:29

    Sorry anything Gerd says I find very little value in. No offense but like the owner of the site Gerd is OSU all the way through. Oversigning may be an issue but not when reported with a bias, and Gerd does because I have read of his post and he is very antl-CNS/UA/SEC. No different than the National Enquiror when they have a grudge against someone.

    ( REPLY )
    • No Context
      February 4th, 2011 - 16:28

      It’s too bad, but the anti-SEC bias really does hurt in a debate like this. I do believe believe that oversigning is a problem but too often the posts are poorly written and dripping with anti-SEC sentiment.

      You run the risk of becoming PETA, where the cause is noble, however, the extremist sub-population that believe animals>people lead many to believe the foundation of your arguments is invalid. You would be better served to bring all offenders to light on a regular basis rather than focus all you energies into Saban.

      ( REPLY )
      • huskyskins
        February 4th, 2011 - 17:32

        Saban and the SEC are the poster-children for this debate, and the numbers bear that out. Does it feel like it gets hammered a little too hard…sure. But, Saban has himself to blame for most of it. If he doesn’t want to be front and center in this debate, all he has to do is be a little more transparent. But, he’d rather keep all the numbers in the shady background and have massive turnover every year. People tend not to trust that. And, like Mandel said, he’s successful. Nutt would be the overwhelming face of the debate, if he’d ever win anything. Until then, it will be Saban.

        It would be nice to see all 119 teams on the table. I’ve passed on my alma-mater’s oversigning, and hope to have it posted up there as well. Hopefully, we can get a broader spectrum than just SEC vs. Big10 and a few ACC teams.

        The other thing to take into consideration is that there seems to be varying degrees of how people feel about oversigning that range from “never should happen” to “survival of the fittest” and everything in between. I think it is important for the site’s writers to stick to their exact position as outlined on the About page. Too many times it seems that any oversigning is railed against and then the Big10 model is held up as the gold-standard. A standard that allows up to three oversignings! This disconnect allows the debate to be constantly derailed and it dillutes the message. Stay on message or change the message to fit what you actually believe.

        ( REPLY )
        • JasonH
          February 10th, 2011 - 09:22

          Note that the disconnect will NEVER EVER be covered here. This is just a smokescreen site to bash Nick Saban and the SEC, because the Big 10 loves to whine after getting their faces stomped in on the field.

          ( REPLY )
      • Notre Dame
        February 4th, 2011 - 17:40

        With the growth of this topic, comments from influential leaders and the proposed new legislation to end oversigning, which was all due to this site, I think it is pretty clear that people are tuning in rather than tuning out.

        ( REPLY )
        • Academics
          February 4th, 2011 - 18:32

          Personally, I think the topic has jumped the shark.

          And it still amazes me that people like you, who should know better, consider something like this a more worthy cause than CTE, degenerative orthopedic conditions, or the special sorts of health care that even college football players will likely need down the road.

          Frankly, the rhetoric here seems much more interested in improving the competitive prospects of teams like Notre Dame than the actual welfare of the kids. To that extent, it just seems entirely disingenuous to me.

          ( REPLY )
          • mb21
            February 4th, 2011 - 18:55

            Who cares if it’s disingenuous? The only question that matters is this: is oversigning a problem? Obviously the answer to that is yes so the motives of this sites, its biases, and whatever else someone wants to attack this site with are irrelevant.

            Can we just for one day ignore the biases of this site and focus on the issue? Who cares if it’s biased? Fox News is biased and you know what? There’s also a lot of truth in what they say. You just have to recognize the bias and strip out of the factual information.

            I don’t care if this site was started to make the person who started it wealthy. I couldn’t care less how it’s written or what its intentions are. What are the facts? That is the only damn thing that maters.

            If you want a site less biased, start your own. If you want a site that cares about the children, start your own. Guess what. It’s going to be biased too because most humans are incapable of commentary without bias.

            ( REPLY )
            • Academics
              February 4th, 2011 - 19:32

              Dang, that’s tortured. Everything’s biased until you strip out the bias and find the unbiased “essence” – which conveniently fits your preconceived bias. I believe that call that circular logic.

              ( REPLY )
              • CHB
                February 4th, 2011 - 19:57

                Nicely done. You’ve successfully pushed the discussion of oversigning to the periphery as you now muddle through tangential issues of “bias” and types of logic.

                Yet, it’s remains abundantly clear that even after such needless discussion, and even if all claimed “bias” were proved – it would have absolutely no effect on the established FACT of oversigning abuse by Nick Saban, Alabama and other SEC coaches.

                Your protests about bias are, effectively, pointless patter which has no bearing on the efficacy of this website’s mission, and certainly affords your defense of the practice of oversigning nothing that justifies its use.

                ( REPLY )
                • Academics
                  February 4th, 2011 - 20:12

                  There’s a fatal flaw in there, but I’ll let you figure it out the hard way. And no, it has nothing do with the nature of knowledge.

                  ( REPLY )
                  • CHB
                    February 4th, 2011 - 21:14

                    No thanks. You play your “discuss the discussion” game – I’ll continue to advance the anti-oversigning cause. Feel free to join in when you make your way back.

                    ( REPLY )
                    • JasonH
                      February 10th, 2011 - 09:24

                      Wow, you’re still up to your old game. Completely close minded, and unwilling to debate. Only YOUR facts are true facts.

                      Spoken like a true liberal.

            • JasonH
              February 10th, 2011 - 09:26

              Who cares if it’s disingenuous? That is a huge issue here.

              Oversigning is a problem only to those who agree on the same morals and ethics, and have no room for people with different morals and ethics.

              Bascially all the Joshua followers want to push their ethics and morals on others for one simple reason: They’re tired of losing.

              ( REPLY )
          • Notre Dame
            February 4th, 2011 - 18:56

            What the…..?

            All causes are worthy, especially ones that protect the students. I am especially concerned about why Alabama players are getting injured at an alarming rate.

            Jump the Shark…? It hasn’t even started and it won’t be going away

            ( REPLY )
          • CHB
            February 4th, 2011 - 19:00

            Personally, I think the topic has jumped the shark.

            Apparently, by your usage, that phrase doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

            And it still amazes me that people like you, who should know better, consider something like this a more worthy cause than CTE, degenerative orthopedic conditions, or the special sorts of health care that even college football players will likely need down the road.

            So you’re suggesting there’s a rigid pecking order in place relative to the importance of other causes that governs which causes can be advanced, and when? It does not at all amaze me that “people like you” would post such patent nonsense and actually consider it to be a worthy contribution to the discussion of anything. The obvious hypocrisy in your combined first two statements is that if you believe those to be more worthy causes wouldn’t you then be in forums and other places building them up, rather than wasting your time with a cause that has “jumped the shark”?

            Frankly, the rhetoric here seems much more interested in improving the competitive prospects of teams like Notre Dame than the actual welfare of the kids. To that extent, it just seems entirely disingenuous to me.

            “Disingenuous”? Really? You can spot a motive for improving competitive advantage in the “rhetoric” here, but are completely blind to and silent about the actual advantages already in place by actual oversigning practices at such schools as Alabama? (You said “disingenuous” – right…?)

