Oversigning.com
21Mar/11127

Lorenzo Mauldin Signs with Louisville

Lorenzo Mauldin, former South Carolina commitment, signed a LOI with Louisville today.  Chip Towers, who has been doing a great job covering the oversigning topic lately, has more on the details of Mauldin's story, which is a remarkable one.  Here are a few quotes from Chip's piece that are very disturbing:

Since he already had a signing ceremony planned, Mauldin went through the motions on Feb. 2. He signed a fake LOI and put on a South Carolina cap for cameras at his school. The Gamecocks went on to sign 32 other players to national letters, including the nation’s No. 1 recruit, Jadeveon Clowney, who did not sign until Feb. 14.

Sure wish Chip Towers could ask the South Carolina coaching staff if their bonuses are based on recruiting rankings on the Rivals and Scout sites and whether or not those bonuses are prorated to account for the signing of a fake letter of intent.

 “I don’t believe they thought I would make the [qualifying test] score. It kind of made me feel like they were wishing for me to not make the score."

“The way South Carolina did me was not an ideal situation because I didn’t expect it to happen. But it did, so when it came down to it, I just took it as another trial in life and decided to overcome it. So I went on some visits to see what other teams had to offer and I liked Louisville.”

Mauldin said he did not inform South Carolina of his decision and hasn’t spoke with its coaches for a while.

“I’m sure they found out through media,” he said. “They still haven’t contacted me and I haven’t made an effort to contact them either. Once again, I felt like there was some favoritism going on there. I kind of gave up on that situation.”

http://blogs.ajc.com/recruiting/2011/03/21/lorenzo-mauldin-signs-with-louisville-puts-s-carolina-behind-him/?cxntfid=blogs_recruiting

Here's hoping Lorenzo realizes that there is more to college than football and that he makes the most of his opportunities at Louisville.  For a kid who has been through as much as he has hopefully the stability of knowing where he will be for the next 4-5 years will help him make the most of this opportunity.  Hat's off to Charlie Strong and Louisville for being straight with the kid instead of jerking him around like South Carolina.

Comments (127) Trackbacks (1)
  1. If you want to maintain the focus of this sight on oversigning as you claim, why do you keep talking about a case that had nothing to do with oversigning? It appears that South Carolina did jerk him around and that is objectionable, but I’ll point out the obvious once again – South Caroina did not sign Lorenzo Mauldin . South Carolina accepted more verbal commitments than they could sign; that was the issue, not oversigning. Also, I don’t think there is a rule on the books of any conference that would have prevented this from happening.

    • Good points Vesper. And here we are, two months removed and still no story on Ohio State oversigning or cutting a 3rd string O-lineman to make the numbers better. No, there’s no bias against the SEC here.

    • Carolina kept accepting commitments and offering scholarships well after the reached the permitted number. It’s a blatant case of premeditated shenanigans with the only variables being how the were going to mess around with these kids future.
      Catch 5 mentions OSU cutting a lineman. Please provide a link to that. I read that there was a guy leaving, but no mention of him being booted out. I see they are a +2 in the cup, so it makes sense, but like I said, I only saw where he was transferring.
      I’m still looking as to when the Trojans are going to actually have to have only 75 kids on scholarship. Looks like Mr. Kiffen took the SEC’s accounting rules West with him. What’s going to happen to these extra kids when the NCAA “makes this right”?

      • I use the term “cut” here the same way that this site uses it in its repeated accusations of forced attrition at Alabama. Noone has had their scholarship simply dropped for no reason, yet Joshua often uses the “cut” term when discussing Bama’s attrition – his reasoning is that since they are oversigned, it must be cuts (Josh, feel free to correct me if I am mischaracterizing you here – not my intent to do so). I have brought up Mr Longo on several occasions because OSU has done the same thing with him that Josh criticizes SEC teams (notably Bama) of doing, yet we hear nothing about it on the main page. I have said on several occasions that I don’t actually accuse OSU of any wrongdoing here just as I don’t with Alabama when a 3rd string QB transfers to Ga State. I do this mostly to see where the B10 fans – who are so quick to criticize the SEC – truly stand when their flagship program does the same thing. So far, little more than crickets.

        As for a link, it appears that you have looked it up yourself and have read the story, but here is what I have referenced in other threads:
        http://www.cleveland.com/buckeyeblog/index.ssf/2011/01/ohio_state_second-year_backup.html

        In particular, note the following:

        Ohio State has 21 oral commitments for the Class of 2011, with National Signing Day less than two weeks away, and the Buckeyes have several other recruits they are interested in. The scholarship numbers, limited to 85, are getting a little tight, so some movement with players who aren’t in the two deep is not unexpected.

        Kinda hard to read that and not get the word “cut” out of it.

        One other thing that I find interesting. When I read stories of SEC players transfering, it always tells where the player is going. I postulate that these schools assist their players in finding a school that fits the kid’s needs (educational, location, needed position on the team, etc). None of the articles that I have read about Mr Longo have said where he intends to go. In fact, one said that he was unsure. This may be a result of the earlier transfer when compared to Bama’s, but it doesn’t look good to me.

        • Thanks for the link. That’s the article that I read. I understand your use of the word cut, but I don’t get that feeling with Longo. OSU needs lineman, so keeping him even for practice squad purposes would seem more likely. As far as the third string QB is concerned, he was from GA in the first place, and I just assumed that he saw the writing on the wall when OSU signed Pryor. To me, it’s the same as when Flacco left Pitt or any other kid sees too much competition and goes to where he sees a better chance. It sucks for the kids that they have to sit while the coaches are free to bolt when they feel compelled to. Henton has since left his new school (which was announced), but I never saw where to or why other than speculation that since he was not the starter there either…

          • Cman, you’re making my point for me. When OSU has players transfer, it is for legitimate reasons (per this site’s standards) but when Bama has a similar transfer, he is cut because they are oversigned. Now that OSU is oversigned and a player transfers just before the deadline, no questions are raised. It is a double standard here, plain and simple. Bama has had several players transfer at needed positions (CB and safety) but that hasn’t kept Joshua from insinuating they were cut. BTW, the 3rd string QB I was refering to is Star Jackson, Bama’s player who transfered for playing time but got a lot of press here.

            Also, who announces that they are transferring without knowing where they are going? Why would they leave a guaranteed scholarship at a great school without a similar guarantee at another school? Whyh not make sure you will have an offer from another team before quitting the first, unless the coach from the first one REALLY wants that scholarship freed up before a certain date – like national signing day?

            • It is understandable to lose a kid or two each year that aren’t happy with the depth chart. There is no difference in cutting one kid or cutting 6 kids. It is a sucky practice one way or the other, just more victims involved. I wouldn’t blame Bama or anyone for losing a player or two every year. The difference is that many of these SEC schools do it on a larger scale and that makes the transfers look suspect. Ohio State doesn’t force 5-8 kids out every year and then replace them with freshman each year before the numbers are finalized, and match perfectly. That has happened elsewhere. If you look at OSU’s depth chart there will be a running back (Or 2) to leave before the season starts and a quarterback. There isn’t enough playing time for the numbers in those positions. Longo leaving (To Cinicinnatti) doesn’t draw criticism because that position is one that is thin for us, and not one that we can really afford to lose bodies from. You have one focus on Ohio State thus far, whereas I can name multiple exodus from other schools not in the Big Ten. The Big Ten is not superior to anyone and I don’t believe we look down our nose at anyone, but this practice is not one that is grossly commited here.

              • The difference is that many of these SEC schools do it on a larger scale and that makes the transfers look suspect.

                Do you have any way to back this up? This is something that I would be very interested in. Does the SEC have more players transfer with respect to other conferences? I have not seen this reported anywhere but would like to see the hard numbers on it. I think you may well find that there is not as large a disparity here as you think.

