Myth: Removing Oversigning Removes Educational Opportunities
Nick Saban and other SEC coaches, as well as SEC fans, want you to believe that by removing their ability to oversign you are going to eliminate educational opportunities for recruits. Hogwash. What they are afraid of is having to tell a kid they want that they don't have room and then have that kid go to a rival school that does have room.
Removing oversigning doesn't eliminate educational opportunities, it realocates those opportunities in a way that prevents student-athletes that are already receiving the opportunity from losing it. The real problem SEC coaches and fans have is the reallocation of those opportunities. In order to believe that removing oversigning removes educational opportunities, you have to believe that if a recruit is unable to go to the school on the top of his list because they don't have room for him that he will not go to college at all and will have no other offers or opportunities at other schools. Myth.
If a school has 27 openings, but can only sign 25 it will leave two scholarships that coaches will have to give to deserving 4th or 5th year walk-on players for one year until the next recruiting class comes around and they can sign a new recruit with the intention of keeping him for the next 4-5 years.
For some reason, fans seem to think that all walk-on players are rich and don't need a scholarship, and that they are just being used as tackling dummies for the fun of it. Not true. There are walk-on players that are every bit as needy as scholarship recruits; the only difference between the two groups is talent and in some cases there are walk-on players that are actually better than some that are on scholarship.
Scholarships will not be wasted, period. In fact, some coaches say that the greatest joy they get is from being able to award a scholarship to a deserving 4th or 5th year senior as a reward for all their hard work, dedication, and doing things right in the classroom and off the field.
If a coach knows he can only sign 25, then he should plan accordingly. The issue here is not whether or not they can find enough student-athletes that can play football and stay eligible and out of trouble because there are plenty out there, the issue is that coaches want the absolute best players and are willing to sacrifice academics and character in order to get the best talent. Said another way, there are plenty of kids in Mississippi that can play football and stay out of trouble and academically eligible, they might not run a 4.2 forty, but they can play. Therefore, if the state of Mississippi has a shortage of guys that can stay eligible, out of trouble, and can still run a 4.2 forty, tough.
If a recruit is good enough to garner an offer from an SEC school they will find a home somewhere at the FBS level if there is not enough room for them at an SEC school. For example, if an SEC school really wants a kid but they don't have room, the rest of the conference is going to know that they wanted the kid, and if they have room, one of those schools would love to snatch the recruit away from it's competitor.
What if every SEC school is full? Don't you think schools from the ACC, B12, Big East, and B1G would want to pick those kids up? Of course they would.
This notion that if a school doesn't have scholarship room under the 85 limit, despite having it under the 25 annual limit, it is going to send kids out into the street without an educational opportunity is absolute BS. If the kid is a borderline academic case or at risk of qualifying, he should go to JUCO and try again in 2 years.
Folks, this is all about hoarding players. The SEC is the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country for SEC teams and it kills them to let a recruit go somewhere else, but that is what is going to happen. Recruits will get an opportunity to go somewhere else, they will not be thrown into the streets and robbed of an education as the coaches would like you to believe. Not every recruit will get to go to his dream school, but that is already the case. If you are outraged by that fact then you should be outraged at the current system because it is already happening.
Against Oversigning
In Favor of Oversigning
Blogroll
- Atholon Sports
- CFBDataWarehouse
- CFN – College Football News
- NCPA – Website
- NCSA – Athletic Recruiting
- POPA – Parents of Players Association
- RTN – Reform the NCAA
- The Drake Group
2011 Oversigning Cup
ESPN OTL Oversigning Video
Oversigning.com on Twitter
- @GerdOzone imagine what that number would be had he oversigned at the rate of Saban/Miles/Nutt/Petrino.
- @greggdoyelcbs someone tell the NCAA to call me.
- Fwiw, I just wanted to ban oversigning, you guys.
- @BryanDFischer @andrewjbone remind me again how many guys were in that 2008 class and how many had to be cut to make room for them all.
From People on Twitter
- Alabama and Mississippi were scary places in 1950. But the grandkids are doing a bang-up job: http://t.co/OiKZzyaC
- @JoePas_Doghouse @RowlffDogg Yes, he did.
Reader Survey – Vote Today!