            ( REPLY )
            • Notre Dame
              February 4th, 2011 - 19:08

              Damn, that was devastating.

              ( REPLY )
            • Academics
              February 4th, 2011 - 19:46

              Not really, but those are beautiful straw men.

              By raising those issues here, I am advocating them.

              I am not blind to the competitive advantages of “oversigning.” I never claimed such advantages do not exist. I can’t even begin to understand how you read that into my responses, unless you simply assume that everyone who disagrees with a post must hold that position as some sort of default.

              ( REPLY )
              • Academics
                February 4th, 2011 - 19:54

                The difference apparently rests in the fact that you seem to find the term “competitive advantage” to be somehow inherently immoral, whereas I consider the term’s morality to be dependent upon circumstance.

                ( REPLY )
              • CHB
                February 4th, 2011 - 20:51

                those are beautiful straw men

                By claiming use of “straw men” you’re suggesting I addressed issues you did not raise. That’s a comprehension issue on your part.

                By raising those issues here, I am advocating them.

                By “raising those issues here” – you are showing an odd sense of propriety and choice of venue for advocating causes that don’t relate to the clearly stated topic of this site: “oversigning”. Do you go to websites for the advocacy of those issues and discuss oversigning?

                I am not blind to the competitive advantages of “oversigning.” I never claimed such advantages do not exist. I can’t even begin to understand how you read that into my responses, unless you simply assume that everyone who disagrees with a post must hold that position as some sort of default.

                Begin with this: your first post in this thread is a specific defense of Nick Saban shielding his scholarship numbers from the public. You’ve suddenly arrived at this website attempting to shape the debate by questioning the motives of anti-oversigners, diminishing the importance and strength of the cause, and issuing claims of bias.

                Now, surely a person such as yourself, who’s openly claimed here a desire to advocate for causes, would see the opportunity here on this website to advocate for yet another good cause. But, no, what you’ve done is demonstrate a glaring “blindness” to the most obvious wrong in favor of some oddly chosen targets.

                ( REPLY )
                • Academics
                  February 4th, 2011 - 21:35

                  Straw men:
                  “Rigid pecking order”
                  “Blind to the competitive advantage”

                  As noted previously, the comprehension issue seems to be yours, but it also seems to be quite willful. You’ve indicated before that you really don’t care whether or not you distort things, so long as you advance your cause. A True Believer in the mold of a Sarah Palin or Michael Moore. They do tend to shift the debate but often in unpredictable ways.

                  As for oversigning being “the most obvious wrong” versus “oddly chosen targets,” I have to laugh. Is that the rigid pecking order you were talking about?

                  I commend this site’s ability to spin LSU’s Elliot Porter into hundreds of abandoned children wandering the back alleys of Tuscaloosa. A substantial shift in perception, that.

                  But, as a Tar Heel, I looked a bit deeper and saw that all of these kids are in school and playing football somewhere else – or still in Tuscaloosa, on scholarship. Their coach cut them from the team, but he did not cut off their education. And frankly, when I realized that, I got a little angry at your site. You wasted my time. And now, sitting here in bed with the fly, I am thoroughly enjoying wasting yours.

                  ( REPLY )
                  • CHB
                    February 4th, 2011 - 22:50

                    You’re now writing as if you’re in meltdown mode. There are a lot of words here – but they’re making less and less sense.

                    “Hundreds of abandoned children wandering the back alleys of Tuscaloosa”? Really? That’s profoundly nonsensical and shows you have little clue as to the level of harm the NCAA needs to see in order to both raise a concern about issues of fairness, equity or competitive advantage, and then act on them.

                    Same for your comment about looking a bit deeper and seeing “that all of these kids are in school and playing football somewhere else – or still in Tuscaloosa, on scholarship.” That’s not what the NCAA looks at. You could benefit from some time spent examining the impetus behind some pieces of NCAA legislation to learn what concerns them. That you aren’t so much concerned about the things they are only says we’re fortunate people such as yourself don’t run that organization.

                    Now, as for this doozy:

                    You’ve indicated before that you really don’t care whether or not you distort things, so long as you advance your cause.

                    Consider yourself called on that remark. No such statement exists on this site and nothing I’ve ever said here could even be subject to interpretation to produce such a statement. As I said, “meltdown mode”.

                    And trust me, you can’t waste my time if I don’t allow it. Fact is, I’m happy to engage those who argue this oversigning issue as you do, because it only serves to strengthen the anti-oversigning cause. You present yourselves as the best among oversigning defenders, having superior discussion skills that will humble any takers, but typically, your bravado runs into the inevitable fact that you just don’t have much to with which to work. Frankly, it’s difficult to understand why anyone would look at an absence of ethics, logic and common sense, and an abundance of bad acts and actors, and actually think they could build a case for oversigning.

                    Plus, you should value your time more than that, shouldn’t you? Certainly with the use of my time I’m rather certain the end result will be better treatment for student-athletes. What’s to come of your use of time to waste others’ time?

                    Last, it’s not my site.

                    ( REPLY )
                    • Academics
                      February 5th, 2011 - 00:17

                      Yes, it is. It’s your irrational passion, and that makes it your site, whether they list you as an author or not.

                      If you think the NCAA is going to pass legislation severely limiting the conditions by which all Universities may sever personnel contracts – and that’s exactly what an LOI is – you’re more misguided than I thought. They will, like all businesses, maintain all options on that front. In fact, I am sure they love this site’s focus on the number of contracts rather the content.

                      And given the NCAA’s attachment to its freedoms, if they do eliminate “oversigning” as you define it, then the system of “augmenting depth” just adapts to the new conditions. The cycle begins all over again.

                      And yes, I’ve seen plenty of posters on this site under the impression that these kids are thrown out in the streets and denied an education. Comments like this one:

                      “Consider a kid being told:

                      ‘I’ve found someone of greater potential use than you on the football field, so he’s going to have your scholarship next year. You’re on your own as far as the completion of your education is concerned.’ ”

                      Appeared today in reference to Saban. Yet I can’t find any mention in any news article anywhere of a kid that University didn’t help land on his feet at a new school with a new scholarship and a new team. I looked. Had to be out there, given the sheer conviction of this site, right? Nope.

                      And that’s where we could start a lengthy discussion of distortion, in which you willingly and gleefully participate, but the Nyquil’s kicking in.

                      Next time.

                    • Joshua
                      February 5th, 2011 - 12:31

                      You won’t find many cases of guys being thrown completely out in the street with nothing – the APR penalties are too stiff to do that. That is why we see them pushed into medical hardships that enable them to finish school or pushed into transferring somewhere they can play right away. Those two options relieve the institution of the APR burden, but they are still deplorable and the net result is pushing a kid out of his path to get a degree from the school he committed to during the recruiting process. And what is worst of all is that many of these kids will never play at the next level and they are the ones that need a good education and need to be prepared for a career in something else. Maintaining a stable environment and demanding that they work hard, do the right things on and off the field, and mentoring and molding them for 4 years is what it is supposed to be about. Not all coaches believe in running a student-athlete off to make room for someone they think is better or someone that they think they need to get in order to win a recruiting battle and get a higher ranking; not all coaching salaries are tied to recruiting ranking either. Take Northwestern for example. They have one of the highest graduation rates in the country, they never oversign, they never run a player off, yet they are able to field a competitive team without selling their souls to the devil. Why should we not as a society expect that from every university?