                Ohio State doesn’t force 5-8 kids out every year and then replace them with freshman each year before the numbers are finalized, and match perfectly

                Here is where I don’t think many people understand what is likely going on. Saban (and others) doesn’t recruit as many players as he can, then cut enough to make room for them all like you insinuate here. Yes, he signs more than there is room for under the 85 limit, but there are enough grayshirt offers there to make up the difference. Natural attrition among the players happens everywhere – as you also point out – but with proper management these losses can be replaced that same year out of the grayshirt recruits. I don’t have a problem with this. It enables the team to keep its roster full, which provides more opportunity to more people. That is a good thing. If a team would rather use these open scholarships to award a 5th year walk-on who does not and will not contribute meaningful time on the field, that is also a good thing but IMO is not the best use of a scholarship. This is an opinion only and you can disagree if you wish.

                Longo leaving (To Cinicinnatti) doesn’t draw criticism because that position is one that is thin for us, and not one that we can really afford to lose bodies from

                Good to hear that he has found a home – where did you get that? I don’t think you are as thin as you think. OSU signed 4 OL in the 2011 class, more than enough to make up for one player that wasn’t cutting it.

                • It was reported on Elevenwarriors. Best website to follow Ohio Sate with out having to deal with trolls. Very few of them there. I’ll try to find a link.

                • ” Catch 5
                  March 23rd, 2011 – 13:43 The difference is that many of these SEC schools do it on a larger scale and that makes the transfers look suspect.

                  Do you have any way to back this up? This is something that I would be very interested in. Does the SEC have more players transfer with respect to other conferences? I have not seen this reported anywhere but would like to see the hard numbers on it. I think you may well find that there is not as large a disparity here as you think. ”
                  __________________

                  I don’t have a link but look at the number of kids that are brought in (above 85) and then magically reduced. What happens to them? Transfers? Medical Redshirts. Grey Shirts which is another issue all together. I don’t follow all teams as well as some of you experts do but looking at the numbers alone and the ability of many teams in the SEC (And elsewhere) to essentialy have a full recruiting class more than my Buckeyes in a four year span is wrong, A) on the comepetitive level and B) on the ethical level. These kids are treated more like pawns than student athletes. Also, if you wonder why the SEC is the main target the answer is obvious. As a whole, that conference practices it more than any other. Also, the success of that conference is unprecedented at this time. To be better than the best you have to figure out what gives them the advantage or what makes them better. Oversigning doesn’t do this alone but is a great contributor. the fact that the culture in the South east and in Texas and in Ohio care this deeply about their football is what keeps them great and thriving. That is why teams in Europe and Africa are typically much better at Soccer than Americans. They just care more and devote more time to it.

                  • look at the number of kids that are brought in (above 85) and then magically reduced. What happens to them?

                    That’s easy – grayshirts. Transfers and medical scholarships open up spots that can be filled by “oversigned” players, but if no spot opens up, those players are grayshirted, and will count towards the next year’s class. They are not denied a scholarship, they simply delay enrollment untill spring.

                    A) I don’t care about any competitive advantage. There are a lot of things that teams do to gain a competetive advantage – that is part of sport. As long as the team is operating within the rules, it is not unfair to other teams. Now if a team were playing players that they knew should be ineligable…
                    /sorrycouldntresist
                    B) This keeps getting brought up, but nobody has yet to show how this is unethical. You can make the claim that oversigned teams cut players – but I can do the same with Sam Longo at OSU. It is is inuendo as these “cut” players are almost always transfers (or medicals). Noone simply has their scholarship revoked. Sure, there are a couple of people out there that have been shafted by poor management, but the core of their problems have not been oversigning. Take Mauldin. He is not a victim of oversigning. He is a victim of a coach who got more verbals than he could accept, and had to rescend an offer to a couple of guys late in the game. Most of the stories Josh uses here could easier be solved with stiff punishments for mismanagement and a seperate LOI for grayshirts, not eliminating grayshirts alltogether. Anyway, nobody has shown to me how the proper use of grayshirts, and oversigning is so unethical.

                    I don’t follow all teams as well as some of you experts do but looking at the numbers alone and the ability of many teams in the SEC (And elsewhere) to essentialy have a full recruiting class more than my Buckeyes in a four year span is wrong

                    On the surface, you are right – but as I said earlier, I haven’t seen the numbers that would tell the whole story on this. This thread is getting long and this post has as well, so I will start a new post at the bottom to expand on this. Please scroll down to continue.

                    • Which Alabama grayshirts have been highly productive contributors to the team?

                    • “Anyway, nobody has shown to me how the proper use of grayshirts, and oversigning is so unethical.”

                      And no one will ever be able to. You just have an extremely lousy code of ethics.

                      Alabamans have often been way, way behind the rest of the country ethically when it comes to many things, especially situations such as this that greatly concern how white Alabamans such as yourself treat the state’s black residents. So that you have less of a problem with powerful pros backed by Alabama institutions exploiting the disadvantage of working class or poorer black athletes is nothing new. Fortunately here the situation deals with a lesser form of exploitation and abuse than with the water cannons and police dogs used by your Alabama forefathers, but they had their reasons for why what they were doing was legal, ethical and productive, just as you in 2011 have your reasons for supporting the remnants of what those that came before you were manage to hang on to after outsiders finally moved in.

                    • Just off the top of my head, John Parker Wilson (#14). He was a two year starter at QB which included the 2008 season where this game happened:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqURiO6QsNw&feature=related

                      Now for a personal request. Please don’t go anywhere. If you do nothing else, continue to post on this site and anywhere else you can this rant you have against the south and its white people. Please show up anywhere people are discussing the oversigning topic and shout these beliefs as loudly as you can. Your unabashed hatred of Alabama and your continuous slander of anyone who disagrees with you displays the weakness of your arguments better than any rebuttal ever could, so please keep it up – and don’t let the “troll” moniker get you down.

      • USC’s penalties were stayed while they were under appeal (USC self-imposed the first year of the bowl ban). This is standard jurisprudence and even then USC only signed up to 80 scholarship players on NLI day. They have since added one additional player who sent in an LOI but USC waited to formally accept it until they had a better sense of whether the player would qualify or not.

        While I’m not a fan of Lane Kiffin, I suggest you get your facts straight before making snide remarks about him or the SC program.

        • I used this site, scout and rivals as the primary sources for my facts. If by only 80, you mean a number greater than that, you got me. The link from here shows 81, and that list does not include all of the kids that signed LOIs. I’m aware that they sat out the third rate bowl game that an 8 – 5 team would have been invited to, but why not play along with the entire game and do the right thing for the kids and reduce the scholarships themselves? If the NCAA does not waver, USC will be over by 10+ kids. OSU’s appeal was already denied, so I’m having a difficult time seeing why USC is still being reviewed. Sure their case is a bit more involved, but there was also much, much more documentation made public on it. I’d think that the stripping of the Heismann and the MNC being vacated should be more than enough to expedite the appeal process.
          “Standard jurisprudence”??? I used http://www.urbandictionary.com to learn what that meant. Thanks for the enrichment. I have to go back and make sure that I know what “snide” means because I’m not sure what I said about USC other than pointing out what Lame Kitten is doing. Sure, the roster is legal now, but sooner or later there’s going to have to be a reduction. Or are his plans to not take in a single recruit next year?

  2. While vesper is correct in his definition of this situation, it does appear to be a case of USCe expecting a sign and park. When Mauldin qualified it messed up their plans. USCe didn’t want Maudlin in this class yet sent him an LOI. Therein lies the problem. USCe sent an LOI to a kid they had no intentions of signing in the class of 2011, once more highly valued recruits verballed.