Loading ...Pages
Meta
Categories
- ACC
- Announcements
- Baseball
- Basketball
- Big 10
- Big 10 Expansion
- Big 12
- Big East
- Coaching
- Feedback
- History
- MAC
- NCAA
- Non BCS Conferences
- Off Topic
- PAC 10
- Quick Links
- Rants
- SEC
- SunBelt
- The Oversigning Cup
- Uncategorized
Recent Comments
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- Charlie9 on Elliott Porter 2.0
- WTF on Elliott Porter 2.0
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
June 3rd, 2011 - 07:32
Your argument admits that some kids will lose an opportunity to attend their dream school. That is a lost opportunity. By your logic here, since Elliott Porter got an offer from Kentucky, he suffered no harm. You can’t have it both ways.
Plus, you’re right back to the correlation of oversigning and dumb-and-dumber athletes. As posted previously, there’s no correlation between oversigning and lower APR. There’s no correlation between the B1G rule and higher APR.
Stop muddying the waters here with red herrings of your own. The issue and the kids deserve a more honest debate.
June 3rd, 2011 - 07:41
No correlation? Ole Miss is one of the worst oversigners and they were drilled with APR penalties two years ago and have the second lowest APR in the SEC; NW on the other hand does not oversign, never has, and they have one of the highest APR’s in the country along with one of the highest graduation rates.
Elliott Porter was not harmed? You’re kidding right? Yes, he got an offer from Kentucky, but he had to scramble at the last minute while on campus at LSU. If oversigning were banned in the SEC, Elliott would have either had a secure place at LSU or would have been told months in advance that they wouldn’t have room for him and he would have went elsewhere on schedule.
You’re one of the more heady guys that comment here, I expected better from you.
June 3rd, 2011 - 07:58
No correlation – yes. Nick Saban is the great Satan on this site, and he has the second highest APR in the SEC.
And you murder his logic about Elliott Porter. He’s saying YOUR argument means Elliott Porter suffered no harm going to UK instead of LSU. With oversigning, he did get screwed – unequivocally – but the kid seems willing to be screwed to attend LSU. That dream is dead with a hard cap and you are unwilling to admit that.
June 3rd, 2011 - 07:59
No. I said by your logic above he was not harmed. You argue above that as long as the system allocates 100% of its opportunities to someone, the system works.
As for APR – the numbers are right there. I can’t believe you don’t know them.
Posted earlier:
Re: The correlation between oversigning and dumbing down the CFB athlete.
PSU and Vandy both have a multi-year APR of 972. As does LSU, a “chronic oversigner”. The differences your argument assumes aren’t there in the one metric which should show such discrepancies. Yes, Arkansas and Ole Miss have 937’s, but Michigan, Minnesota, and MSU have 928, 938, and 935. In fact, Alabama and Mississippi State exceed Michigan and Michigan State by 49 points in APR, slightly less than they exceeded them on the field during bowl season.
I agree with you in principle, but once again, I’m just stunned that you think the B1G has achieved the dream. They’re as far afield on this one as the SEC. And the ACC, for that matter. Three conferences, 36 schools, an average APR per conference separated by all of two points.
The results that you claim will appear with adoption of these rules have not yet appeared in the one conference which has already adopted them. Care to explain?
June 3rd, 2011 - 19:44
“They’re as far afield on this one as the SEC.”
It’s statements like this that give away your phony “in the middle” bit.
Also, APR does nothing to account for all the players chased off to poorer schools (both academically and in resources). Once again, odd that someone so gloriously in the middle never mentions this.
June 3rd, 2011 - 20:28
Great point TD. So what do we do about it? If a school like Bama were shown to have 20% more of these players than other schools, then I could see where they could be getting around this. If, however they had an attrition rate in-line or similar to everybody else, then I would say the comparison is as good as can be done. If only someone had done such a comparison of attrition…
June 3rd, 2011 - 21:21
Attrition percentages are close to meaningless. It lowers the percentage when used early (say on a freshman) versus a junior. But i notice you like to look at “percentages” as opposed to actual numbers of kids cut.
June 3rd, 2011 - 22:23
How would you show that a team is cutting players then? I feel that attrition percentages are very valuable, and I wish someone with m/ore credibility than me would look into it.
??? So you propose I look at quantity alone? What is worse, a team that signs lonly 12 players and loses 4 to attrition, or one that signs 24 and loses 6? Which team are you more likely to be “cut” from? You’ve shown yourself competent at math, now can you properly analyize the results?