                    • HeadScratcher
                      February 5th, 2011 - 12:52

                      Yes, the idea behind sociallism is that everyone is equal. Maybe we could take this idea and apply it across our entire society here in the the U.S. and then no one would have more than anyone else.

                      You need to take this concept and apply it to how much money is being spent on football programs. If Ohio State is allowed to spend so much more than any other program, is that really fair? It seems to me that Northwestern has been able to spend a whole lot less on their football program and still maintain a competitive program, so why shoud we as a society accept that a school like Ohio State has to spend so much more?

                    • Joshua
                      February 5th, 2011 - 13:10

                      You are so uninformed. Ohio State sponsors 38-39 scholarship sports, more than most everyone in the country. Sponsorship for those sports comes from football revenue. Ohio State is not “allowed” to spend more while others are forced by conference rules to spend less; they spend more because they sponsor more and that is part of their University mission. SEC schools spend just as much yet sponsor far fewer sports and instead reuse the revenue that the spending created to hire assistant coaches for 1.3M.

                    • The Cut
                      February 5th, 2011 - 13:24

                      All coaching salaries are funded by boosters. The NCAA tried to cap those and lost a $50 million law suit.

                      Kids get cut from high school teams. Kids get cut from pro teams. But apparently Kids Shall Never Be Cut From College Teams. Unless they commit a felony, in which case the public howls for their head and the coach’s too.

                      I pay dearly for my children to attend college. The “injustice” of a kid relocating to a new program with a scholarship, or staying at a school for free, minus the athletic workload, is just lost on me. Ideal? No. Disgusting? Please. Go spend your lunch hour dishing out food at a homeless shelter one day and then we can have a conversation about causes.

                      Anecdotes are out there, like the kid at LSU. But the hysteria here is completely out of proportion to the situation.

                    • Rich
                      February 5th, 2011 - 21:20

                      Why should a college or university cut players? Oversigning is the problem, not abuse of medical exemptions or greyshirts. The problem is oversign. If every year a team oversigns by ten players, then the ways to “manage your roster” inevitably leads to practices that are not in the best interest of the student but of the coach.

                      Based on all the articles written on the topic of oversigning in the past few months, it appears that condemnation of oversigning is gaining traction.

                      It is not hysterical. It is simply an idea that the “lowest common denominator” should not be an anchor dragging cfb lower and lower.

                    • Mario
                      February 6th, 2011 - 12:11

                      We pay dearly for our education. Free my ###. You pay because your kids don’t have the talent for a scholarship, athletic or academic. You have no clue what it takes to play a D-1 sport…

                    • Mario
                      February 6th, 2011 - 17:42

                      We pay dearly for our education. Free my ###. You pay because your kids don’t have the talent for a scholarship, athletic or academic. You have no clue what it takes to play a D-1 sport…

                    • JasonH
                      February 10th, 2011 - 09:41

                      Amen to this brother.

                      They want a welfare system where a kid can be a slacker, do the bare minimum and still eat up a scholarship.

                    • vesper
                      February 5th, 2011 - 13:46

                      For the record, are you saying that the amount of money that Ohio State spends on its football program doesn’t give it a competitive advantage in football over schools that spend less on football like Northwestern? Yes or no?

                    • Little Joe
                      February 5th, 2011 - 16:33

                      So it would seem. He is also suggesting that they HAVE to spend more because they have more sports to support. WHAT? Let me get this straight–they have to spend more money than any other program in the nation on their FOOTBALL program because THAT supports the other programs. I didn’t know it worked that way.

                      It seems to me you are missing something here. Ohio State spends more on their FOOTBALL program than any other school in the country. This has nothing whatsoever to do with water polo or fencing. Once again, for those that are missing the point, we are not talking about football REVENUES (the income portion), we are talking about football SPENDING (that is the EXPENSE portion). Ohio State SPENDS more on their FOOTBALL program than any other school in the country. This is UNRELATED to their other sports, unless you are going for the ultimate reach, which is to suggest that OSU HAS to spend more on their football team so that all these other programs can benefit. If that’s what you think, I have a few CEOs of now-bankrupt companies that would like to look at your business model. You have to love that–”the revenues that the spending created”.

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 17:42

                      Spending is because of debt to fix Ohio stadium.

                      LOL…Just when Bama fans think they have a point…FAIL.

                    • vesper
                      February 5th, 2011 - 18:04

                      I’m sorry, that went right over my head. How does the fact that Ohio State spent money on fixing their football stadium, make the points above a “FAIL”? Do you not think that having a huge, modern stadium helps with recruiting and revenue generation and therefore contritubes to the competitive advantage that Ohio State has over other schools?

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 18:22

                      The stadium was built in 1920. It was crumbling and it needed renovated. All programs will spend money on assets. Once the debt is paid, watch OSU’s “football spending” drop to middle of the pack.

                      Do you really think a recruit gives a crap about a stadium? ..weak.

                      Some other points to consider:

                      1) Not all school handle their accounting the same way. That Federal report is not comparing Apples to Apples.

                      2) No one is suggesting that things will always be on a level playing field in terms of market share. THat is an Alabama Strawman.

                    • vesper
                      February 5th, 2011 - 19:03

                      The stadium was built in 1920. It was crumbling and it needed renovated. All programs will spend money on assets. Once the debt is paid, watch OSU’s “football spending” drop to middle of the pack.

                      Maybe that last part is true, maybe it’s not. I could only find info for 08-09 and 09-10 and Ohio State was the biggest spender for both school years.

                      Do you really think a recruit gives a crap about a stadium? ..weak

                      Yes, I do. Do you really think that the typical recruit would just assume play in a run-down stadium with 20,000 capacity as a modern stadium equipped with jumbotrons and a seating capacity of 100,000+?

                      1) Not all school handle their accounting the same way. That Federal report is not comparing Apples to Apples

                      That may be true but it wouldn’t change the fact that Ohio State is one of the biggest spenders. Apples to apples – I bet Ohio State still spends much, much, much more on football than Northwestern

                      2) No one is suggesting that things will always be on a level playing field in terms of market share. THat is an Alabama Strawman.

                      Thank you for saying that as that is basically the point I was making. Not all teams are on a level playing field. The “Competitive Advantage” arguement is one of the 2 main arguements made against oversigning. If a level playing field is that important for you, maybe you should also be campaigning for a spending cap in college football.

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 19:42

                      I will ignore the whole moral/ethical/player protection argument for now.

                      You will see that debt service for a quite a bit longer. Go ahead and toss that stat around, but don’t expect anyone who serious about finance or accounting to buy your argument. Again, compare OSU salaries compared to Alabama’s; this is where the real story is. Focus on operating numbers.

                      btw, why does Alabama only have 18 sports? That is sad.

                      Your point about about trying to equate market competitive advantages to unethical recruiting practices is silly. Even though all markets are not the same, all of schools play by the same rules in terms of oversigning. Can your school and conference say the same?

                      SMU, right smack in the middle of a major market was nothing for the longest time. Then they were competing for National Championships! What changed? Recruiting. There are no advantages like unethical recruiting advantages.