    The only way to stop this type of behavior by USCe it to either limit the number of LOI allowed to be sent out for signature (I would require any LOI sent out to be required to be accepted by the school) with a late signing period to allow those waiting on test scores or grades to become qualified.

    • 78Lion, good point. The underlying framework for oversigning is: LOIs are sent out to more players than can legally sign the LOI, the coaching staff “promiscuously” distributes LOIs to players because the coaching staff knows that if too many players become academically eligible and attempt to sign the LOI, the coaching staff has a variety of actions that can be taken to ensure that the mandated scholarship limits are met: you can prune the current roster via transfers, academic dismissal, medical hardships or scholarship non-renewal. At a high level program, all of these actions allow for significant discretion — even academic dismissal — there are appeals — and friendly courses — which will be exercised for some athletes and not exercised for the ones that you want to be dismissed. For recruits, “sign and park” is a key strategy and the “Mauldin Gambit” is another. The underlying attitude is that you get as many prospects as possible interested in your program and make a “commitment to the prospects, add them to the current roster of one-year commitments and then whittle away from this combined pool to reach your 85 roster limit. How you get there is not an issue as long as technically you reach the 85 roster limit.

      • Rich, I don’t think you fully understand what happened here. This was not a case of oversigning and a team needing to “trim the roster” to make room. This was a case of unintended or unseen consequences from the SEC’s new rules. The new rule restricting a signing class to 28 is what caused this (along with USC’s staff not properly managing their recruiting). USC had a full 28 class (assuming that Clowney accepted, which he did) and could not – by the new rule – accept any more LOIs. Were they in any other conference except the B10, they could have accepted his LOI. Then the oversigning issues would be in play – though his eligability would still be an issue, and the school could easily tell him he would need to grayshirt to come – something that would likely help him anyway as he could use the extra time to better prepare academically before enrolling full-time and getting on the team. I imagine that USC has learned their lesson from this and would not expect to see it again – though I don’t have a problem with 78Lion’s proposal.

    • A couple of corrections. Mauldin has yet to qualify. He stated in the article that if he doesn’t qualify, he still plans on going to prep school. Also, USC never sent Mauldin an LOI.

      • From the article:

        “But Mauldin and Maynard Jackson coach Eric Williams were informed on Feb. 1 — the day before national signing day — via a faxed letter that South Carolina had overcommitted its allotment of scholarships. Since they had not yet achieved minimum test scores, Mauldin and one other commitment, linebacker Jordan Montgomery of Groveland, Fla., were asked to not sign their letters-of-intent.”

        They were asked not to sign their letters-of-intent. Why ask them not to sign something they don’t have?

        • You could be right. I interpreted that to mean that USC was telling the players that they weren’t going to be allowed to sign on NSD, i.e. would not be receiving NLIs from USC.

    • Note the language carefully. Seems to suggest Mauldin has not yet qualified.

      “[Louisville] Coach [Charlie] Strong had faith in me from the beginning. He said he believes I’m going to make the score and said I could be out there with them in no time.”

      Note the shift from “had faith” to “believes I will qualify” and “could be out there.” A poor construction on Chip’s part if he has in gact not yet qualified.

      Louisville can, I believe, accept partial qualifiers?

      None of this excuses SC leaving him hanging to the last minute, but the fact remains that Mauldin remains ineligible to enroll at USC with a GIA at this time.

      TD, you’re close to this one. Has he made his score yet?

      • “Mauldin still has the matter of qualifying for freshman eligibility to overcome. He has been taking ACT/SAT courses at Georgia State and has attempted the tests a number of times.”

        “I actually just took the SAT two weekends ago,” Mauldin said. “I felt pretty good about. If not, I have another chance to take it. I don’t know whether I’ll take the SAT again but I’m going to continue to take the ACT.”

        Clears that up. Sorry for not reading further.

      • “None of this excuses SC leaving him hanging to the last minute”

        …but is used by you to downplay what was done.

        Mauldin was intentionally exploited because of his situation. As he told Chip Towers he finally realized that they were never wanting him to make the score, especially once it became obvious they would have a full class and that Clowney would sign.

        He was just a prop to build numbers and keep him in their camp once he went off to prep school, after which they could decide if they still wanted him or not.

        • I’m not downplaying anything. I’m pointing out that he can’t sign with USC at this time, but he can with Louisville. I understand that you don’t consider that relevant. Others do.

          • South Carolina, like any SEC school, can petition the conference office to allow a non-qualifier who would have to sit out a year. But of course, South Carolina is already maxed out at 28 LOIs and 5 over the 85 limit as well, so they can’t do that.

  3. Screw it, Louisville is a helluva better place than Columbia. Lorenzo will have more fun in the end.

  4. alabama releases 99 players names for spring on birmingham news web site

    • Maybe his parents bought if for him. Do you have any reason to believe that his parents don’t have the means to buy a nice car for their son who is on football scholarship? He attended a $10,000/year private school in Mobile, so maybe, just maybe his parents are doing pretty well financially. The more interesting question is why would you assume that his parents couldn’t afford such a car?

      • Ha. How cute.

        He was picked up at his mother’s home at 7am Sunday morning. His mother and grandmother came to the police station to plead with him to tell the truth, but he refused to do so and was booked. Clearly his father is not involved in his life. His mother’s home is on Butts Street, in the Happy Hill section of Mobile. One of the poorest neighborhoods in the country (thanks in large part to centuries of white Alabama doing what it do).

        But please, go right ahead and play dumb and act like it isn’t odd that a star athlete from a single-parent home in one of the poorest neighborhoods in America has a $30,000 car.

        This should be fun to watch.

        • Ok, fine. Why don’t you tell me where Mark Barron got the car? While you’re at it you can tell me where Tavarres King got his 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche which costs about the same as a 2008 Chrysler 300 (~$14K). Or maybe you can tell me where Clint Boling got his 2002 GMC Yukon which would’ve also been worth ~$14K at the time of his arrest. Or maybe you can tell me how Damon Evans got his 2009 BMW 750LI ($70K)? Oh wait, Evans was the athletic director, wasn’t he? Sometimes I get all the Georgia player/staff arrests confused with one another.

          But seriously, you do realize that every scholarship athlete has to fill out a form with their compliance department detailing the type of car they drive and how it was paid for, right?

          • “But seriously, you do realize that every scholarship athlete has to fill out a form with their compliance department detailing the type of car they drive and how it was paid for, right?”

            Does Pryor fill out one of these forms per week?

        • One more thing. Are white Alabamians to blame for the impoverished African-American neighborhoods in Atlanta and Houston, Texas_Dawg?

          • Not at all. White Americans in many regions have long been guilty of the same war against blacks.

            But still, Alabama has long had the reputation as being the worst of the worst for a good reason. You’re a great example of why that reputation persists today.

            • Wouldn’t be another week on oversigning.com without TD calling me dishonest, unethical, and now prejudice. All it takes to warrent one of these labels is pointing out one of the many, many shortcomings of the Georgia football program. Well, might as well get my money’s worth:

              -Defensive Coordinator caught on tape trying to intimidate a student-athlete on the opposing team during a football game
              -Head coach encouraged entire team to engage in unsportmanlike behaviour during a football game
              -Yanked the scholarship offer from a long-time verbal commitment a month before NSD
              -Offered one prospect a scholarship solely because he was friends with a more highly-recruited prospect
              -Knowingly commited recruiting violation to influence the decision of the same highly-recruited prospect resulting in personal sanctions imposed on Mark Richt
              -At least 25 players arrested from 2008-2010
              -AD arrested for DUI with mistress’ red panties in his lap
              -Abysmal 41% graduation rate for African-American football players and outrageously low 17% for African-American basketball players in 2009. The good news is that the grad rate for AA football players climbed to 48% in 2010. The bad news is that that is still 35% lower than the grad rate for white football players at UGA which is one of the largest discrepancies in the country.

