Oversigning.com
6Mar/1167

The Second Worst Article Ever Written on Oversigning

We gave you the first one a while back which came from an Alabama blog, and now we give you exhibit B of what we consider to be some of the worst articles ever written on the topic.  We can only hope that there are SEC fans that are embarrassed by this kind of nonsense.  Perhaps Mike Slive should print it out for the conference meetings, surely he agrees with this blogger's assessment of the oversigning situation.   Allows us to summarize for you:

1. All of this oversigning talk exists because Big 10 fans are sick of the SEC winning.  (Did we miss something, when did Florida and Georgia join the Big 10?)

2. ESPN only broadcasts SEC games and that is another reason people are sick of the SEC. 

3. This is all just anti-SEC sentiment coming from struggling media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal.

4. Jim Delany is owns oversigning.com and is working behind the scenes with the WSJ to attack the SEC.

5. Steve Spurrier is just being gracious and kind in his comments regarding oversigning.

6. The SEC is too rich and powerful to give in to the outcries for change regarding oversigning, plus

7. Mike Slive is too smart to fall for this trap that Jim Delany and the WSJ have devised together.

8. Oversigning is not against the rules.  (Always our favorite argument because it exposes the weakness of the person using it).

9. Adhering to morals doesn't win football games.  (We're sure Mike Slive would be so proud of that statement).

10. It doesn't matter if oversigning is banned, the SEC will still win the NC next year and every year after.

11. Bernie Machen is not to be trusted because he has a Big 10 education with two degrees from Iowa, and

12. The only reason Florida and Georgia are complaining is because they are not winning.

Yes all of that garbage was wrapped up in one spectacularly piss-poor piece of writing by some hack that writes for a South Carolina blog.  We know good people in the state of South Carolina, we're sorry for you and know that you are embarrassed.  We didn't share this to say that this is the mindset of all SEC or South Carolina fans, just to show you that there are some who simply don't get it and unfortunately, they have a blog.  If you need a good laugh, go read the rest of that garbage.

Comments (67) Trackbacks (1)
  1. It’s a helluva thing when one finally reaches the level of consciousness where one is able to view reality from a perspective outside of their own. Maybe one day they’ll get there.

  2. Not surprising that there’s no merit in what you’ve extracted from that blog article, as it’s clearly the kind of visceral ranting that comes from someone saying anything to protect their threatened “good” thing they’ve got going with oversigning.

    What is surprising are the volumes of posts that appear here from that core group of defenders which appear to be the very best reasoned efforts that such defenders of oversigning can muster – but which generally only dress up some of the same points we get from that same blog article (numerous examples to follow shortly in this thread). Still, they argue these points with such zeal and repetitiveness one has to wonder exactly what’s behind it all.

    Honestly, I’m not at all certain that I could distinguish between what the comments section of this website looks like now and what it would look like if the Alabama and SEC athletics departments put out a call to arms to a network of its current and former student managers to get over to oversigning.com and defend the school at all costs – something like, “it doesn’t matter what you say – say anything – but challenge everything! Day is night, up is down, bad is good. Just shout that anti-oversigning message down!”

    That would explain a lot…

  3. As bad as the article is, it’s hard to get worked up about it. It’s a team blog on scout.com. With one or two exceptions, they’re all terrible; bad journalism is what they do.

    Thankfully, that particular blog has no influence. The bigger blogs (generally those on SB Nation), beat writers for the biggest paper in every oversigning team’s state, and school presidents are those who need to be convinced to take action. This idiot can just be ignored.

    • Well said. Seems a little unfair that Josh picks such a weak example of oversigning defense to discuss. I suggest that he find more credible or at least better written defenses of oversigning to discuss. Of course, honest and fair debate are not the main goal of this site.

      • That’s not quite the point I was making. It’s annoying to read, for sure, and it’s worth using as an example to other South Carolina fans. If Joshua wants to write about it, there are no qualms here.

        Different people are approaching this oversigning thing in different ways. Texas Dawg blasts oversigning apologists, I’m trying to build accord and consensus against oversigning among the neutral & undecided, and Joshua keeps the stats (among other things). This is no longer a place for discussing whether oversigning is bad or not, or whether nor not it should be prohibited: we passed that point months ago.