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 20:05

                      Hiring NFL coaches, oversigning, endless Juco budget, minimal academic requirements, only 18 varsity sports to benefit football…. How many competitive advantages does Alabama need to field a competitive team? How low will this program go?

                      I am sure the UA is looking for way to genetically engineer new football recruits for Saban at the moment.

                    • Little Joe
                      February 5th, 2011 - 20:06

                      Sorry to disappoint you, but as it happens, not only do I have my masters in finance, but it’s what I do for a living. Here’s the salient question–how do we know that any renovation work that was done on Ohio Stadium was financed, but more importantly, how do we know if debt service payments are being funneled through the same report that documents the $31 + million that OSU spends on football. Have you seen the cash flow statements? Would you care to post them here? I’d love to see them. What are the terms of the debt? Who is the lender? Is the lender a public company?

                      My guess is that any debt service associated with stadium renovations are not a part of that P&L. The $32 million that OSU is spending is just for the operating expenses of running that program. The athletic department pays the debt service out of its budget. I’d bet just about anything. And until someone can produce a P&L to the contrary that shows debt service as a portion of that $32.3 million, then that assumption should be made.

                      Here’s how the article from USA Today describes it. What’s most interesting is that the figures come from something called the Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics, which is what this website appears to be promoting:

                      “Over the past five seasons, Ohio State has been among college football’s elite programs. The Buckeyes have been to five consecutive BCS bowls, including the BCS championship games in 2006 and 2007.

                      They have owned the Big Ten Conference, winning or sharing the Big Ten title in all five seasons.

                      Yet, for all the Buckeyes’ accomplishments, they have clearly underachieved in that span. Sure, they’ve only lost 10 games since 2005. But they should have won every single one of them.

                      That’s right, instead of a 54-10 record since 2005 the Buckeyes should be 64-0 — at least based on what the Buckeyes spend on their football program.

                      No university in America pours more money into its football program than Ohio State. The Buckeyes spent $32.3 million for the 2008-09 school year, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics. The 2008-09 school year is the most recent data that is available.

                      Ohio State’s $32.3 million spending spree was $3.5 million more than the next closest school: Auburn at $28.8 million. Not surprisingly the nation’s top eight spenders – and yes, they all bring in nearly two to three times that much in revenue – are from the Big Ten and SEC.

                      After Ohio State and Auburn is Iowa ($26.9 million) of the Big Ten, followed by four SEC schools – Alabama ($26.44 million), Tennessee ($22.96 million), Florida ($22.86 million) and LSU ($22.74 million). The Big Ten’s Wisconsin ($22.71 million) ranks eighth.

                      The other BCS conference big spenders and how they rank nationally are: the Big 12′s Texas (ninth nationally, $22.56 million), the Pac-10′s USC (10th, $21.31 million), the ACC’s Miami (11th, $20.97 million) and the Big East’s Rutgers (16th, $19.73 million). Independent Notre Dame ranks 20th overall, spending $18.74 million.”

                      But please do produce the cash flow statement that shows the debt service as a portion of that $32 million.

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 21:33

                      I have a Ph.D in Finance and a Master in Public Admin…..it is what I do for a living ..:-)
                      This article, which is a few years old, says $16M/yr for Operating, and 17M/yr in (debt and maint), which is close to what the current expenditure on the gov report. I should have bet you!
                      No, it is not a statement like you requested, but I think it answers the basic question of what the football operating and debt expenses look like.
                      http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-01-04-ohiostate-finances-cover_x.htm

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 21:42

                      “There’s little denying that Ohio State football, which listed nearly $16 million in operational expenses last year on top of almost $17 million for facilities debt and maintenance,..”

                    • Little Joe
                      February 5th, 2011 - 22:07

                      From another 2007 article:

                      “At $109,382,222 for the current year, Ohio State’s athletic budget is the largest in the nation and the biggest in the history of college sports. It allows the school to field 36 varsity teams in everything from baseball and soccer to riflery and synchronized swimming. The school spends about $110,000 on each of its 980 athletes, which is triple the amount the university spends per undergraduate on education.

                      The budget for this academic year allots $65,000 in private jet time, or roughly 11 hours, to men’s basketball coach Thad Matta for recruiting trips over 200 miles — and a further 15 hours of jet time for the coach’s personal travel. A just-completed $19.5 million renovation of the football team’s practice facility, funded with a large donation from Limited Brands Chief Executive Leslie Wexner, added a players-only entrance, a lounge that has six flat-panel TVs, three videogame systems and a juice bar. “There’s always a race to get up there after practice,” says Jake Ballard, a sophomore tight end for the football team that enters this weekend ranked No. 1 in the country.”

                      Much to be proud of there. seems as though so many of you are focused on the student part of the student-athlete. Well I should hope so if you’re investing $110,000 annually. I wonder if the players at Northwestern have six flat screens, three videogame systems and a juice bar in their practice facility?

                      But as to the $16MM/$17MM split, if you have studied accounting and finance, then you know that maintenance expenses are operating expenses. We still don’t know what the debt service numbers are, do we?

                      What’s even more interesting is that when Ohio Stadium was renovated 10 years ago, at a cost of $194 million, I might add, it was funded through private contributions. This time, it appears to have been done with public money and a bond referendum. I wonder if the blue collar guys that paid for these renovations get to use any of the flat screens or if they get to enjoy the juice bar? You think Coach Tressel opens up to the general public, since they funded it?

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 22:24

                      Now you are veering off in a different direction.

                      I think we have a good idea that operating is around 16M and debt is around 17M. Yes, i found it was odd about maintenance as well, but one would have to look at the notes. It could be a typo for “debt maintenance” rather than “debt and maintenance”

                    • Little Joe
                      February 5th, 2011 - 22:39

                      Could be, but I doubt it. OSU spends more on athletics period than any other school. Yes, there are tons of sports. I love college sports. I don’t mind the fact that OSU spends a ton of money on their teams. But it’s still looks like the school used public money to finance a luxurious renovation that primarily benefits a bunch of wealthy alums and puts juice bars and flat screen TVs for the players. It would be better if the general student population could benefit from the latter. Do you think the parents of the other students feel good about their tax dollars funding stuff that their kids can’t use?

                      As for veering, no I’m not. Debt service isn’t referred to as “debt maintenance”. If you are a finance guy, you know that. “Operations” probably refer to the operation of the football program (salaries, unis, equipment, and on and on). Maintenance is the maintenance of the Shoe itself. How much do you think it takes to maintain a 101,000-seat facility on an annual basis. $1 million? And the other $16MM is debt service? Methinks not.

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 22:53

                      Like I said earlier, it was a little strange. I believe it is a typo in the original article, but debt maintenance is not unheard term either when speaking casually.

                    • Little Joe
                      February 6th, 2011 - 07:43

                      I don’t think the OSU admins would have let information be published, particularly multiple times, without reaching out to clarify.

                      As I say, I love the fact they care about their facilities and all the other sports, but it undoubtedly makes the statement that there is probably an inordinate emphasis on it relative to academics (that’s RELATIVE to, not in lieu of). Maybe that means it’s probably appropriate not to stand up on a virtual podium and wag your finger at others?