              You must be very proud.

              • It’s funny how fast you went from calling me a racist, to changing the subject entirely once you learned more about the situation.

                Just the typical work of a liar who has zero interest in the welfare of student-athletes.

                • It’s funny how you never answered my question about how UGA players got such expensive cars.

                  • I have no idea, but I certainly don’t believe UGA is perfect on the matter and certainly don’t support UGA breaking such rules either.

                    Still not sure how this is relevant to the Barron situation though.

        • This is one of the most asinine things you have ever posted, T_D, and that is saying something, because you have repeatedly proven yourself to be rather dense, and everything you post is shrouded in a peculiar form of snotty superiority, with this one just about taking the cake. This falls into the “don’t talk about a splinter in my eye when you have a plank in yours” category. I’ll make you a bargain. Explain where Pryor has gotten the 3-4 cars he has driven since he arrived in Columbus, including a Corvette, and then we might have something to discuss.

          http://www.aolnews.com/2008/01/23/is-terrelle-pryor-even-eligible/

        • Oh, and I should add that I just about busted a gut when I read that Pryor’s excuse for selling his awards and trinkets was that his family needed the money. Maybe making the payments on that Vette just tapped them out?

  5. Long time reader, first time caller…

    But seriously, what does Mark Barron’s car have to do with oversigning? In my opinion, this is just another example of Texas Dawg proving he’s more interested in trolling people than actually advancing the cause of this site. He just uses the banner of “Oversigning” (a banner that Josh has worked hard to bring legitimacy to) as a front to justify his bad behavior.

    I have no clue why Josh continues to associate his site with this guy. I understand he can’t make TD shut down that account or at least change the name, but he can stop linking to it from the site. Almost everything TD does on twitter is an embarrassment to the name “Oversigning.com” (because most who don’t read the comments here assume they are one and the same) and undermines the credibility of the site.

    Josh, you’ve worked hard to build this site up. Time to cut this hanger-on loose before he drags your brand down anymore. Trolling sports writers, fans, and RECRUITS (aka high schoolers) isn’t the way to spread the message. You do fine on your own.

    • Time spent arguing with TD or protecting yourself from TD’s slurs does help him achieve a purpose. You see the same strategy in our politics — people deliberately go as far as they can to the left or to the right in order to “move the middle.” They deliberately provoke in order stretch the boundaries of the argument, allowing “saner heads” to speak rationally from a more moderate point of view – but one which still discernibly moves in response to the provocateur.

      And in fairness, this site has a couple of them on the “pro” side of the debate as well. Vesper and Catch-5 aren’t one of them, but TD keeps aiming at the “rational” dissenters, especially the ones who find plenty of room for agreement but not enough for total agreement (like me).

      Once you understand what he’s trying to do, it becomes a little easier to tune out some of his commentary. Not all of it — he makes some excellent points. Just the insults and provocations.

      • How cute.

        What remains very clear, ITM, as you slipped and let it show with all your recent posts about Tressel and OSU, is that you aren’t really in the middle at all.

        • Hmm. If you would like to demonstrate what exactly about my position on Tressel/OSU differs from some other posters here who are completely anti-oversigning, have at it.

          I’ve repeatedly said that your rabid anti-Alabama focus distorts the message here. You and others keep lobbying to turn this entire movement into a “Stop Saban” crusade, under the theory that stopping Saban stops the practice everywhere. I get it, but I don’t agree with it. I won’t bother to enumerate the flaws that I see in the approach here — I’ve recounted them already. But your approach – “you’re either with me or against me” doesn’t allow for any middle ground at all.

          I’ll ask you again, since you keep refusing to answer the question – what does the position of someone “in the middle” on this issue look like to you?

          • Um, I’ve condemned numerous other coaches that have oversigned.

            And I’ve already answered your question about what “the middle” looks like. I don’t know, but I know that you aren’t really in the middle of anything. That you just mischaracterized my position (and that of others here) as being simply anti-Saban is just one more good example of that.

            • Please. Your twitter logo is an Alabama logo with a red circle and slash over it. Or was.

              Still waiting for your “Tressel” analysis.

      • Oh, I’m well aware of the numbskulls on the pro-oversigning side of things, Tar Heel. I remember there used to be a poster here named Deep South Boy (like I said, long time reader) who was just as obnoxious as Texas Dog in his own way. And, I mean…I’ve been around the Internet for a long time, and those types are a dime a dozen, so I know how to ignore them.

        What’s concerning about this guy is it comes across like his particular brand of vitriol is sponsored by this site. I’m just suggesting to Josh that it might be a good idea to separate himself from it as much as possible (if he’s even reading all this). It doesn’t really reflect well on the site when the “Oversigning” twitter feed it links to can be seen trolling high school athletes like Kenyan Drake (which actually happened, believe it or not, a week or two ago).

        • I am playing catch up…thanks for the comments, they are not going unread or unheard.

        • Ha. Drake asked me a question on Twitter and I gave him the link to the NCPA site. I didn’t point him to any school, didn’t “troll” him, or anything like that.

          Jeez, paternalism much?

          Joshua is free to keep or drop the Twitter feed and I couldn’t care less as I never asked him to put it on the site in the first place, but you really don’t need to blatantly lie about the situation.

          • Ha. Drake asked me a question on Twitter and I gave him the link to the NCPA site. I didn’t point him to any school, didn’t “troll” him, or anything like that.

            Really? That’s how you would characterize the exchange? Because I just went back and looked at the twitter feeds for you (Oversigning) and Drake (kDizzy_Drake17). I don’t know how to link a twitter exchange, so here’s a summary:

            On March 14, Drake created his twitter account.
            That very day you sent him a wikipedia link on oversigning and Alabama completely unsolicited.
            Drake replied by making fun of the fact that you were using wikipedia as a source.
            You responded by spamming him with 4 more links about oversigning (unsolicied).
            He responded by asking your point.
            You responed by stating that Alabama cuts players (summarziing) and sent a link to another article about oversigning (unsolicited).
            He replied that any players who were ‘cut’ weren’t taking their job seriously.
            You replied with more talk about Alabama cutting players.
            He stated that he knows what he’s getting into (read: “stop pestering me, weirdo”.
            You wished him luck and implied that if he gets injured that Alabama will cut him.
            He asked you what school you would prefer that he attend.
            You replied, “I don’t care. I don’t care that much about football games. I just don’t like seeing powerful coaches screw over players”.
            You then sent him the NCPA link (unsolicited).

            If you want to pester high school recruits on twitter about their college choice, I really don’t even care. They can and mostly will just tune you out. What I really despise is the disingenuous pretense you attempt to portray of not caring about football and only caring about the kids. It reminds me of Jim Tressel’s press conference. He failed to notify OSU compliance not because of concern over what the NCAA might do, but because he was just so distracted by the fact that his players were potentially involved in a federal investigation. Of course you’re not going to tell Drake that you’re a Georgia fan because then you just look like another loser college football fan trying to sway a 17 year old kid to play on your favorite football team. And the fact that Drake is one of the top recruits out of the state of Georgia and was widely considered to be strongly considering UGA before commiting to Alabama, I’m sure that had absolutely nothing to do with your decision to target him.

            And then you come on here and completely mischaracterize the exchange between the two of you. He asked you for a link from the NCPA out of the blue and you sent it to him. That was it. Unbelievable. How many times have you called someone dishonest on this blog? The word hypocrite is woefully lacking in this instance.

            • Yep, that’s exactly what went down.

              About a week ago I was checking out the site and just happened to glance over at the twitter feed and notice that there seemed to be an inordinate number of tweets directed at some “kDrizzy_Drake,” so I clicked over to check it out. Eventually I deduced that it was an elite Georgia recruit named Kenyan Drake and, as I retraced the back and forth, was disgusted with TD’s detestable behavior towards a teenaged kid. At that point, he crossed a line, in my opinion.