        • I do think some people here have become more polarizing than they realize. Effective persuasion should still adhere to a set of ethical standards, just as effective coaching should adhere to a set of ethical standards. Our political system right now encourages an “ends justifying the means” approach to persuasion, and I see that standard seeping into so many other aspects of our culture. To be quite honest, it bothers me to see it in college football. I’ve never seen such people with the same basic similar passion for a sport so divided.

          I wish people on both sides of this debate would resist the temptation to paint the other side as “stupid” or “immoral,” just because they have a different perspective. I am not advocating equivalency. Just respect, no matter how provoked you might feel. And honestly, posts like this turn me away. My 2 cents, which is probably worth far less than that.

          • I haven’t called anyone stupid or immoral. I’ve called oversigning immoral and unethical. Because it is.

            • You routinely call other posters “liars” and “unethical” here. Or “spectacularly dishonest.” Fine – it’s the way you feel. Either stand by it or apologize for it. But don’t pretend it doesn’t happen.

              • That’s a different subject. That’s dealing with people here who have repeatedly lied about numerous things. Yes, Catch 5 is a liar. Not because he supports oversigning… but because he is a liar.

                • “I haven’t called anyone stupid or immoral.”

                  Then perhaps you should have added, “that I didn’t feel deserved it.” Because your original statement, as constituted, is a lie, unethical, or spectacularly dishonest.

                  • What I should have added was that I haven’t called anyone that simply for supporting oversigning.

                    I have called people here that when they repeatedly lie. And I’m OK with that.

                • Just one, Tdawg. Just one example and I’ll leave you alone. Till then, you have been shown as someone without an effective argument who makes up what he can’t defend.

                  • You’ve been given numerous examples.

                    • Now that is a lie. You have repeadly called me a liar without one real example. You once pointed out that my opion was a lie because you think I don’t actually believe my own opinion. The only other instance you have attempted to provide is when I say that Saban has been proven time and again that his recruits are aware of the grayshirt need as part of their scholarship offer. The problem with that is that I have facts on my side (several players have been quoted saying just that) and you have nothing.

      • As if this blog is here to entertain your professed desire to engage in “honest and fair debate”. It’s not.

        This website is a positional blog advancing in no uncertain terms a well-considered, reasonable and impassioned stance against a harmful practice. If you want debate playtime – as a broad sampling of your posts clearly suggests – then you should look elsewhere. Perhaps find a debate organization that will better suit your needs.

        Just be clear that playing the resident contrarian here for your own personal entertainment affords you no grounds to criticize which topics Josh chooses to comment about for the purpose of advancing the anti-oversigning cause. And to be sure, it’s a weak criticism you offer, since this site’s record is that it doesn’t duck challenges, so if you can find “more credible or at least better written defenses of oversigning to discuss” then do so. Being the honest and fair debater that you are, I’m certain you’ll first evaluate them for their honesty and fairness before posting.

        • CHB, this isn’t about a debate society. If you think this sort of “edginess” and abrasiveness sways people, have at it. But you have to differentiate between attracting the like-minded and swaying the undecided. Those are two very different things.

          I’ve seen reasonable posts by administrators on both the Alabama and South Carolina website that admit to some of the very problems Joshua wants to address. The South Carolina site essentially agrees with the broad notion that “something must be done” about oversigning in the wake of the Maulder story.

          If Josh can find these blog posts, I am d*** sure he found those, which help his cause infinitely more than this stuff. What’s the point of this particular post, other than, “Boy, those people sure are stupid?”

          Tactics matter. If you disagree, fine, but the sarcasm I see in yours and TD’s posts strongly suggests that both of you don’t want fellow supporters, just followers: “We make the definitions, we propose the solutions, and if you don’t like it, then blow off.”

          Nice attitude.

          • I make no apologies for my “attitude”.

            If you want to call it edgy and abrasive, I don’t even think I’ll quarrel with that, since it’s a direct product of an endless stream of often-times inane posts in defense of oversigning – coupled with as many posts that seek to parse every blog entry the blog owner posts with little apparent benefit to the goal of advancing the specific thrust to end the practice of oversigning and all its abuses.