June 4th, 2011 - 06:45
I would say the team signing 24 and losing 6 is worse. But its kinda comparing pigs in a beauty contest, no? All in all, its kinda a moot point.
If you cut people earlier, it gives you more time to recruit more. I’d be interested to see statistics about when people leave in their career. The earlier they leave, the higher the signing numbers needed to correct that imbalance.
June 4th, 2011 - 09:35
That is interesting. If you want to know where you are more likely to be “cut”, you should look at percentages, that’s how that works.
Your thought on when players are cut is interesting as well. In my mind, a player needs a couple of years at least before he can begin to get a feel for if he will play any meaningful time or not. I would expect to see the majority of transfers occur after the second and third years. After that, there is not enough time to transfer and play at another school, and I would seriously question any transfer with only one year remaining. Goode from Bama is such a transfer, and my ears perked when I heard he had done so. But when you read his quotes about it, there is little question this is his decision and he has no ill will toward Bama. He’s a good player, he has graduated, and he would like some playing time to end his career, I don’t blame him, and wish him the best of luck – he’ll get it at UNA, they are a good program despite the lower division.
June 3rd, 2011 - 21:38
Whatever. So does Michigan keep more players and simply fail to graduate them?
Signing habits to date:
B1G: Highly restrictive.
SEC: No restrictions.
ACC: Somewhere in the middle.
All have the same average APR for the conference. Has to mean something, doesn’t it? If APR’s meaningless, or so easily circumvented, then why do 4 B1G programs hover in the 928-938 range?
June 4th, 2011 - 07:53
Use real graduation rates instead of APR.
June 4th, 2011 - 15:18
Fine. But APR’s a valid metric on this specific issue. If the B1G policy results in the recruitment of stronger students and higher retention of said students, then the B1G should be doing better on APR other conferences. It’s not.
If someone wants to compare graduation rates, go for it. But I have a feeling if that data supported J’s contention, we’d have seen it by now.
June 3rd, 2011 - 08:40
Elliott Porter transfered to LSU and is on the team.
June 3rd, 2011 - 09:25
I don’t think Porter returning to LSU really excuses what happened to him. Battered wives tend to go back to their battering husbands, but it doesn’t make the battery any less egregious.
June 3rd, 2011 - 19:39
You mean a working class kid chose to go home and play for his favorite school and be with all his friends and family instead of being hundreds of miles away?
Wow. He must not really have been wronged then.
June 3rd, 2011 - 22:44
Texas_Dawg,
If your reply was supposed to be a rebuttal to BC’s comment, you should probably reread his comment. He simply inserted a detail that may be pertinent, but he did not make any statements about Porter being or not being wronged.
June 3rd, 2011 - 09:07
Yeah, this is a weird one, Josh. The thesis is that “kids won’t lose opportunities without oversigning” but your supporting argument is filled with examples of kids losing opportunity. Not all opportunities are created equal. So a policy that removes a kid’s best opportunities and forces him to settle for options C, D, or E seems, I don’t know…potentially harmful to me.
The loss of better opportunities, even though lesser opportunities remain, still constitutes loss.
I think the point where the article begins to go astray is the last sentence of the second paragraph where you set up the remainder of the piece by putting forth a bit of a straw man argument: “In order to believe that removing oversigning removes educational opportunities, you have to believe that if a recruit is unable to go to the school on the top of his list because they don’t have room for him that he will not go to college at all and will have no other offers or opportunities at other schools.”
As Kobe Bryant might say, that’s a bikram yoga stretch. It misses the mark on two levels. 1. As I have exemplified above, you don’t have to believe a kid won’t go to college at all to believe he would lose educational opportunities. 2. I honestly don’t know anybody out there who would make that argument in the first place. And because your entry point into the issue so stretches and distorts the opposing viewpoint into a grotesquerie that bears no resemblance to the actual opposing viewpoint (but is much easier to poke holes in), the article is unable to engage the issue in a meangingful way.
Like I said….This is a weird one, Josh.
The only point I would really agree on from this piece is that these coaches likely care more about hoarding good football players than providing opportunities. But just because they’re full of it doesn’t mean that there aren’t REAL opportunities for kids here.