              I meant to bring it up here when it happened, but always forgot. Then I saw him bring up this Mark Barron digression here and I instantly remembered, so…here we are.

              And, yes, ultimately, I, too, was amused that he eventually chose to deflect Drake’s question about which college team he supports. As if someone who doesn’t care about college football games would be spending so much of his free time trolling people on twitter about college football. You don’t even have to be familiar with his posts here to know ther’s something wrong with that picture. I don’t see how you can expect anyone to treat you as someone with credibility if you won’t even answer a simple question honestly.

              Josh doesn’t try to hide his Ohio State fandom and it doesn’t seem to have hurt his legitimacy. But then Josh also doesn’t conduct himself like a glorified message board troll.

    • I won’t address all the lies in your post, but something tells me you aren’t strongly opposed to oversigning.

      • Yeah, a long time reader who doesn’t think it’s a big deal. That makes sense.

        Unless he’s a PLANT or a SPY who’s just PRETENDING to be against oversigning, but he’s really FOR IT, and he’s trying to drive a WEDGE between you and Joshua….

        Get over yourself. You’re not worth that much trouble.

        • Funny that he came back here to lie again about the Twitter feed yet didn’t bother to deny my statement.

          So yeah, maybe it does make sense.

  6. I could be wrong but I believe most players that need money take out loans (financial aid) to pay their car payments and support their social life. They assume they will complete college and get a job or go to the NFL to repay their loans.

    • This, and it happens everywhere. That is why it is stupid to throw accusations around with out having evidence to support your claims. I love my Buckeyes but you have to be honest about some things. These kids, at every school, are treated better than the rest of the student population. They are campus celebrities. It is very likely that dealerships, boosters and whomever has the money will contribute to a satr athletes delinquency in some shape or form, tip toeing the line seperating “following the rules” and “ethics”. Pryor’s case is suspicious I don’t dispute. I can’t imagine that the whole university is responsible for that. If it is going on then I think they need to inestigate it and stop it by any means. We’re not above it all. No one should single us out though. Everyone knows that the potential for this to happen everywhere is great. On the topic of Oversigning, the numbers speak for themselves. It doesn’t happen in some conferences as much as others. Coaches from those conferences admit that it gives them an advantage. There has been documented proof that players didn’t know what they were getting into and that it does hurt a student athlete in some form, to be a victim oversigning. I really don’t know what there is to debate. If you are attempting to redirect the focus on oversigning to say, Ohio State and the coaches ability to tell the truth, then you are playing the same game children do when they get caught doing something wrong. Just because mom and dad speed going down the road doesn’t give daughter Sally the right to smoke cigarettes. Thats what these boards look like every time I read them.

      • Pride–It’s not about “redirecting the focus”. Making that statement is more subterfuge than bringing up what Tressel has done. Why? Because the author of this site has held Tressel up as the shining example of all that is right in college sports. So it’s natural that if the author is going to do that, but it turns out the guy has broken ACTUAL RULES rather than the “spirit of the rules”, then buddy that is pertinent. To claim otherwise is an attempt to hide the weenie.

        • ” the author of this site has held Tressel up as the shining example of all that is right in college sports”…

          Gee whiz, HeadScratcher, the topic is Oversigning. Can you Scratch Your Head about Oversigning? Can you scratch it twice?

          The author of this site has posted URLs about JT’s opinion about oversigning. Tressel is a shining example with respect to oversigning. The site author has posted JT’s statements about oversigning. And Saban and Miles and many others, for everyone to draw their conclusions about oversigning.

          I don’t know for certain, but Tressel probably has farted once or twice. It would never occur to me that farting is associated with anyone’s philosophy about oversigning.

          BTW why are you and just a few others responsible for just about 40-to-50 percent of the posts on this site? Almost all are in defense of the despicable practice of oversigning. Do you have nothing better to do?

          Why not build your own site called “in defense of oversigning” and maybe attract Charlie Sheen’s million golden tweets?

          Maybe you can also cite the statistics about men from southern states wanting to join the US Army but so sadly they cannot pass the ASVAB (they only need a score of 31 out of 99, but cannot achieve that). But if they can play a little football, hey, sign up 32 of them. What do they know???? Oversigning is only a symptom of deeper problems in parts of our country.

          • “Tressel is a shining example with respect to oversigning. The site author has posted JT’s statements about oversigning. And Saban and Miles and many others, for everyone to draw their conclusions about oversigning.”

            I am sure there have been other coaches guilty of MAJOR NCAA violations who have also led exemplary lives in other ways. Bruce Pearl seemed like a great guy who cared deeply abouit his players. So freaking what. He broke the rules. Pearl’s opinions on virtually any subject are now heavily discounted based on what he is guilty of doing. Maybe Pearl leads the Bible study class at his church. But that doesn’t make him any less guilty, and so he can’t be held up as an “example” that any coach should live by.

            Not sure why this concept is difficult for you to grasp, but clearly it is.

            • How is your post relevant to oversigning? Can you grasp that?

              Seems like your posts would also fail the ASVAB.

              • Because this site has directly linked oversigning to ethics. There is an entire post on it from Josh. That is how it is relevant.

                • There we go again using infallible logic. Maybe we should stop that. It gets directly in the way of the brainwashing effort.

    • Meg,

      Unfortunately, you are not right. The NCAA limits the amount of aid a player can receive. Anything outside of tuition, books, lodging and meals is not covered by the athletic scholarship. Some players qualify for Pell grants and they are able to receive a portion of those. This is one of the dirty little secrets of the NCAA….I should be able to take out a loan if I need one but I can’t so I take money from other sources…Hopefully, we will let the kids earn what they are worth one day…Free Markets!

      • I could be wrong (happens often), but I think college athletics remains tax free because it officially remains amateur. In other words, paying the players also means paying taxes.

        I would love to see Congress pass an exemption that removes that excuse. It’s not as if they’re doing anything else productive.

  7. In an earlier thread above, Pride of Ohio posted this:

    I don’t follow all teams as well as some of you experts do but looking at the numbers alone and the ability of many teams in the SEC (And elsewhere) to essentialy have a full recruiting class more than my Buckeyes in a four year span is wrong

    Yes, we’ve all seen this repeated accusation against oversigned schools, and it certainly appears to be giving them quite an advantage. But how accurate and fair is this? Is this data being presented fairly or has it been done with a certain viewpoint in mind? I think when you look at what is actually happening, you will find that this is not a fair representation of things. In the lists provided on this site, Josh simply adds up recruiting classes over the 4 or 5 year span. Following are a list of things that are not accounted for in Joshua’s comparisons.

    1) Non-qualifiers
    Players that don’t qualify, and never set foot on campus are not deducted from the count. While not a big problem at Bama, this is a major factor at some schools *cough-Ole Miss*. If a player signs but never plays, is it an advantage? The B10 schools don’t seem to have this happen as much – good for them as this is good, but most schools have a couple of players each year that don’t qualify.

    2) Eventual Qualifiers
    Some of those non-qualifiers do end up on campus after a year at prep school or a couple of years at a Junior College. Take Quinton Dial at Alabama. He was part of Bama’s class a couple of years ago, but didn’t qualify. He went to JuCo for a couple of years, got his grades in line and has returned as part of the 2011 class. Per this site’s count, he is two people. He is part of two classes, and the way Josh figures these numbers, he gets counted twice. Is that fair? Is there any competetive advantage with this? This is not an uncommon occurance, though less so in the B10, where as pointed out, there are less non-qualifiers.