                    • Sanford
                      February 6th, 2011 - 09:24

                      That’s rich coming from a group of fans who STARTED this point, and who support probably the highest compensated coaching staff. Clearly, all spending is not the same and I think we can agree there. OSU’s compensation package for their coaching staff would be somewhere in the middle of the mighty SEC, yet , OSU’s program spends more than any other program? 9 million more than LSU who has a similar size stadium?

                      How? The Columbus Police Department must be rolling in it. The players must be doing curls with with solid gold dumbells….

                      The accounting is not transparent and lacks context. This is why I stated that coaching salaries are the most transparent, and relevant metric.

                      The media screws ups financial information all of the time. You are a finance guy, you should know that.

                    • Little Joe
                      February 6th, 2011 - 10:34

                      I think this is an excellent point. But here’s the thing. In the last couple of days, people have been demanding that Nick Saban come out and give more information regarding his scholarships, i.e. more transparency. Shouldn’t we have the same information on athletic departments? After all, most of these are public universities, right? Let us see the P&Ls.

                      As to the coaching salaries, think about it like this. When Joe Namath was making $125K a year, people thought that was nuts. Now these guys wouldn’t play for $125K a game. And that’s not due to inflation, obviously. Coaching salaries have skyrocketed, no doubt. Brian and Chip Kelly are both making a ton of cash, as are Bob Stoops, Mack Brown, and scores of others. It isn’t just the SEC, and you know that. The SEC has the best concentration of high-end coaches, so they cost more.

                    • Sanford
                      February 6th, 2011 - 18:41

                      Little Joe, I emailed Gene Smith, and his Treasurer indicated that debt (14.7M) is included in the figure.

                    • Sanford
                      February 5th, 2011 - 22:41

                      Still most pertinent numbers are coaching salaries and recruiting budget.

                      If people want to quibble about paying football security or a janitor’s salary, then ..whatever. Like I said earlier, each school does their accounting differently.

                    • mb21
                      February 5th, 2011 - 22:33

                      You obviously know nothing about probability. Saying a team should be 64-0 is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on a sports site. It’s the equivalent of being pissed off that the Yankees didn’t go 162-0 each of the last 10 seasons. This is the kind of stuff you wouldn’t even hear on sports talk radio. Well done.

                    • JasonH
                      February 10th, 2011 - 09:44

                      Wow. You just committed a huge sin of hyperbole. SMU, was involved in the biggest Pay for Play scandal ever.

                      Oversigning is not against the rules, or illegal. Pay for play IS.

                    • craig
                      February 5th, 2011 - 16:30

                      That is because Auburn just hired a good assistant coach. You know, a national champion. Ohio State hires assistant coaches that go 1-1 against top 25 teams on the year.

                      It is also because Ohio State has additional revenue sources bringing in money to the football program that does not hit the books. Take a look at the local car dealerships.

                    • JasonH
                      February 10th, 2011 - 09:40

                      Wait, how does a medical scholarship push a kid out of his path to get a degree from the school he committed to? Because it sure as hell doesn’t.

                      And so you FINALLY FINALLY admit that kids aren’t being tossed on the streets. It’s about time someone here admitted that. So what if they finish their degree somewhere else. Unless you’re pre-law or pre-med, it doesn’t really matter WHERE you get your education so long as it isn’t DeVry, ITT, or University of Phoenix. It’s just a piece of paper stating that you have done what it takes for someone to now hire you.

                    • JasonH
                      February 10th, 2011 - 09:30

                      [blockquote]But, as a Tar Heel, I looked a bit deeper and saw that all of these kids are in school and playing football somewhere else – or still in Tuscaloosa, on scholarship. Their coach cut them from the team, but he did not cut off their education. And frankly, when I realized that, I got a little angry at your site. You wasted my time. And now, sitting here in bed with the fly, I am thoroughly enjoying wasting yours.[/blockquote]
                      I notice you didn’t even answer this part. How could you though, without your false moral outrage completely being exposed?

      • mb21
        February 4th, 2011 - 18:49

        I agree with this, but in order to bring it to light you absolutely must highlight the SEC’s oversigning. They are the worst offenders. I also think it’s important to focus on the region because whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that region is not on par in terms of education with the rest of the country. So you have to believe that the university is taking advantage of that and oversigning is one way to do exactly that. But yes, The Big 12 and offenders elsewhere should be pointed out and written about with the same anger that the SEC is.

        Furthermore, do we really think that the universities care about the children that much? I certainly don’t. So what do we do to get their attention? We highlight the unfairness in the practice and it’s pretty obvious that oversigning gives teams a competitive advantage over other teams. Take a look at steroids in sports. Do people really care that athletes are taking steroids? Of course not. They care that it creates unfairness. Sports, in people’s messed up opinions, are about fairness.

        So you have to attack this in multiple directions. You can’t just highlight the offenders, which should be done. You also have to highlight the unfairness. You have to highlight the coaches who don’t support it. You also have to do other things, but this site has brought this issue to the forefront and it’s not going away now. Whatever problems there may be with this site, it’s accomplished its goal and that’s far more than 99.9% of other blogs on the internet are ever going to accomplish. Biased? Probably, but just because it’s biased doesn’t mean the overall message is wrong. I think some people forget that.

        ( REPLY )
        • CHB
          February 4th, 2011 - 19:34

          I disagree. For any cause, the message has to be focused. The quickest way to lose the attention of those from whom you like it, is to use the scatter-shot approach of sending them looking at handfuls of programs here and there. I think the strength of this website is that it focuses on the most arrogant and obnoxious offender, in the most frequently offending conference in the country, where the results and casualties of oversigning are the most obvious. The results this website is getting are proof of the success of this approach.

          The irony here is, that this website gives targeted opponents ample opportunity to expose the virtues of oversigning and to discredit the anti-oversigning movement with anything legitimate they can offer. Yet, despite this opportunity, they only lose traction in this, because when they speak – same as when Nick Saban speaks – the cause only gains increased resonance because the wider public is passing its judgment as to the merits of what they have to say. And that includes their complaints of “bias” and cries of “stop picking on us”.

          Fact is, fixing the issue in one place will fix it in all places – even the places on whom the spotlight didn’t shine, or shine so brightly. For example, Troy University will not escape the solution when it comes.

          ( REPLY )
          • mb21
            February 5th, 2011 - 22:23

            Fair enough. I think you’re right. I do tend to see what people mean when they say this site is biased, but that’s also not an argument in favor of oversigning as so many people on here seem to think. There’s nothing wrong with being biased. The question is whether or not the facts are correct and the ones that are incorrect here are quickly corrected. The overall message is based on factual information. It’s a fact that the SEC is signing more players than the Big Ten or Pac 10.

            I guess I do agree with you now that I’ve thought about it.

            ( REPLY )
    • Little Joe
      February 4th, 2011 - 20:31

      I was curious. Where is the comment section to Mr. Gerdeman’s article. Maybe someone could direct me to it.

      ( REPLY )
  5. Notre Dame
    February 4th, 2011 - 17:22

    I just watched Saban’s press conference. Rarely does he mention his player in terms of their character. It’s all about talent, measurables etc…sad.

    How pathetic is it that he admits to that his program is not clean in terms of trying to steal recruits? How embarrassing.