            Again, this blog takes a strong, well-considered and reasonable position against oversigning, and as such, presents its material in the manner of an exposé. It’s the site owners blog, his campaign, and he gets to establish his target audience and how he’d best like to reach and influence them.

            The oversigning issue isn’t at all as complex as a number of you seem to want to make it – particularly those of you who present yourselves as fact-finding, neutral observers (but who ultimately exhibit a clear lean in defense of the practice). Too many of your efforts to engage in “honest and fair debate” really smack of an attempt to “slow the roll” of this site’s efforts.

            I strongly suspect that even a blanket stipulation to all tangential, off-topic, and insignificant contentions made by this group that I speak of wouldn’t quiet them, since that’s not what the agenda is.

            As well, you are correct – this isn’t about a debate society, and the blog wasn’t established to entertain those who to want to engage in debate. I’m not even certain that there’s a large degree of concern with consensus building and mind changing. As I see it, any reasonable man who’s spent the amount of time at this site that a number of you have, and who doesn’t yet “get it”, really is attempting to shield ulterior motives in prolonging the “debate”.

            Which really isn’t such a “nice attitude”.

            • Ah. I get it. We’re all a conspiracy to dull the sharp edge of advocacy. To “slow the roll” towards the day when the Big 10 Rule restores honor and dignity to all of college football.

              Iowa seems to lose more players than Alabama, though I am still working on that. I am not convinced the Big 10 Rule solves anything. I’m advocating something stronger. To that extent, I’m trying roll things further and faster – but it’s not “your way,” so you assume that makes it a defense of oversigning or some sort of “oversigning defender conspiracy.” Which is sort of weird.

              • Plus it’s a comments section, for Heaven’s sake.

              • Yes, that’s pretty much what you do In the Middle. You pretend to be neutral, but you very strongly support the status quo by opposing rules that very clearly prevent oversigning.

            • As I see it, any reasonable man who’s spent the amount of time at this site that a number of you have, and who doesn’t yet “get it”, really is attempting to shield ulterior motives in prolonging the “debate”.

              Which really isn’t such a “nice attitude”.

              Very well put and very true.

              In the Middle pretends he takes some noble middle ground and that the issue is just so gray.

              He doesn’t, and it isn’t.

              • CHB and TD: Parse this one for me:

                “As I see it, any reasonable man who’s spent the amount of time at this site that a number of you have, and who doesn’t yet ‘get it’…”

                In other words, anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe, exactly as you believe it, must be The Enemy. Thanks for proving my point.

                I see no difference whatsoever between you guys and the posters Joshua mocks above, just as I see no difference between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. Same tactics and ideological blindness, just from opposite points of view.

                I think running kids away from programs stinks. I think pulling a kid out of a dorm, like Elliot Porter, should carry a punishment so steep a coach wouldn’t do it for the next coming of Jerry Rice. You’re convinced the Big 10 Rule stops those abuses – I see some compelling evidence that it just moves things around. That’s the main part I’m not sold on yet. I also find some things here deliberately provocative for no good reason, but that’s a style issue, and I keep it in that domain. I’ve never connected the legitimacy of the issue of oversigning to those style issues.

                I’m not asking for your understanding, acceptance, or even acknowledgment. Both of you are beyond agreeing with anyone outside your inner circle who doesn’t just say, “Amen.”

                I’ve studied a lot of social movements, and the ones that tried to tie the hands of the “wrong-doers” usually fail in the end. Oh, they get rules passed. But then they find themselves climbing the same mountain all over again. The movements that empower the ones wronged usually work. It’s that simple for me.

                You see an SEC problem. I see a CFB problem. If that offends your sensibilities, so be it.

                • “Inner circle.”

                  Cute.

                  Very few schools oversign and numerous officials at top universities have explained why: because they recognize that it is unethical.

                  Keep kidding yourself about being “in the middle” though.

                  • I’m in the middle on the issue of solutions. Not the issue of TD. You’re not the same thing, you know.