    3) JuCo Transfers
    JuCo transfers factor into this as well. My impression is that B10 schools don’t bring in very many JuCo players at all. Kansas St (I think) is well known for this, and many SEC teams including Bama utilize it routinely – albeit at a moderate pace. Bama has had 2 or 3 JuCo players each year. JuCo players help tremendously when there is an immediate need at a position with no upperclassmen to fill it. The problem is that these players only have a couple of years left of eligability. This means that in two years, the player will be gone, and his scholarship open for another player as opposed to the 4 or 5 years per player that most players get (and is assumed for each player in Josh’s count). So, through the use of a few JuCos every year, a team would (perfectly legitimately) have three or four more signees over four or five years since these players don’t stay for 4 years. Is this a competetive advantage (numbers-wise)?

    4) Players leaving early for Draft
    Pretty self explainatory, and not as big an issue as the others – especially since OSU and the B10 in general probably contribute a similar number of players leaving early for the draft. I would be interested in the numbers, though as a discrepency here could contribute to it. (BTW, Alabama has had 3-4 players leave early the last few years. That’s only 3 years contributed instead of the max of 5)

    5) Walk-ons given scholarship
    It is much publicized that OSU and others award the scholarships left over or left behind by a player transferring to a deserving walk-on player. These players are not counted in Josh’s numbers. Should they be? They are given a scholarship, but I imagine that they don’t sign an LOI so where is the advantage? A team has a maximum number of players allowed on the roster, including walk-ons in addition to the max players on scholarship. If OSU awards a few players that were previously walk-ons a schollie they are able to take more walk-ons. Not a huge advantage, admittedly, but there is benefit to having more bodies around I’m sure you would agree.

    I think you would agree that the above points are valad considerations that this site has not taken inconsideration when comparing the numbers between the SEC and the B10. The whole “the SEC has a full class more” argument is taken down a few notches when you realize that players like Quinton Dial are counted twice, but will only play for two years. In fact, instead of gaining an extra player like Josh’s could would inferr, Bama only gets 1/2 a player since he is only here for 1/2 the time. Is that a fair representation?

    I don’t doubt that oversigned teams get some advantage. I would not be suprised to see more players being used in this system. A well-managed roster can achieve this without screwing people over. I would be interested in the number of players leaving a team. How many players graduate from the team from each recruiting class? I think the answer to that would be much more telling than what has been presented on this site to date. Josh has hinted that he is working on getting these numbers – I hope to see them at some point, and I bet we would see numbers a little closer than what you may expect.

    • I actually looked into this a little after someone claimed that Alabama’s win over Michigan State in the Capital One Bowl was due largely to oversigning. If you look at just the raw numbers, then Alabama outsigned State by 20 over the course of the previous 5 signing classes. The implication is that Alabama was able to utilize an extra 20 players to effectively conduct a try-out and cut the lowest performing 20 players from the roster over 5 years. When I took into account the things that you mentioned (double-counters, non-qualifiers, players opting for MLB), I found that Alabama had a grand total of 3 more players than State to actually see the practice field over the course of 5 signing classes. Alabama oversigns to mitigate attrition and keep its roster full, not to hold try-outs and cut the underperforming players.

      Your point about players leaving school early for the draft is a good one. This year the SEC had 15 unerclassmen declare, the Big Ten had 8. 7 players over 12 schools isn’t a huge factor, but it is a factor that never gets discussed when talking about raw signing numbers.

      • Good post. You should also have mentioned that the score of that Capital One Bowl could easily have been 77-7 if Saban hadn’t called off the dogs in the second half. That kind of butt-kicking is the primary reason for the existence of this site, it seems. Hard to argue otherwise. And your numbers demonstrate very clearly that the author has skewed the numbers for his purposes. I hardly think a six-TD win, which could quite easily have been ten, is due to 3 players.

      • If you did all the analysis, give the numbers not the summary.

        • Here are Josh’s recruiting numbers for ‘06-’10:

          MSU 28 23 21 23 21 = 116
          UA 23 25 32 27 29 = 136

          The implication is that Alabama has had an additional 20 players over these 5 classes to pick and choose which ones to keep and which ones to discard. The reality is that out of those 136 “signees”, at least 17 were never a part of Alabama’s football team and therefore afforded Alabama no competitive advantage in the Capital One Bowl or any game for that matter (1 never signed, 7 failed to qualify, 2 opted for Major League Baseball careers, 5 are double counted, and 2 from the 2010 class greyshirted and therefore were not part of the team leading up to and including the Capital One Bowl).

          There could be more than 17, but I only counted the ones that I was sure about.
          I know nothing about Michigan State’s personnel, so if any of their 116 never made it onto the team, then feel free to chime in.

          So that makes for a whopping 3 player differential that actually set foot on the respective teams’ practice fields when comparing the 2010 Michigan State and Alabama football teams. Not sure that classifies as a “palpable” advantage.

    • Good gosh how many times do we have to go over this…the one point that pisses me off more than any other is the one regarding double counters. Take the effing names off the LOI’s and count the numbers. Just because a kid signed in the previous year doesn’t mean that he doesn’t count the following year. And, for the millionth time, all double counters are counted the same for all schools.

      • If you are simply comparing LOIs signed that is fine, but you are framing this as the SEC gaining an advantage by signing a full class more players. When the majority of these “players” either don’t set foot on campus or have been counted twice (when on campus half the time), you are misrepresenting the data. It doesn’t matter if you count it the same for everyone – if B10 schools don’t have many non-qualifies and even less that make it back, it effects the SEC numbers disproportionally.

        • Err, I believe he knows this. He has fallen back on this “I count the same for everyone” thing 100 times. Where it’s going to look bad is if some national group picks this line of BS up and then gets called on it. They won’t be able to use the same excuse and it will make anyone who touched this issue look like a boob. I say let it go.

        • Well what the hell else would I be counting? We always count LOIs…that’s the number that everyone uses…no one ever counts names. If a Big 10 school is allowed to offer 18 LOI and they opt to offer one to kid that signed the previous year but didn’t make it they don’t get to offer 19, they get to offer 18. What you are trying to do is minimize the numbers by saying certain LOIs don’t count, which is total bullshit.

          • Why not a “kids in-kids out” approach? Retention rather than acquisition?

            Think about a program that redshirts 9 out of 10 players (Program A) versus one that redshirts 4 out of 10 (Program B). Over 4 years, that becomes 20 extra players for Program B – an extra signing class.

            Similarly, a program which redshirts everyone and signs 22 a year is just as guilty as a program which redshirts no one and signs 26. Both are signing 5 more kids a year than the program can handle — it’s just that one’s working everyone on a 5 year eligibility model and one’s working on a 4 year eligibility model.

            If the MAIN problem here remains running kids off, then why not look at the total number of kids who actually start at A and B but don’t finish at A and B? Because just looking at the start numbers seems like only half the story, and a potentially misleading one at that.

            • That approach leaves out the nonqualifiers, who matter as well. Oversigning to take more shots at nonqualifiers or to help keep them off the market as long as possible and have more control over their JUCO process is a big part of the issue.

              • We’re talking numbers, not policy.

                Isolating the number of kids who sign but don’t qualify can’t be that difficult, and that figure certainly reflects recruiting behavior.

                But if the main issue remains cycling a greater number of kids through the system (running them off), then you have to compare start-end numbers. Lumping in kids who never make it to campus dilutes that aspect of the criticism.

                IMO: Both are important. Lumping them together creates confusion.

                APR attempts to measure retention and academic progress to an extent, and Alabama’s seems to be rising under Saban, which seems counter-intuitive given the methods ascribed to him here. Then again, I am sure APR has loopholes and outs – I don’t know the particulars and don’t pretend to. But it seems to me a coach who accelerates roster turn-over would see APR dip, not rise.

                I don’t see the point of sending a kid who has not qualified an LOI. I’ve said that before.

