Oversigning.com
6Mar/1116

More on NCAA Football Issues Committee Monitoring Oversigning

We posted a quick link on this earlier in the week but would like to drill into it a little more here.  In the discussions lately in the comments section, there have been a few readers that have made the point that eliminating oversigning will only lead to abuses to players further upstream, meaning that instead of cutting players after signing day players would be cut in December and January.   It appears the NCAA is thinking along the same lines, which to be honest is very troubling because in order to subscribe to the notion that a rules change would only result in abuse further upstream you have to accept that player abuse is currently taking place with the use of oversigning, something many of you who have tried to defend oversigning have denied. 

Because the effect of the new rule may not be apparent immediately, the Football Issues Committee decided to remain diligent about monitoring it.

“This rule has only been in effect for one year, and we want to take some time to see if that’s the perfect number,” said committee chair Nick Carparelli. “Certainly, the committee will continue to monitor it, and we can re-evaluate to see if there is a more appropriate number if necessary.”

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/march/football+issues+committee+to+monitor+oversigning

The rule change that they are monitoring, in case you are unaware, is the recent additions of 13.9.2.3 and 15.5.1.1 from proposal 2009-48 which only limit the number of NLI's to 28 between NSD and May 31st.  Rules that Andy Staples said were not worth the paper they were written on.

We don't believe this is about finding the right number.  This is about a shift in the cultural mindset of the schools that abuse oversigning the most.  As we have mentioned a few times, the Big 10 Conference established its rules on oversigning back in the 1950's and it is our belief that over time the mindset of the member institutions has been shaped by those rules resulting in oversigning not being an issue in that conference.  As you can see by analyzing the numbers, the type of attrition that many think will be moved upstream by today's oversigners, such as this example from Huston Nutt, is not an issue in the Big 10; if it were you would see that the Big 10 would have a much higher number of players signed each year, and yet, of all the BCS schools the Big 10 ranks last in the average number of players signed.

So what is the solution?  Leadership.  When the SEC university presidents meet in June for their annual conference meetings, they absolutely must demand that their athletic departments stop oversigning and they must create a culture that does not accept the kind of roster attrition we see from the oversigning schools.  Maybe they find that in a number or in a set of rules, or maybe they find that by hiring coaches that are more known for their ethical treatment of players and ability to develop them instead of their ability to recruit or find loopholes in the NCAA by-laws. 

Grayshirting

Another area covered in the NCAA press release was the practice of grayshirting, which the NCAA is also going to start monitoring.  This too has become a controversial topic with Florida's President calling it morally reprehensible.

Susan Peal, who administers the National Letter of Intent program, said the Collegiate Commissioners Association (the program’s governing body) doesn’t support grayshirting. The program has a policy that nullifies the National Letter of Intent if an institution or coach asks the student-athlete to grayshirt. However, if a student-athlete decides to delay enrollment, the national letter remains valid. Determining the instigator of the decision can be difficult.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/march/football+issues+committee+to+monitor+oversigning

According to the press release, Susan Peal appears to agree with Florida's president, and although she doesn't call it morally reprehensible, it is clear that she does not support grayshirting due to the fact that it can nullify the NLI.  One area where this is a concern is that some coaches are purposely oversigning and telling many of the kids they recruit that there is a possibility that they MIGHT have to take a grayshirt if the numbers don't work out.  As August rolls around and the numbers begin to shake out, the coaches that have oversigned and told recruits that they MIGHT have to take a grayshirt can play their ace in the hole and attempt to avoid public backlash by stating that they told the recruit up front that a grayshirt might be POSSIBLE.  Our question is, did they also tell them that they are offering something that the NLI program does not support because of the risk it poses to the recruit or are they telling them that grayshirting is normal and there is nothing to worry about?  Based on the comments of the players and parents that have found themselves in a grayshirt situation it is clear that everyone is not on the same page.