June 3rd, 2011 - 09:14
I wish this site provided an edit feature. Knowing the way these comment threads work, I can see where I omitted some words that are going to cause a problem. So for the sake of clarity: In point #1 in my fourth paragraph, I left out “and will have no other offers or opportunities at other schools” when summarizing the straw man due to length concerns. But I can now see where that’s going to lead to somebody running in and saying, “That’s not what he said! Can’t you REEEEAAADDD?” or some such. So consider it amended. The point remains the same.
June 3rd, 2011 - 10:13
It’s actually pretty simple. By your own account, a student cant go to the school of his choice is a bad thing. So what about the student who has to leave to make room? Now he has just been forced not to go to the school of his choice. It’s a zero-sum game. By your own logic, the incoming choice benefit is equal to the loss I’d the outgoing kids choice benefit!
June 3rd, 2011 - 10:39
You know, you’re actually pretty close to understanding what we were talking about last night, even if you don’t quite realize it yet. I’m impressed. I’ll be honest, I had kinda given up on you.
June 3rd, 2011 - 12:15
Don’t try to be patronizing. It’s really not becoming. The point of the article was to point out that oversigning does not provide more educational opportunities. Do you believe that? I doubt it because you said in a previous post its equal. But by stating that it removes options for the incoming kid (and ignoring for the outgoing) you can’t claim that it is beneficial.
But then, if not getting into the college you want is a loss, you must also say that the 85 scholarship limit is a loss. After all, the ncaa is preventing students from going to the college of their choice.
June 3rd, 2011 - 12:24
Amen to that. A stupid prohibition, driven solely by $$$ concerns. Let schools sign as many as they want. If you’re worried about schools hoarding players, then relax the transfer rules. More opportunity. More student rights…. Oh well. Nice to dream.
June 3rd, 2011 - 12:39
Not being patronizing at all. Last night, I sincerely believe you were never going to understand the 1:1 talk. Today, you seem a little closer, and I’m glad. It means we’re on the verge of being able to have a more substantive conversation on the subject.
As for that second paragraph…Hey, that sounds alright to me.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:18
Luke, I don’t think anyone is for the use of Forced Attrition, but that has little to do with oversigning. No player is needed to be Forced out to allow for greyshirts. The idea of a greyshirt is to allow a kid from the current class to count toward the next class. If someone leaves early or doesn’t qualify, then they can move to the current class to fill that open spot. This isn’t a bad thing as long as the kid and parents understand what offer is being given to them and they are good with it.
The problem comes when recruiters don’t tell or mislead a recruit in what they are offering. This is bad and everyone on this site that I have seen would agree with that. It can be solved without killing the greyshirt.
No coach should Force attrition, even if he wants to bring a younger kid in. It’s wrong. If Nick Saban is doing it… I do not support it. However, I don’t feel this is going on in his case. I do agree that it can be abused, but again… on any transfer or medical hardship, the player HAS to sign off on it. Yes, the scholarship could be non-renewed, but I have yet to hear of that being done…
The simple facts are that you CAN oversign by a large number if you wish and NOT have a single case of forced attrition. You don’t have to SHED a single scholarship. The IDEA of oversiging or better put, greyshirtting, is that they count toward the next year.
I think you’ll find that those on this site that are labeled “pro-oversigning” are AGAINST Forced attrition and AGAINST misleading and hinding greyshirt offers. I think what you’ll find from Josh, is that he is for KILLING Greyshirts at all cost. I don’t think he really cares much about the effect it would or wouldn’t have on the kids… I have never seen a single post that could show where a greyshirt offer to a kid that knows it is a greyshirt offer and is willing to accept it is Bad for that recruit or the school or any player on the team.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:29
The viewpoint of your question is all wrong. You are assuming that students are being forced out to make the room. That is an assumption, and one that noone has been able to quantify as yet (quite the opposite, in fact). If players are being actively kicked off the teams to make room, then your premise is correct and opportunity is lost as well as gained, but if players are pursuing transfers of their own choice for whatever reason (pursuing a better opportunity for playing time chief among them) then no opportunity is lost, and more is gained. Also, when a player is removed for disciplenary issues, he lost his opportunity of his own accord, and without oversigning, no additional opportunity would be available at that time. I disagree with Jay on this, it is not necessarily a zero-sum gain.
June 4th, 2011 - 07:41
While I understand your use of APR as the only measuring stick, it is extremely flawed and really does not have any purpose in any discussion of academic achievement.