                • Saban gets positive credit for an athlete that leaves but was on progress to a degree. Doesn’t matter to the APR that the kid could lose credits as part of the transfer or won’t be able to graduate from UA, but rather Georgia State or some other small school.

                  • I don’t think getting creits to transfer from Alabama is much of a problem – though I concede that it is a possibility an could be an issue at some schools. Keep in mind, however, that football notoriety does not equate school size or stature. Ga State has an enrollment of over 25,000 students while Alabama is just over 30,000 – not much of a difference.

          • Really? You only count LOIs? Where is the competetive advantage in an LOI? It is a piece of paper, it cannot block a LB, it can’t cover a WR, it can’t throw a ball or catch a ball. It cannot even provide practice fodder for the 1st team. Where is the injustice in having more pieces of paper in a folder in some file cabinet?

            That said, let’s take a look at what you have actually said:

            The first thing that jumps off the screen is that despite being out of college football for 2 years (2005 & 2006), Nick Saban still signed 193 recruits, which is second only to Les Miles his successor at LSU when Saban left in 2005. Saban also has the highest average recruits per year at 27.50. In 7 years, Nick Saban has never signed less than 25 recruits in a single year.

            You mention “recruits” three times in this paragraph alone (the first after presenting your data). No mention of LOI. Nowhere do you say that many of these recruits didn’t make it on campus or were double counted.

            Let’s compare that to the same set of years (2002-2004 & 2007-2010) for the coach with the lowest numbers, Jim Tressel. Tressel signed 142 players in the same years that Saban signed 193 recruits.

            Next paragraph, same comments. Still no mention of LOIs. Still the use of the word “recruit”.

            That is a difference of 51 players over the same period of time, 7 years. That is mind boggling to say the least.

            This is the statement that is the crux of the argument and is the image you are trying to convey with this comparison. The problem is that it is wrong. There is not a difference of 51 players over that time. There may have been a difference of 51 LOIs, but as I pointed out above, that does not equate 51 players on campus, and when you double-count players that only play for two years, you are severly misleading your audience. But wait, there’s more…

            Imagine if either one of those coaches had an extra 40-50 players to select from or to use in order to fill in gaps from unexpected attrition such as career ending injury.

            Again, you say here that they get more players, not LOIs

            And in the final notes about the data itself you have as #1

            1. The data is sorted by Average Players Per Year.

            I think it is obvious that you have tried to show that Saban gains an unfair advantage by getting an extra recruiting class of players every 4 years. When taking into account the things I wrote about above, you’re theory is debunked as Vesper showed with his analysis.

            http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/02/17/coaching-comparisons/

            • Well played… sounds like Josh is playing pretty loose with the numbers; not like he has an agenda or anything.

            • I guess we’re waiting for the reponse that isn’t coming. Now if only the writers who have been reading this site and reporting similarly bogus numbers on thier own websites will have the cojones to report correctly the next time they get on this topic (although now that the signing period is long over, I doubt they will).

              But more importantly, I hope these other writers have had the tiny scintilla of insight that it takes to realize that the author of this site is an Ohio State fan with an agenda. Now that his own program has been shown to be an ACTUAL cheater instead of a purported ethics violator, they will rub his nose in the scum of his own program.

      • I am interested to get your thoughts on the JUCO conundrum, though. I hadn’t thought about it that way until now, but…it would seem to me that you could be in total compliance with the Oversigning guidelines that this site recommends, but still inflate your numbers well beyond 85 by virtue of signing multiple JUCO transfers. At most, those guys have 3 years of eligibility when they arrive, meaning you’re going to be filling one scholly spot with 2 players in any 4-5 year period, as opposed to the usual 1 for an enrollee out of high school.

        Obviously I’m not suggesting that this accounts for the totality of Oversigning for any team, but it does seem like it could add up quickly and skew the numbers a tad if you’re a school that relies on a ton of JUCOs.

        Sorry if you addressed this particular issue before and I missed it, but do you account for that artificial inflation in any way, or do you consider it a non-issue? If so, why?

        Oh, and you must phrase your answer in the form of a question!

        Just kidding about that last part…

      • You want Saban to be transparent with his numbers, but apparently you don’t feel the same way about your own accounting methods. Why wouldn’t you want people reading your site to know that you double count players who sign 2 LOIs? Unless, of course, you want people to mistakenly assume that each LOI coincides with one unique person.

        As Catch 5 pointed out, the double counting point is usually made when it comes to the competitive advantage arguement, and it’s a fair point to make. Whenever someone has used your numbers to claim that an SEC team had a competitive advantage over a Big Ten team because the SEC team signed x more players, I’ve yet to see you chime with, “No, the SEC team signed x more LOIs, not x more players”.

        But if it really pisses you off that much, you can easily stop people from pointing out that you double count by no longer double counting.

      • The arguments on this site are bordering on ridiculous. Unless I’m reading you wrong, you are proposing that a school only send out the number of LOI’s that equal the number of scholarships available. How can a school possibly know how many athletes plan to sign with that school? More and more of the athlete’s are waiting till signing day to announce their final decision. It would be totally irresponsible for a coach to do as you propose. The coach is responsible for fielding a team and has to plan for all contingencies to include potential non-qualifiers and an athlete that might choose to sign with another school. Any manager (in business or coaching) would be considered lacking if he or she didn’t properly prepare for unanticipated events.

        • Oh meg… don’t bring up the Business world to Josh… he’ll start saying how this isn’t a business…

          You’re points make way too much sense and really trash the idea of killing oversigning.

          What I think most people would agree with, is to monitor and regulate the process to insure the kids have the proper information to make the proper decisions that are best for them… This is a typical “liberal” view, cradel to grave mentality.

          • when I say This… I mean the idea of killing oversigning or greyshirtting…. Josh wants the NCAA to protect the Athlete’s from making a bad decision by killing the option… when the option isn’t the problem, it’s the idea of misleading recruits that is the problem.

            • I totally agree with you. Coaches should provide all info to the athlete so he/she can make an informed decision. If all info isn’t provided on a timely basis, the school should be sanctioned. We’re finally getting to the heart of the matter. Thank you Bathel.

            • Sure. Killing the option to oversign (barring rare, conference-approved situations) does nothing but close a loophole by which powerful coaches exploit young adults at a great disadvantage to them in such negotiations.

              That’s why you only see oversigning at very poorly academically rated institutions. Superior institutions refuse to engage in the practice for the same reason superior business firms have better institutional controls that minimize the room for powerful employees to exploit clients.

              • Now that is laughable. You would be surprised at my background and suffice it to say that I know as much if not more about business that many on this site. From which school did you graduate? Where I graduated from is totally irrelevant but since you asked, it isn’t an SEC school. This site appears to have an “SEC vs. Big 10″ feel to it but any changes to the rules will affect all schools. Any changes to the current rules should make things better for all athletes and schools, not just benefit the Big 10 or the SEC. From my point of view, the vast majority of the posters on this site are are more concerned that some other team has an advantage on the field versus the well-being of the athletes.

                I guess the superior institution of Ohio State is one of those schools you are referencing. It’s obvious the high ethical standards of Ohio state don’t apply when it comes to their football team. They will do what it takes to win. And Georgia–what about all those arrests? We can go on and on dissecting every team in the country and will find issues at them all. But that shouldn’t be relevant here since this site is supposed to be about oversigning.

        • You do realize that the BIG 10 rule is to only offer LOIs for the number of openings they have to get to 85 with an exception of up to 3 extra.

        • Hilarious. The rosters allow for 85 players. That is several dozen more players than are needed to field a team.

          If you are worried about non-qualifiers or players signing with other schools, recruit different players. Defending loopholes for coaches to exploit is a really, really bad response to being worried about having 82 instead of 85 players.