Our position is that we are against coaches telling a handful of recruits that they MIGHT have to grayshirt if the numbers don't work out and we are against coaches oversigning knowing they have a handful of players they can push back if they need to via the grayshirt.  Grayshirt offers should only come after a school has filled all of their available openings, it should be petitioned for with transparency at the conference or NCAA level, and there should be something in writing that guarantees the recruit that they will have spot in the following class.  Grayshirt offers, if any, should be the last offers given out because all of the current openings in the class are taken.  It is unethical to go around giving out offers that come with a grayshirt clause.  NLI doesn't support the grayshirt practice and recruits that are being told by a football coach that they MIGHT have to take a greyshirt should be very cautious when considering that kind of offer.  Hopefully we will see some reform here and the grayshirt process with either go away or become heavily regulated.  We would hate to throw the baby out with the bath water just because you have a handful of coaches out there offering kids conditional grayshirt offers simply to keep them away from other schools.

Filed under: NCAA Leave a comment
Comments (16) Trackbacks (0)
  1. Just out of curiosity, I compared Iowa’s list of signing commitments 2002 to 2010 (Rivals) to published rosters (scout.com) over the same period. Ferentz averages 22 players signed a year. He also seems to lose an average of 9 of those players prior to their senior year. So, on average, Iowa signs 22 a year, or 88 over 4 years. But Iowa on average loses 9 players per class, or 36 over 4 years. That’s a net deficit of 33 GIAs UNDER the NCAA maximum. I double checked, because those numbers seem impossible. I checked at least two rosters for each “missing” player to make sure I was catching as many red shirts as possible. In other words, I may have missed an important detail in my count, and I am sure I probably missed a player or two.

    But assuming I haven’t missed something obvious — 33 GIAs? Let’s assume I missed 10 kids somehow. That’s still 23 missing GIAs – a full signing class.

    Clearly, Iowa fills those GIAs somehow. Walk-ons? Junior college transfers? What am I missing?

    • We’ll see if this posts correctly as a crude table. If not – my apologies.

      Iowa
      Year Signed Attrition Finish Line
      2002 22 12 10
      2003 22 10 12
      2004 21 6 15
      2005 23 11 12
      2006 21 7 14
      2007 22 8 14

      2008-11 26 12 14
      2009-12 19 6 13
      2010-13 22 3 19

      Full 4 years (6 classes 2002 to 2007): 131 signed. 54 lost, 77 retained. 41% loss
      All 9 classes: 198 signed. 75 lost to date, 123 retained to date. 38% loss.

      NOTE: Retention = the number of kids signed who made it to a final year of eligibility. This metric does not count whether they completed it or not.

      Help me out here, guys.

      And I am not shooting for “two wrongs make a right” here. I just want to understand how the Big 10 Rule works in a situation like this, since it’s the proposed solution. We were talking “upstream” effects in the prior thread, and that started this inquiry.

      And finally, if this doesn’t really interest anyone… you’re welcome to discuss Carolina-Duke last night.

    • Robinson is an example of a walk on that received scholarship. Leading rusher last year, but unfortunately couldn’t keep it. Has been kicked off the team.

      • Gracious. How many RBs is that since Green left?

        • They played their bowl game with one, a true frosh, on the team outside of practice team players. They have been hit with a bunch of suspensions, injuries and one who couldn’t keep it in his pants. Yet, poser on this site claims it’s roster management.

          • I didn’t say it was roster management. I said it bears a suspicious resemblance. You and Red read far more insidious motives into far lesser circumstances than 13 kids in a hospital. If that happened at Alabama or Ole Miss, you would be calling for executions. Big 10 school? Hey, stuff happens.

            You and Red seemed so convinced, so I did some research to prove myself wrong. Now I have some numbers that make no sense. I’ve sent them to a couple of CFB blog administrators outside both the SEC and Big 10 to see what I missed – two schools well outside this debate. I posted them here to see if anyone had an idea.

            As for the “poser” comment – If it makes you feel better to think of me as some sort of oversigning spy, then I’m glad I at least made your day a little brighter.

            Were you on the 1978 team? Or a member of the 1978 class?

            • Poser is inability to edit fat finger typing. Maybe Freudian, but still a typo.

              I believe something is fishy around 13 kids in the hospital. Reading is fundamental.

              No and yes, different sport.

              • Sorry – amazing how 1 little letter changes everything. Maybe I’ll use this in one of my tutoring sessions.

                Didn’t happen to know a Greg Fishel at PSU did you? He was class of 78 as well, I believe.

                • Can’t say I did. Did a google on him. Meteorology major from one, if not the best, programs in the country. From the reference and user name – a resident of NC?


Leave a comment


No trackbacks yet.