  4. Agreed. Bad article. Bad writing, and horrible arguments filled with black helicopters and conspiricy theories. In all his drivel, however there are two points the author makes that I would like to see addressed. Josh takes the majority of this article on in his blog, but doesn’t bring these two up so maybe some of the commentors will.

    1.

    With each story on over-signing that appears in the national media, consider this: Would over-signing be such a controversial topic if the SEC hadn’t won the last five BCS national championships in football?

    This is a good question to answer honestly. Josh himself has admitted the reason he made this site is because he got tired of putting up with bragadosious (sp) Bama fans (correct me if I’m wrong on that – this has been stated several times on this site and never denied).

    2.

    We even have one high school coach in Florida now insisting Gamecock coaches aren’t welcome at his school. OK, what happens if one of his players expresses an interest in playing for USC? Is the coach going to tell him that he can’t do that?

    Not to rehash the Spurrior overcommitment thing again, but this brings up a good question. USC should take a hit on the recruiting trail for this, but if a kid wants to go there to what extent will these high school coaches go to to change his mind? Is this a good thing? The argument that many have posted here against signing kids that won’t qualify, and placing them in JuCo is that the recruit is then funneled back to the school, and they are being kept from seeking other schools by that JuCo coach. Is this not the same thing? I’m not really posting an opinion on this, just posing the question.

    Other than these two points, there is little redeemable quality in this article.

    • 1. Being surrounded by annoying Bama fans might have been the reason he started this site, but there is a big difference between the reason somebody takes a stance on an issue and the motivation to be outspoken about the issue. Personally, as an Ohio State fan, I have no doubt that all of the SEC back-patting and the “OSU can’t beat the SEC!” meme that were around in 2009-2010 are part of the reason why I’m posting about oversigning today. I was against it before encountering this site, though, and I bet he was too.

      2. If a coach doesn’t want a program’s coaches coming to his school, he can and should keep the program’s coaches from his school and should discourage the recruit from signing with them, but that’s about it.

      The Juco funneling is different in that recruits still feel committed to that school they signed with. If Arkansas sends 4 recruits to a junior college, all of whom pledge to join the Arkansas team after a year, Arkansas is basically functioning with 89 scholarships, 4 of whom don’t count and are getting seasoning in the “minor leagues”. That subverts the scholarship limit and gives them an unfair competitive advantage.

      Thanks for the questions.

    • Case in point apropos my earlier reply – why even post these questions? None of this impacts the validity of any of the arguments this site makes against the practice of oversigning. The answers make no difference. It’s just talk and “debate” for a self-serving purpose. Fascinating how some have chosen to use this site…

      • The same could be said for the ones who claim they are against oversigning for the unethical practices they feel are taking place, but in truth when their post are read they only use this site to attack the SEC, UA, or Saban. Sorry what value does it bring to the site? Which is worse, using the site to defend the practice by some or using the site to attack by pretending to be concerned with oversigning?

        See the difference here is the site promotes the personal attacks because it creates an avenue for those posters. Even though their true intentions have no concern for oversigning they can hide behind it when they post and it draws more posters that seem to support the site. So as you put it this for most of the anti-signing crowd is just self-serving and why they chose this site. They campaign to end oversigning because they feel it will better position their team in the future.

        • Did you hit Franklin Street after the game?

          • No, not with 2 small children with us. Plus had to get up the next morning early to meet do so more house hunting. I fear my late nights on Franklin are behind me.

        • “they only use this site to attack the SEC, UA, or Saban”.

          You’ll notice, of course, that this post is a Fisk of a patently ridiculous article and that there are no shots taken at South Carolina, the SEC, Saban, Alabama, or Mike Slive. You’ll see what you want to see.

      • By all means, then CHB, let’s just adopt the B10 rule because some guy on the internet named Joshua says we need to. Let’s not ask questions. Let’s certainly not question the motives of people wanting change, and let’s not look for the positives in the current set-up and try to find solutions that keep those positives while trying to eliminate the negatives. No, no, let’s just run with the first solution that comes along and not search for a better solution.

        When I say “honest and fair debate” I mean that as an avenue to pursue a reasonable solution to the stated problem. The only people who should be against such discussion are the ones with an agenda bent on somehting that is either not honest or fair. If a good, open discussion could be had, a good solution might just come out of it – something much better than “adopt the B10 rule”.