          • Actually, you’re allowed 105 on the roster, only 85 under scholarship…

            Greyshirtting is good for many reason, you may want/need to put another year between a current starter and an incoming recruit, IE a QB. You may not need a QB in the current class, but there is a kid that WANTS to come to your school AND the school would like to have him in the next class…. a kid is injured in his senior year of HS and put on greyshirt so he can recover for a year, much better solution than the school stop recruiting him because of his injury.

            Face the facts TD, IF the recruit is informed about a greyshirt and is happy with accepting it, there is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing “evil” about oversigning as this site defines it… what is wrong is misleading a recruit in what is being offered. This can controlled WITHOUT killing the greyshirt offer.

            Josh, why limit a school to only 3 greyshirts? If they want to greyshirt 25 players… why shouldn’t they be allowed as long as ALL 25 players know what is being offered and want to accept that offer?

        • What you describe it today. If you change the LOI process there will be a resultant change in recruits actions. For every action there is another action as a result. Might be unintended consequences that weren’t considered or were dismissed, but there will be a resultant change in the behavior of recruits.

  8. Interesting that Saban has no problem booting numerous players for “undisclosed violations,” which white Alabama fans then cite as evidence of what a great disciplinarian he is, but when he downplays serious arrests like Mark Barron’s or Courtney Upshaw’s (domestic violence), all that stuff about why we can trust the “undisclosed violations” dismissals are legitimate goes right out the window.

    George Wallace said it best:

    “Alabama now, Alabama tomorrow, Alabama forever.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/30/usa.schoolsworldwide

    • A Georgia fan harping on player arrests? That’s rich. If Richt dismissed every “dawg” arrested for a misdemeanor (like Barron and Upshaw), Georgia wouldn’t be able to field a team. Of course, that wouldn’t have been such a bad thing last season.

      • Is Georgia kicking numerous players out for “undisclosed violations” while allowing others arrested for serious arrests to stay?

        • maybe not, it seems that Georgia doesn’t have much punishment at all for any violations. Wonder why you had to go back two years to find the last Bama player arrested. Do you really consider what Barron did to be serious? He basically refused to rat on his cousin. Doesn’t make it right, but I understand – and you can rest assured that he will have disciplanary action taken. Saban doesn’t publicize student’s punishments, but he has been rather consistent from what I’ve seen.

          • You must have missed the fact that LSU’s current QB was kicked off the Georgia team last year.

            And yes, I believe lying to the police when they are searching for someone wanted for cocaine possession, assault, and leaving the scene of 5am accident is serious.

            And yes, Saban has been very consistent about kicking the scrubs out for “undisclosed violations” while letting starters like Barron and Upshaw stay.

            • You mean players like Robbie Green, who was suspended for all of last year despite being one of the best DBs on the team (a team, I might add that was woefully shallow in the backfield – to the point that a walk-on played prominantly in every game).

                • From your referenced article:

                  Green’s eligibility was called into question in February, but before spring practice started on March 12, he was cleared to participate.

                  When reports surfaced in February that Green had been suspended for violating team rules, Saban acknowledged a “situation.”

                  So Saban suspends Green in Feb, while the NCAA didn’t announce their suspension until April. Yes, the NCAA had some say in it, but it reads to me like Saban recommended the year suspension and they went along with it. Disagree with that if you like, but you can’t deny that Saban acted first and didn’t sheild him from punishment even though he was a highly talented player at a position of great need.

        • Another accusation based on incorrect or fabricated information. I’m only aware of 4 players who have been kicked off the Alabama football team for violation of team rules in 4 years. If that’s an abnormally high number, then please cite your source.

          • there again is another attempt to defend oversigning.

            • Now that you’ve labeled my comment, care to take a crack at disputing it?

            • It wasn’t an oversigning defender that started this thread so I think your criticism is aimed at the wrong crowd.

            • Wait a second. Has “vesper” also claimed to not be a defender of oversigning?

              Holy jeebus that is awesome if true.

              It’s funny enough coming from In the Middle, but vesper? That would be classic…

              • How have I defended oversigning? Cite one example.

                You’re clearly intelligent, but you constantly make things up or present things so far out of context that it becomes the same thing.

                So – cite one example. One. Shouldn’t be hard.

                Or better yet, ask Vesper or Catch-5 if they consider me to be “at one” with them on this issue.

                • I’ve never said you are in agreement with them.

                  And as far as defending oversigning goes, you’ve made the utterly bogus claim that banning oversigning restricts opportunities for academically questionable recruits. You also made numerous posts implying that the Tressel scandal somehow does something to weaken the argument of anti-oversigning fans of Ohio State.

                  Yes, yes, you are supposedly opposed to oversigning. Yet you oddly oppose Big 10 rules that have largely eliminated the problem being used in the SEC and other conferences.

                  Go figure.

                  • No, I’ve made the claim that you sound like a patronizing blow-hard when you run around calling Mauldin a functional illiterate who can’t be trusted to make a good decision.

                    I’ve repeatedly said that signing kids to an LOI who cannot qualify seems a total sham. As much as you seem to follow my posts, you somehow missed those.

                    As for kids who MIGHT qualify, such as Mauldin, I prefer a system which gives them more opportunity, not less. You say on one thread that oversigning rules as constituted in the Big 10 make Mauldin too risky for Spurrier, and then you say on another the rule doesn’t affect Mauldin in the least. When you’ve made up your mind on that one, get back to me.

  9. Looks like Ralph Nader has a potential solution. That’s what we need, is some help from ol’ Ralph…

    http://www.ajc.com/sports/ralph-nader-calls-for-884703.html

    • I was just getting ready to post the same article. So he wants kids to pay for school all while paying to make a university tons of money. Not a very well thought out plan.

      • I don’t know if this is Nader’s idea or not, but the removal of football scholarships would greatly lower the cost of football labor in the market for start-up professional leagues such as the UFL. As it is now, those leagues and clubs would have to pay a lot more money to get top HS recruits to go pro straight from school. They are effectively priced out of the market for such labor currently by heavily-subsidized state institutions that are able to draw high-talented labor while paying next to nothing for it.

        Capping the value of offers from these government operations at a much lower price point (i.e. $0 + the non-monetary benefits working for them offers) would do a lot to open up the lower end of the market for new leagues.

        Top recruits wouldn’t jump overnight to play for a UFL team instead of going to a major D1A school, but after several years of some mid-level recruits going straight to such teams and getting paid 6-figures (with some even being bought by NFL teams), the UFL-type leagues would start to look a lot more attractive to HS recruits and thus fans, media, etc.

        • To be clear, that is considering the current set wage of CFB player-workers to effectively be (~$120,000 + the non-monetary benefits working for the government (in most cases) operations offers). Nader’s proposal would drop that to ($0 + …).

          Expanding on this scenario a little more, the football minor leagues being able to pull away more recruits straight from HS would lead to (as I mentioned) those leagues occasionally developing NFL-level talent. This would mean NFL teams having to pay more money to buy these players from the non-NFL clubs (as with international soccer and Japan’s baseball posting system). The NFL clubs might choose to leave their age minimum where it is (3 years out of HS), but more likely they would over time, as the non-NFL talent became more expensive, move to lower their minimum age by a year or two. And doing this would only make the HS-to-UFL route that much more enticing as players would no longer have to spend 3 years making ~$100K on a minor league team but just 1 or 2.

          And finally, it’s a great irony that what Ralph Nader is supporting would likely have the effect of greatly freeing up the football labor market by greatly reducing the government’s ability to price operators out of the market; while at the same time this market-friendly proposal would end up being strongly opposed by a large majority of the politically well-right-of-center crowds that make up CFB’s fanbase. (See here if you doubt the validity of that last characterization: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/Sports-Stats_900.gif.)


Leave a comment