As for the loss of opportunity to attend your dream school, life isn’t fair. The kid still gets the opportunity for a fee education at a fine institution.
Not all of us can go to PSU; some get stuck at sPitt.
June 4th, 2011 - 08:52
So what’s your problem again with oversigning? If you concern is with the players, it should be the kids who are “cut” to make room, right? If what you posted above is how you feel, this shouldn’t be a problem because these cut players all still get that oppportunity at a free education. I think that is a very dangerous position for you…
June 4th, 2011 - 09:54
Cut players are forced to move to another university to continue their education. Most cases course credit transfer is not 100%. Not all cut players get an opportunity to continue their education as not 100% of them will receive a scholarship at another university. I won’t attempt to quantify the %, but a % of scholarship years are therefore wasted by the university, if the aim is to produce college graduates.
This is true if the cuts are made post signing day as has been alleged to go on in the SEC, or pre-signing day as alleged to go on at places like Iowa and OSU in the B1G.
June 4th, 2011 - 15:23
It’s the NCAA’s metric for punishing schools that fail to promote academic achievement in their students, so it plays a huge role in any discussion.
But I am not arguing academic achievement. I am arguing the contention that the B1G policy leads to the recruitment of stronger students and better retention of said students. I see no difference on that front with the SEC and ACC. None. And APR comparisons confirm that suspicion.
If there’s a metric that supports J’s assertion, then let him put it out there. The B1G rule has been around awhile. The effect should be easy to demonstrate if it actually exists.
June 3rd, 2011 - 07:59
So your arguement is that there is no lost opportunity because recruits not signed by the SEC will be signed by other schools? Brilliant, simply brilliant. So, if the average number of LOIs per team drops by 3 per year, will we see a corresponding rise in average number of LOIs per team throughout the rest of the country? Of course not. Even if the recruits that would have signed at an SEC school do sign with another school, the net result is fewer LOIs and fewer scholarships nationwide.
Another way to look at it. What if the entire country adopted the annual 25 hard cap? You would see the national average for signing classes drop from say 24 to 22. Do you not see that there are now fewer opportunities for high school players to play scholarship football in college?
June 3rd, 2011 - 09:37
What? How is the net result fewer scholarships nationwide? For arguments sake, assume 100 d1 football colleges. That means there are 8500 students on scholarship. Regardless of whether oversigning is allowed or disallowed, there are no more or less students on scholarship. That’s pretty simple.
June 3rd, 2011 - 09:45
If each of those 100 schools has to award scholarships to 4 walk-ons to reach the 85 limit, then that’s 400 high school seniors who won’t be able to go to college on a football scholarship. While the total number of scholarships is still 8500, the number of people getting a college education drops from 8900 to 8500.
June 3rd, 2011 - 10:24
Right. Let’s ignore grants and student loans. In my scenario, the current seniors can’t afford college anymore. They are forced to drop out, leaving the number at 8500 still. Thus there is no change. Or are you stating/thinking that college seniors are awash with money and don’t need a scholarship?
June 3rd, 2011 - 10:30
Fine. Let’s assume that a certain percentage of the 400 senior walk-ons can’t afford to pay tuition their final year and drop out of college. Let’s also assume that a certain percentage of the 400 high school recruits who didn’t get scholarships because of the 25 hard cap wind up not enrolling in college. Which percentage do you think is higher? Be honest.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:01
Pretty close to the same. There are federal grants and other college loans out there. Probably the same way the walk on did.
June 3rd, 2011 - 08:19
No doubt the current system in the SEC gives more initial opportunities to kids.
Opportunity =/= graduation
If you sign more recruits that means you NEED to cut more to stay under the 85 limit. So if School A always signs 5 more players than School B, then School A will also have 5 less upperclassmen. Which in turn means less players make it to graduation. I know this statement is common sense but what good is more opportunity if less players in total actually succeed? Which system actually produces more graduates?
June 3rd, 2011 - 08:38
Your last paragraph is a gross over-simplification and ignores many factors that affect the relative signing numbers between two schools. Number of redshirts, JUCO signees, players who don’t qualify, and players who leave early for the draft can more than account for a difference of 5 signees per year. In fact, ITM stated yesterday that a school that redshirts 90% of its players whill have 4 fewer new scholarship to give per year than a school that redshirts 70%.