  5. What is the big deal with the juco “sign and place” players. I’m not sure what the disagreement with this practice is. I can understand if you sign 30 a year and send 4 or 5 to JUCO. But what is the argument against allowing a player to sign a NLI and show support for him and keep that relationship with that kid open. It is about the kid being affected and not sour grapes am I correct. As a new reader of this site I might have missed something on an earlier blog post, so if this has been covered, a link would be appriciated.

    • For my part, it seems something of a charade. If both the coach and the kid know he won’t qualify – and believe me, they know by that point – why sign an LOI for a school he won’t be attending next fall? A kid’s loyalty should be to his own future, not a school that allowed him to sign a document both knew would end up in the trash a month later.

      I think it’s fine for coaches to tell a kid that “X” school’s academics and position coaches work well with State U, if he wants to try to come back after a couple of years. I don’t even have a problem recruiting these kids, to the extent it gives 18 year olds a tangible goal to work towards, which can be a very good thing if done correctly. But signing the LOI to foster a sense of loyalty? That’s part of a coach’s “success” agenda, not the kid’s.

      • It’s also a way of operating in excess of 85 scholarships. Kids who sign with a school and go to JUCO often have wink wink, nudge nudge deals with the coach that signed them about coming back and stay loyal to them. If Ole Miss is using up 85 scholarships but 4 more players who feel committed to Houston Nutt are developing skills at a junior college at the same time, Ole Miss is in essence working with 89 scholarship players.

        • That one’s a bridge too far for me. Big 10 schools have plenty of kids in the junior college ranks who dream of playing for Penn State or Purdue.

          Eliminate the charade, however, and it solves your complaint as well.

          • There are recruits who favor the schools that recruited them, but the difference between Ole Miss and Penn State is that Ole Miss signs & places multiple athletes every year. The circumstances show the intent, I think, and Ole Miss’s intent to work above the “salary cap”.

            Regardless, I agree with you on ending the charade solving this particular problem.

            • I’m an auburn fan, and tuberville used to do that garbage. Five or six to JUCO every year. I still don’t have a problem with a player signing a useless NLI if it’s what gets him to crack down and get his head in the books like it belongs.

  6. While I do think that winning brings a certain level of scrutiny to a program/conference (I have seen it first hand being a Nebraska fan the endless stories in the 90′s about Tom Osborne running a “dirty program” because of Lawrence Phillips). It is laughable that the B1G Ten would be behind this media barage. Sure the B1G Ten wants to win just as much as the other conferences, but having 5 of its universities in the top 50 of US colleges is far more important to the B1G Ten. The B1G Ten has always put a premium on its academic integrity, something the SEC lacks. We get it, the south is good at football, what we snow birds also understand is that 1/10th of 1% of college football players have a career in the NFL. Holding a degree from Northwestern or Michigan or Vanderbilt for that matter is a lot better than being on the team at Alabama.

  7. This is my favorite from the above quotes. “The SEC is too rich and powerful to give in to the outcries for change regarding oversigning.”

    Typical SEC arrogance.

  8. Please, no offense intended, it’s a blog.

  9. good thing Tressel is such a stand up guy… I hate the Big-Ten and all you guys stand for.

    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ys-osuprobe030711

    • It’s never a good thing when you have Yahoo journalists on your campus. Just ask USC. Judging by the last couple of paragraphs, I’d guess they’ll be looking into Pryor’s loner cars next.

      • Unfortunately, they have already looked into Pryor’s cars. Without the power of the subpoena, plausible deniability is the catch phrase of the day.

    • IMHO, JT has run a dirty program since Youngstown State. Your attempt to change the subject is FAIL.

      • yeah, well, most big-ten homers would rather throw stones at the other confs than talk about their own dirty laundry.

        • No, most big-ten homers, as you call them, will call out bad acts and bad actors regardless where they reside. OSU fans tend to be the exception to the rule as they have built such a monument to JT, they can’t see the forest for the trees.

          Hoever, most SEC fans will defend all SEC teams against outsiders. Probably has something to do with that 150 year old inferiority complex.