    And the dumb local media just sits their with their eyes glistening.

    ( REPLY )
    • craig
      February 4th, 2011 - 18:55

      Wow Notre Dame. It is really incredible that a fan of a team that just spent its last season murdering and raping its way through South Bend wants to talk about character.

      ( REPLY )
      • Notre Dame
        February 4th, 2011 - 19:03

        Typical nonsensical post. You must be really hurting.

        ( REPLY )
        • craig
          February 4th, 2011 - 19:28

          Nonsense? A football player raped a student who later killed herself. Your coach sent Declan Sullivan to his death. Notre Dame is the only football team in the country with a body count. So please, lecture people about character.

          ( REPLY )
          • CHB
            February 4th, 2011 - 19:41

            Congratulations. You’ve found an issue that itself could garner considerable discussion. Yet, citing it here on Oversigning.com in no way excuses or disproves the case of the lack of character the oversigning coaches in the SEC demonstrate in how they handle their student-athletes, and specifically, how, as Notre Dame described, the manner in which Saban speaks about his players.

            ( REPLY )
    • vesper
      February 4th, 2011 - 20:56

      “‘I’m pleased with this year’s recruiting class; filled a lot of needs; got a lot of character; quality guys in this class”

      “The more players we can get on our board that past our evaluation system, that meet the criteria for what we want for a position and have the athletic ability to meet those criteria, with the size and speed to meet the criteria, as well as the character and attitude we’re looking for in our players here, the more guys we get on the board the better we’ll do”

      “The fact that you expect a guy like that to get a lot of attention in recruiting and he never got fazed by it speaks a lot to me about not really caring about the attention, just wanting to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. I think that is a special kind of person.”

      “you’re talking about guys who are everything you could wish for if your children grew up to be like them. They have a lot of ability, they are hard workers, they are very committed but they’re very personable and caring for other people and can put somebody else ahead of themselves in terms of what they’re doing and what their commitment is”

      All comments from Saban’s NSD press conference.

      ( REPLY )
      • CHB
        February 4th, 2011 - 21:50

        You still have more work to do.

        Notre Dame specifically said “rarely does he mention his player in terms of their character”. What you presented is a moment from a single press conference, which hardly meets the standard for surpassing “rarely”.

        But what’s the point of scoring a point here even if you were able to demonstrate more occurrences? As oversigning goes, the NCAA, the SEC, the national media and the public judge the actions of Nick Saban, and those are what have drawn the first responses from both the SEC and the NCAA. They’re also what caused the not-so-veiled outcry against his practices from numerous coaches on the same day Saban was making those remarks.

        Nick Saban isn’t Satan. I’m sure he brushes his teeth in the morning, hugs his wife, mows his lawn and pays his taxes. But he also runs off under-performing players from his football team. That’s wrong, needs to be stopped, and fortunately, it appears things are strongly trending in that direction. But hey, Nick Saban spoke about character on signing day. You do have that.

        ( REPLY )
        • vesper
          February 4th, 2011 - 21:58

          Here’s the entire transcript: http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/020211aaz.html

          Read it and tell me if you agree with “Notre Dame”‘s comments:

          I just watched Saban’s press conference. Rarely does he mention his player in terms of their character. It’s all about talent, measurables etc…sad.

          How pathetic is it that he admits to that his program is not clean in terms of trying to steal recruits? How embarrassing.

          And the dumb local media just sits their with their eyes glistening

          ( REPLY )
  6. CHB
    February 4th, 2011 - 18:32

    Awesome work by both Tony Gerdeman and Stewart Mandel. Just outstanding!

    It’s yet another turn of the screw for poster child Saban, and all abusive oversigners.

    Sadly, for the “shout the issue down” posse that haunts this website, there’s just no amount of wall of sound or wall of words they can muster to quiet those speaking out against this NCAA-wide disgrace of an issue. Worse, even Nick Saban will know when to cut and run long before the fawning fans and joke journalists in Tuscaloosa understand what’s about to hit them. It’s just too bad he won’t be around long enough to prove he can actually produce a consistent winner without the benefit of erasing all of his recruiting mistakes and augmenting depth through oversigining.

    ( REPLY )
    • Little Joe
      February 4th, 2011 - 20:56

      You seem to have devoted an enormous amount of your time to this, and there is a sort of gleeful tome to what you write. Maybe you could shed some light on why that is. I’d also be curious as to which football program you support. Surely you wouldn’t mind sharing that. And please don’t say it’s immaterial, because it absolutely does matter. Kind of seems fair to keep the air clear in that regard.

      ( REPLY )
      • CHB
        February 4th, 2011 - 21:33

        It’s “immaterial”.

        But if it helps, be assured that if it were a school that abused the practice of oversigning I’d have the good sense to not parade my ill-formed support of it for the world to see on a site such as this. (I mean, are you serious? You actually essentially announce to me your intent to attack the program I support – rather than offering up a legitimate defense of the practice of oversigning?) I’d also have the ethically informed stance to lobby said school to cease and desist – or lose my support.

        ( REPLY )
        • Little Joe
          February 4th, 2011 - 22:47

          Hmmm. I don’t believe I have advocated for, provided ill-informed support for, nor conversely denounced anything. I didn’t announce my plan to attack anything. Perhaps you aren’t an alumnus of one of the schools being attacked on this site, because if you were, then perhaps you would take this noble step you are suggesting you would surely take.

          So if that isn’t the case, why not just come out and say what school you do support? Seems salient. Isn’t a bit of subterfuge to shield that? Seems to me it is.

          ( REPLY )
          • CHB
            February 4th, 2011 - 23:15

            Subterfuge? No, not all.

            The website is Oversigning.com. The issue is the practice of oversigning – and fixing it. As I previously stated, fixing it in one place fixes it in every place – once the NCAA acts on this. It’s not necessary for any person on either side to announce an attachment to any school in order to discuss the issue. It’s not germane in any way to the discussion. For months I’ve discussed the issues involved without ever asking a poster to declare this.

            What’s the point?

            I don’t know your school, wouldn’t ask you, and don’t even care. I’m fully confident that it’s enough to field what you argue about oversigning and go from there. At this point, I have to wonder what you’re about and why you’re here if you’re expressing more of an interest in who someone roots for than what he presents about the issue of oversigning.

            You wrote just above that “it absolutely does matter. Kind of seems fair to keep the air clear in that regard.” Explain that if you will. Because I take the exact opposite position. The facts of the issue are what they are. Would knowing who I root for bolster or diminish a fact that should be considered on its own merit?

            Also:

            Isn’t a bit of subterfuge to shield that?

            What exactly would one be shielding against?

            ( REPLY )
            • Little Joe
              February 5th, 2011 - 07:02

              It’s obvious. If you believe “your” team stands to gain by eliminating oversigning, then it’s pertinent. If any of the reason you are here pounding away at this topic is that you are stumping for your own team, then you can claim all day that it doesn’t matter, but that simply isn’t true. It doesn’t invalidate the argument. I would agree that you can have a righteous POV while still harboring bias. I don’t dispute that. But in the interest of full disclosure, why not simply reveal what the bias is.