Catch 5 has shown that when you remove players who don’t qualify and players who leave early for the draft that attrition rates are comparable between the SEC and Big Ten. Yes, SEC schools sign on average more recruits that the Big Ten, but the difference is due to non-qualifiers and JUCOs not forced attrition.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:46
That is factually incorrect that if you redshirt 90% versus 70% you get 4 more signees per year. Those numbers are WAY, way off. The difference is about 1 per year
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:55
hmm…. I’m not a math experct, but….
85 *.9 = 76.5 (number of players 5 to play 4)
85*.7 = 58.5 (number of players 5 to play 4)
76.5-59.5= 17 (additional players you can bring in at the 4 year mark)
17/4 = 4.25 (average players per year extra over that 4 year mark)
Again, my math isn’t the best…. but I think Vesper was right on the mark….
June 3rd, 2011 - 14:41
Nope. Try again.
Here are the facts:.
90% redshirting: 17 players per class. 1 goes 4 years, the rest go 5.
17 +17+17+17+16 = 84. Can’t get exactly 85 but with exact numbers you’ll understand.
70% redshirting: 18 players a class. 12 go 5 years, which is about 70%
18+18+18+18+12=84
That’s only a difference of 1.
June 3rd, 2011 - 16:04
So… we are agreed then that Luke’s version of “the facts” are actually non-fact based on ignorance and poor math?
June 3rd, 2011 - 16:25
Umm. Actually the reverse has been proven. The difference between 92% redshirting and 67% redshirting is only 1 signee a year. I’m sure there’s a joke in here about a quality SEC education, but I won’t go there
June 3rd, 2011 - 16:35
Actually, as much as it pains to admit it, he’s right, although his example doesn’t really explain it that well. I knew there was a good reason I stopped at Calculus C.
At 90%, a roster divides approximately 75/10. At 70%, approximately 60/25. So the 70% model replaces 4 more 4 year guys annually but 3 less 5 year guys, for a net of 1 per. As I tell my students, you can’t check your work if you do it in your head.
June 3rd, 2011 - 17:10
Yes, much like simply comparing LOIs over 5 years, a simple percentage comparison of the total allowed does not tell the whole tale.
Bathel and Co are correct – IF you can sign 85 guys one year and zero the next 3. Then you can sign 8 in year 5 (for 90%), giving you a 5-year total of 94 players – or you can sign 26 in year 5 (for 70%), giving you a total of 111 players signed over 5 years. The difference is 17 players.
The problem is that this doesn’t reflect the way it works, and by looking at the first five years of a skewed formula, you don’t have a realistic number of players coming back into the system. If you continue the formula (I did it on a spreadsheet), eventually the numbers stabilize, and better represent a perfect world recruiting class:
For 90% you get classes of 20, 20, 20, 11, and 16 (for years 148-152 and on). This gives you a total of 87 players over 5 years.
For 70% you get classes of 18, 20, 19, 17, and 17 (for years 76-80 and on). This gives you a total of 91 players over 5 years.
The difference is obviously closer to 4 players over 5 years in the perfect world.
Luke is closer to correct, though I really don’t follow his explaination.
June 3rd, 2011 - 21:27
What? Its simple. Heres how to find out what the difference is between redshirts: for simplicity sake, i’ve broke them into years, 4 years, then a 5th year senior (redshirt) year.
x+x+x+x+(redshirt percentage)*x=85. Thats how many people you can sign per class (assuming no attrition, but thats another story entirely). I don’t know where you are coming up with your numbers. Its a simple formula.
Math is fun!
June 4th, 2011 - 09:39
Luke, that only adds in the redshirt percentage for one year over 5. The spread sheet I did started out just like that, but then continued, adding in the redshirt and standard graduates from the previous years, and then counted how many LOIs the school could sign over 5 years. Even if you started with 85 signees the first year, they slowly spread out over time and eventually stabilize at the numbers I gave.
June 3rd, 2011 - 17:23
Luke,
Sorry, I was basing it on your statement:
“Nope! Just bad at math. See above”
One can calculate the difference in scholarship spots in this fashion:
N = 85(1/4-1/(4+RS%))
where RS% is the fraction being redshirted, N is number of scholarships per year difference from fractional redshirt and no redshirts.
Assumes no attrition; same number signed in each class; all redshirt players remain on scholarship 5 years; non-redshirts remain on scholarship 4 years.