          • I’m an OSU fan, and if these allegations are true, he should be fired. The mainstream OSU blogs (Eleven Warriors, Along the Olentangy, Bucknuts, The OZone, The Buckeye Battle Cry) are saying we should wait and see how the investigations play out, which is the proper perspective, IMO.

  10. 0-10* (*beat a lowly Arkansas team who had an alleged drug abusing quarterback and 21 other guys on the field)

  11. I’m pretty sure they would vacate wins, which would make Ohio State 0-9*.

    • The larger issue for Tressel becomes (A) whether or not he represented to the NCAA that he did not know anything about this prior the Dec. 8 notification from the Feds, and (B) how much credibility the NCAA assigns to the claims that he was notified in April. IF he was interviewed or submitted a formal declaration to the NCAA through the compliance office claiming he did not know and IF the NCAA believes the party (or parties), then he lied to the NCAA. NOTE THE TWO IFS.

      The thing that puzzles me — clearly, the person claiming to have notified him in April had some sort of access to Tressel, making that person something of an insider. I still can’t quite make out from the original Yahoo report whether that person talked to the Feds, who then leaked it to Yahoo, or if the person talked directly to Yahoo. If it’s the latter, that perhaps suggests someone with an axe to grind – which does not necessarily mean they are making it up. Ultimately, it all boils down to what sort of corroboration they can bring to the table, doesn’t it?

      • FWIW, his APR has been excellent, and he seems to retain a high number of his kids. He does get a lot of things right.

        • IF the allegation is true, I think we may see Jim Tressel go ahead and confess publicly a la Bruce Pearl. He would already have two strikes against him – not reporting in April and not coming clean in December. Why risk a third strike in hopes that the source can’t provide corroboration? If he were to come clean now, Tressel would at least be able to hold on to a shred of the integrity for which he had previously been known and would probably be allowed to stay on as head coach at Ohio State. If he gambles and loses, then he’d be done as the coach of a major program IMO. Plus, if you force the NCAA’s hand and they have to investigate, who knows what other things they might turn up during the course of the investigation? There have been rumors that Buckeye football players have been getting discounted tattoos since 2001. It’s just not worth if for Tressel or the program to fight it if it’s true IMO.

      • I doesn’t matter if he lied or not. If he was aware of violations it is his duty to declare the players ineligable, and report them to the NCAA. If he did not do this, and he knew then he still violated the rules – albeit it would certainly be worse had he lied to the NCAA.

        • Absolutely right.

        • I agree that the failure to report’s the larger ethical breach – but we’re dealing with the NCAA here. They’ve walked away from other coaches and programs with clean prior records and been total sticklers with repeat offenders. You see fans comparing their penalties to that program’s all the time and complaining about inconsistency and corruption. I think it’s more a matter of the COI trying to make distinctions between someone who made one mistake and a program intent on circumventing rules.

          For example, Sampson got hit with a show-cause, effectively knocking him out of college coaching, while Indiana’s basketball program got a “they’ve suffered enough” level of sanctions. I think someone from the NCAA actually used that phrase to describe them.

          So — if Tressel misled investigators in December, then it does change things considerably with the NCAA, IMO.

          But again, I agree with your basic point. This begins and end with the alleged failure to disclose.

  12. Elephant Man: I don’t know where Josh and some of the others live, but if they want a home, a natural place is San Francisco, CA. They’d be right at home among the smug, arrogant folks who live in the city by the bay. Having lived in SF for several years, I know the type: absoulutely certain of the moral rightness of their cause, a determination to impose self-devised standards on others, and an overblown concern for individuals who are deemed to be victims.

  13. Oversiging, then yanking the rug from under a kid’s feet is odiuos and anybody that wants to claim it is not unethical should look up the very idea of ethical treatment of one’s fellow human beings. The practice is also, clearly, exploitive and, well, just creepy. That’s why creeps like Spurrier, Saban, and Les Miles have no problem with it.

  14. 78Lion: Not really. I’ve met folks from BJU. They are very strict about following written rules revealed by Another and wouldn’t dream of making up any of their own.


Leave a comment