              ( REPLY )
              • Rich
                February 5th, 2011 - 09:26

                So, this is what ethics in the US has become: people only advocate for positions that personally benefit them. There is no external standard of what is “right” or “wrong” but only do I benefit. By the way, it is very possible that you have the causality arrows switched. It is entirely plausible that there are individuals who believe that cfb should be part of the general college life and believe that the relentless push by ESPN, CBS, the Big Ten Network to treat cfb as entertainment for the masses and a “business” is a big mistake for the universities, their students and their alums. Thus, people who abhor the litany of practices mentioned under the umbrella “oversigning” could very possibly seek our programs to root for that do not do this stuff.

                In college basketball, would a site like the Institute run by Joe Lapchick that examines AA graduation rates be populated by fans of Cinn or Memphis who urge stiff penalties and moral condemnation against those programs? Or seek to canonize Calipari?

                ( REPLY )
                • Little Joe
                  February 5th, 2011 - 10:25

                  I would grant you that there may be some fringe element that may see things that way, but it would be just that–a fringe group. College football being hugely popular is not a recent phenomenon, but the presentation of it by ESPN has grown astronomically, to be sure. However, I don’t think this is causing any real harm to the kids. The one that go to school to get an education will still do that, regardless of whether Joe Schaap interviews him or not.

                  As to your first point, I don’t think there is any question at all that in the case of this particular advocacy, that personal benefit is at the root of it. Once again, that doesn’t invalidate the premise, but it’s humorous (at a minimum) that the advocates seem to be so resistant to the notion of acknowledging that there is a personal benefit. Arguing to the contrary is quite silly.

                  If I were a kid whose Mom only let me watch PBS while all my friends were watching Cartoon Network or anything else, I could easily imagine that kid supporting a movement to restrict ALL kids from watching anything but PBS, while simultaneously arguing that it was only because it was what was best for them.

                  ( REPLY )
                  • rich
                    February 6th, 2011 - 08:51

                    It really depends on how you define as “personal benefit.” Anti-oversigners, as a group would seem to believe that:
                    1. Oversigning is a practice that significantly contributes to treating cfb as a business and athletes as semi-pro athletes and not as part of a university.
                    2. Oversigning is a practice that skirts around NCAA regulations, and contributes again to a mindset that “can you prove it in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt” is how to run a college experience and not what is honorable.

                    Trying to rein in cfb on this one practice will not end every bad element of cfb. It would definitely help.

                    It is “personal benefit” in the sense that an attempt to fix the oversiging (and abuse of medical redshirts, greyshirts and so on) problem is an expression of personal values.

                    Your argument is the same as when people say that there is no altruism or no charity because the altruistic and the charitable “personally gain” from their activities — and while the cynical sit and do nothing.

                    ( REPLY )
                    • rich
                      February 6th, 2011 - 09:18

                      BTW, in terms of universities and their supporters, you actually have the “personal benefit” issue completely wrong. If cfb was truly a free market where players were paid as much as a university and its alums wished to pay, I think you would be surprised by which schools would benefit. The current situation is heavily tilted towards state schools which draw primarily in-state for their enrollment and their players.

                      If you look at Annual Giving and Endowments (something I know something about), some of the schools that it would be assumed were most against current practices would crush the oversigners.

                      For example, my bet is that Stanford’s Annual campaign generates more money than the combined ENDOWMENT of Alabama, Auburn and MSU. Literally, Stanford could pay 10m per recruit per year from their Annual Campaign. Michigan, Stanford, Duke and ND have endowments that are 10-20 times larger than the schools we talk about on this site.

                      I would love to see Dan Mullen go to the legislature and ask for another 200m in appropriations to compete when the state is cutting everything else or to ask boosters to donate another 200m to a “football-only” MSU fund every year. Forget the internet boasting, good luck on being able to do it.

                    • CHB
                      February 6th, 2011 - 23:22

                      Nicely done.

        • JasonH
          February 10th, 2011 - 09:35

          It is not immaterial. It brings in your entire motivation. I suspect you’re a Big 10 homer, which at least in part motivates you.

          I’ve noticed a lot of Ivory Tower snobbery coming from that area of the country on this site.

          ( REPLY )
  7. BetterRED
    February 4th, 2011 - 21:22

    this article is so hilarious. This is like a CEO not knowing the numbers from the previous year.

    ( REPLY )
  8. Rich
    February 5th, 2011 - 09:47

    I think a very interesting extension of this site would be to explore the following question: is there any proof that competitive success in cfb has raised the general academic reputation of the school involved?

    Or has cfb simply been hijacked by non-alums who view it as entertainment and will switch channels if they don’t like the “production values” of a game?

    For example, Oklahoma and Alabama have been routinely great football programs for five decades: has their academic reputation, which was low in 1960, any higher now? I don’t think so but it would an interesting analysis and part of this discussion.

    ( REPLY )
    • Mike Sanders
      February 5th, 2011 - 10:57

      You have to be careful with that line of inquiry because of the correlation=causation fallacy, since it’s not likely that the ~100 football scholarship athletes’ academics have a great impact on the numbers of a 30,000 strong student body. I see your point about perception, and it’s a fact that schools that go to the Final Four have a huge increase in applications the following year, which lets the school be more selective and therefore improve its reputation. My guess is that except for exceptional cases of institutional cheating (Auburn’s sociology program, SMU’s slush fund for players, etc.), football success has little effect on academic reputation.

      ( REPLY )
      • Rich
        February 5th, 2011 - 11:39

        No, you are correct about the difficulties associated with this line of inquiry for many reasons. Application volume is not a great indicator anymore since more applicants apply to more schools each year. This spike really only helps the mediocre schools with poor selectivity rates. If you are Northwestern or ND and reject 8 or more of every 10 applicants, then receiving more applications is not a big benefit. If you accept 75% of everyone who applies (Oregon or Auburn, for example), then the spike in volume should improve selectivity — which is my point. Oklahoma, for example, has essentially been a power for 60+ years, if their performance on the field raises their selectivity, then after 60 years, shouldn’t this cycle have resulted in a significant improvement in academic reputation? In this regard, Oklahoma and Alabama stand out as test cases. There are others. Isn’t the argument for the emphasis on athletics that it “spills over” to the rest of the universities? It is not $. While recognizing the convoluted nature of university accounting, the marginal 5, 10 or even 20m is a pittance when compared to the operating budgets of most state universities and BCS schools (and there are examples: TCU, Boise, Houston, Memphis, and so on).

        ( REPLY )
  9. Mike Sanders
    February 5th, 2011 - 10:51

    This disinformation by Saban has to stop. If it really takes a FOIA request to get the University of Alabama to disclose last year’s scholarship numbers and it’s permissible under law, I’ll fill one out.

    ( REPLY )
    • HeadScratcher
      February 5th, 2011 - 11:34

      Maybe while you’re at it you can file another one to get access to the kids’ medical records too. I don’t think these kids have a right to have their privacy protected from you. You might also get access to their parents’ financial records or anything else that you happen to be curious about.

      ( REPLY )
      • Mike Sanders
        February 5th, 2011 - 12:13

        Please. You have no understanding of how FOIA works; it only applies to public institutions, and only under certain circumstances. You think I can get access to their medical records or their parents’ financial records? I don’t even know if I can get the University of Alabama to disclose how many football scholarships they awarded last year!