But the assumptions are obviously faulty, which is what Vesper and others have noted.
June 3rd, 2011 - 21:29
Actually, the number of scholarships is this:
N = 85/(4+RS%)
Your formula is off
June 3rd, 2011 - 22:35
My formula is correct… read how I define N.
June 3rd, 2011 - 14:01
In essence, 17 more players will exhaust their eligibility in 4 years in the 70% RS group vs the 90% RS group… this affords the school that only RS 70% to offer 4 more scholarships per year on average vs the 90% Redshirt group….
June 3rd, 2011 - 14:19
You’re clearly just a B1G hater who brings no facts to the discussion
.
June 3rd, 2011 - 14:42
Nope! Just bad at math. See above
June 4th, 2011 - 11:37
Apparently there is a depth problem for replies…. couldn’t reply to catch’s post above
June 3rd, 2011 - 09:36
I see your point, which rests in the dangers of isolating solely on system input, therefore excluding system output. Not that this sort of thing doesn’t happen around here a lot.
APR’s the best we’re going to do on that front, I think. My comments comparing conference performance for that metric can be found above. Alabama and LSU both outperform 7 of the B1G schools on that front and essentially tie 4 more. Only NW jumps out front, which is why I suppose J keeps tossing it out there.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:36
You can’t solely use APR though. Certain schools are harder to graduate from than others. You have to Target different kinds and types of athletes. And BTW, OSU is also out in front. APR by itself can be misleading.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:54
I agree, opportunity is not a guarantee – and it shouldn’t be. I see where you further argument is coming from, and would agree with the problem if you could back it up with real-life numbers. In fact, however, APR rates are comparable between the SEC, B10, and ACC so graduation rates in fact do not suffer. As I’ve shown (admittedly only one year’s class so far) the SEC suffers the same attrition rates as the B10 on average. So if Bama is bringing in more players, not forcing them off at a higher rate, and graduating them at the same (or higher) rate, how can you say they don’t provide more opportunity?
To do so you must deny one of these variables – my study of attrition is admittedly the easiest target, and I invite anyone to refute it. Luke has disagreed with my qualifier that players that don’t set foot on campus don’t count as attrition. That is the only negative I’ve seen so far and while I disagree with Luke, I still welcome the criticism from him or anyone else who takes issue with the findings. I wholly admit that it may not be perfect and will gladly correct any errors you may find – but until someone discovers such errors, I will continue to question the premise that the SEC cuts players to make room for oversigning.
June 3rd, 2011 - 08:44
It does remove educational opportunities. If everyone undersigns and awards 2-4 scholarships a year to people who are already attending school, then you will end up with fewer high school students receiving those scholarships. I support those scholarships going to high school prospects. There are a limited number of scholarships available in any given season. That is true. It doesn’t mean we should keep the rules as they are, but you at least have to recognize the tradeoff.
June 3rd, 2011 - 10:08
So your opinion is that high school seniors deserve a scholarship more than a college senior? That’s pretty arbitrary.
June 3rd, 2011 - 10:11
Arbitrary? No. It prioritizes the kid not yet on campus for the one already there. A clear and consistent standard. The merits of both can debated. But the word “arbitrary” doesn’t apply.
June 3rd, 2011 - 10:27
And why is there that priority? You can’t say, we have a priority for people not yet on campus for those not. That is rather arbitrary. It still applies.
June 3rd, 2011 - 12:10
If you want to go all post-modern, then everything is arbitrary. Otherwise, two competing standards do not render one or other arbitrary, no matter how hard political pundits and the like try to spin things. Both standards proceed from their own sets of assumptions and values. The merits and relative cost-benefits of both can be debated. But “arbitrary” implies both the lack of forethought and the lack of a guiding principle.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:19
Luke,
“Deserving?” No… BC wasn’t saying that one “deserves” a scholarship over another, but let’s use your fantastic logic. Why not just fill a team with walk-ons anyway? After all, it seems arbitrary to favor high school seniors over college seniors… plus, if you fill a team with college seniors, the APR would be much better.
Also, Josh’s argument is full of terrible logic and emotional drivel. Non-graduating students are more likely to attend school in the following year than are high school seniors. That is a fact. APR proves this.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:36
Logical conclusion to second paragraph:
In general, giving a scholarship to a high school senior INSTEAD of a walk-on will increase academic opportunity.