        ( REPLY )
        • HeadScratcher
          February 5th, 2011 - 12:49

          You obviously don’t know how the FOIA or sarcasm works.

          ( REPLY )
          • Mike Sanders
            February 5th, 2011 - 13:14

            As it happens, I understand FOIA decently, and I understood your sarcasm (although since there’s underestimating the intelligence of online Bama fans, you could very well have been serious). You think I’m violating students’ privacy and that I want to get my hands on any personal info that I can. You’re stupid because A. I can’t get an information unless the DOJ has it, approves the application, and sends it to me, and B. I don’t care about the students’ personal info, only the University of Alabama’s.

            ( REPLY )
            • Mike Sanders
              February 5th, 2011 - 13:16

              Ach. A couple of typos: “there’s NO underestimating” and “can’t get ANY information”.

              ( REPLY )
            • Mike Sanders
              February 5th, 2011 - 13:23

              Since the University of Alabama is a state university, it would go to the State of Alabama instead of the DOJ. Finding out the right agency to which the request should be sent is trickier, but shouldn’t be too hard.

              ( REPLY )
              • Mike
                February 6th, 2011 - 00:51

                You send the request directly to the athletic department. The compliance office would normally handle these. You could also send an FOIA to the University of Alabama’s General Counsel. Send it certified mail to ensure its delivery.

                an easier route is just to conduct a historical analysis of everyone on the roster that signed a NLI….they would have to give a GIA to everyone that signed an NLI.

                Note- some players may be on a different type of scholarship after the initial GIA (ie..Academic, etc..)..won’t be many though.

                ( REPLY )
                • Mike Sanders
                  February 6th, 2011 - 06:53

                  Thanks for the advice! I wasn’t aware you could send it directly to the school. I’ll see about certified mail too.

                  The problem with trying to count GIA’s is that Alabama’s football numbers are unreliable due to Saban et al. being deliberately obtuse to obscure the scholarship situation, and surely they’ve failed to renew some players’ scholarships.

                  ( REPLY )
  10. Tim
    February 5th, 2011 - 12:03

    Until the NCAA does something about the myth of oversigning. Coach Saban and the rest of the SEC will continue to out coach everybody on the field and in recruiting. The SEC BCS National Championship streak will continue.

    ( REPLY )
  11. vesper
    February 5th, 2011 - 21:09

    Sanford,

    Again, compare OSU salaries compared to Alabama’s; this is where the real story is. Focus on operating numbers.

    Oh, so money that goes to OSU coaches’ salaries counts in your book, but not money spent on expanding the stadium. Basically, if it makes OSU look good it’s relevant. If it makes OSU look bad, it’s not relevant. Got it. Of course, I could ask how much more Jim Tressel gets paid than say, Jerry Kill, but that would be too easy.

    btw, why does Alabama only have 18 sports? That is sad

    I have no idea. Not sure why you say it’s sad though. What’s your guess as to the average number of sports supported by a mid-size public university? Should all schools be forced to support 38-39 sports because Ohio State chooses to or should each school be allowed to determine the number of sports that best works for them?

    Even though all markets are not the same, all of schools play by the same rules in terms of oversigning. Can your school and conference say the same?

    Yes, they are called NCAA rules.
    As for your SMU example, their recruiting practices were only unethical in as much as they were against the rules. Oversigning is not against the rules and I do not consider it to be an unethical practice (nor is out-spending other teams in my opinion).

    Hiring NFL coaches, oversigning, endless Juco budget, minimal academic requirements, only 18 varsity sports to benefit football…. How many competitive advantages does Alabama need to field a competitive team? How low will this program go?

    Again, you’re proving my point for me. “Competitive advangate” is an ineffective arguement against oversigning. If Vanderbuilt decides to enforce a much higher set of entrance requirements for prospective football players, does it put them at a disadvantage? Absolutley. What is the solution? Force those same entrance requirements across every team in the NCAA?

    ( REPLY )
  12. Sanford
    February 5th, 2011 - 21:31

    I have a Ph.D in Finance and a Master in Public Admin…..it is what I do for a living ..:-)

    This article, which is a few years old, says $16M/yr for Operating, and 17M/yr in (debt and maint), which is close to what the current expenditure on the gov report. I should have bet you!

    No, it is not a statement like you requested, but I think it answers the basic question of what the football operating and debt expenses look like.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-01-04-ohiostate-finances-cover_x.htm

    ( REPLY )
  13. goodonyaa
    February 5th, 2011 - 22:10

    I said it before and I’ll say it again: when Saban is finally prohibited from blatantly oversigning every year, he won’t appear half as smart as he does now. They just signed ANOTHER recruit, a 5-star player out of MD, despite already being WAAAY over his budget of available scholarships. No problem for the folks in Alabama, since counting over 20 is a challenge for them. After all, they only have 10 fingers and 10 toes each. Well, most of them, I think.

    ( REPLY )
    • JasonH
      February 10th, 2011 - 09:36

      You’re deluded and hopeful. And probably basing your opinion on how well Saban did in the NFL.

      News flash, Spurrier sucked in the NFL too.

      ( REPLY )
  14. Mike Sanders
    February 6th, 2011 - 07:04

    IIRC, the main purpose of the 2000 Ohio Stadium project was to “fill in” the southern end of the stadium with seats, which was previously the open end of the Horseshoe, and to improve/expand the press boxes. Neither task is necessary to the maintenance of the stadium, which is probably why it was privately funded and the later project was publicly funded.

    ( REPLY )
  15. Little Joe
    February 6th, 2011 - 13:32

    Also, can someone please direct me to the comment section of Mr. Gerdeman’s article. Please post a link here. I see that it’s on an Ohio State website (big surprise), but I was curious about where one goes to add a comment.

    ( REPLY )

Leave a comment


No trackbacks yet.

« BCS Conference Signings Quick Numbers Comparison B1G and SEC »
Donate with WePay

Against Oversigning

List of Athletic Directors, University Presidents, and Coaches (both current and former) that have stated publicly that they are against oversigning.

Bernie Machen - Florida
Greg McGarity - Georgia
Bobby Dodd - GT (40 years ago)
Jim Tressel - Ohio State
Jay Paterno - Penn State
Kirk Ferentz - Iowa
Tom Osborne - Nebraska
Paul Johnson - GT

In Favor of Oversigning

List of Athletic Directors, University Presidents, and Coaches that have publicly defended their practice of oversigning.

All 12 SEC Coaches voted to keep oversigning, these are the most vocal: Huston Nutt - Ole Miss
Bobby Petrino - Arkansas
Steve Spurrier - South Carolina
Nick Saban - Alabama
Les Miles - LSU
Larry Blakeney - Troy
Tommy Tuberville - Texas Tech

Blogroll

2011 Oversigning Cup

Working on an update to the cup standings using the number of players signed. Time consuming process. Hope to have it finished soon. Until then, take a look at the number of players signed for each BCS conference.

ESPN OTL Oversigning Video

Oversigning.com on Twitter

From People on Twitter

Reader Survey – Vote Today!

Would you like for schools to be required to announce their recruiting budget number and be required to stay within that budget?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Pages

Meta

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Tags