June 3rd, 2011 - 15:06
Really? It’s not increasing academic opportunity. The high school student still has plenty of academic opportunity, he can also apply for grants, etc. He’s not prevented from going to college. He may GASP have to pay for some of his college degree.
June 3rd, 2011 - 15:54
Luke,
You don’t understand logic. Someone who is already in college is statistically more likely to go to college the next year. Do you understand this? If you’re defending Josh on this article, then you are fighting against solid logic. You want the anti-oversigning mentality to be justified… you are so blinded by emotion and/or biases that you choose to ignore facts.
June 4th, 2011 - 06:55
Fighting against solid logic? Considering you were arguing against the difference between redshirting 70% and 90% of players, i’m not too worried about being blinded by emotion and logic. I seem to recall up above when you said my version was based on “bad facts and logic” whereas the numbers are data clearly prove the opposite. Pot, meet kettle.
June 5th, 2011 - 10:43
Your errant critique of my math has been addressed.
It remains fact that removing oversigning removes educational opportunities.
June 3rd, 2011 - 17:46
If that’s really how you feel about it, then why would you be so opposed to the idea of coaches “cutting” under-performing players from the roster. After all, they’re not getting kicked out of college; they’re just losing their scholarship. By your logic, all they have to do is apply for a grant and finish their college education like the walk-ons or high school seniors who are denied scholarships by signing limits.
June 4th, 2011 - 11:40
Kids shouldn’t have to pay for a coaches inability to gauge talent. I didn’t say it was impossible, but a coach cutting a kid hurts the kid in the wallet, due to the coaches inability to gauge. I would applaud any kid to go and finish school. But it doesn’t strike me as ethical to give someone something, then take it away based upon someone more talented coming in.
June 5th, 2011 - 10:48
Luke, I think you missed the point.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:34
They way the rules are set now, each school can decide where they want those scholarships to go… maybe a upper classman has “earned it” and it’s given to him… maybe a incoming recuit is more deserving in the eyes of the coaches… either way, it’s each schools decision how to allocate those scholarships.
The idea is that one is a case by case situation… and up to the school/coaches to decide where to allocate those extra. If they have a history of giving walkon scholarships, they can use that in recruiting and show kids where they can walk on and EARN a scholarship. If a school like Alabama doesn’t have a history of doing that, then I would expect it would hurt them in making a case with a kid to walk on and not go somewhere else.
To be honest, the 25 per class NCAA rule is pretty stupid anyway. If a school wants to allocate 85 scholarships to one class they should be able to do so… they would soon be hurt in recruiting if they did that, but it would be their choice. There really should be NO class cap at all. The only CAP that should be inforced is the 85 limit, which I personally feel is a bit low anyway… but it is what it is.
June 3rd, 2011 - 13:35
They way the rules are set now, each school can decide where they want those scholarships to go… maybe a upper classman has “earned it” and it’s given to him… maybe a incoming recuit is more deserving in the eyes of the coaches… either way, it’s each schools decision how to allocate those scholarships.
The idea is that one is a case by case situation… and up to the school/coaches to decide where to allocate those extra. If they have a history of giving walkon scholarships, they can use that in recruiting and show kids where they can walk on and EARN a scholarship. If a school like Alabama doesn’t have a history of doing that, then I would expect it would hurt them in making a case with a kid to walk on and not go somewhere else.
To be honest, the 25 per class NCAA rule is pretty stupid anyway. If a school wants to allocate 85 scholarships to one class they should be able to do so… they would soon be hurt in recruiting if they did that, but it would be their choice. There really should be NO class cap at all. The only CAP that should be inforced is the 85 limit, which I personally feel is a bit low anyway… but it is what it is.
June 3rd, 2011 - 16:17
Well, being that this is an athletic scholarship, and the college senior you are referencing is a walk-on, I’ll step out and say that the high school stand-out football player is more deserving than a 5th year senior who has only played in mop-up duty and at A-day. Sure, there are walk-ons who prove themselves able to compete and get meaningful playing time (see Will Lowery at Bama, started at Safety much of last year), but this isn’t enough to fill 3 or 4 empty spots every year (on average).
Even still, awarding a scholly to a walk-on does not create opportunity. The player is already on the team. Bringing in a new player does.
June 3rd, 2011 - 16:04
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
That’s all I hear from the mod here.