Oversigning.com
6Feb/1115

BCS Conference Signings

We are still working on the cup standings and we are working on a piece about Saban's comments regarding his numbers.  We are having a hard time believing that with the addition of 24 new players (22 recruits that signed this year + 2 grayshirts from last year) that Alabama is exactly at 85 right now, which is what he implied by saying what they signed is what they had room for right now. 

Saban said Alabama has signed the number of players that it could.

"We could add one or so to that, if the opportunity presents itself in the future," he said...

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/02/saban_defends_practices_of_ove.html

A cursory check of the roster shows 14 seniors, 6 of which were on the scout team, 3 juniors leaving for the NFL, and 1 transfer prior to signing day.  That is a departure of 12 scholarship players.  In order for Alabama to be full right now, they had to have been under the 85 cap by 12 last year.  If they were under the cap of 85 by 12 then why did two players grayshirt on the last day before the deadline last year?  It just doesn't add up.  We're going to break it all down in a separate post.

In the meantime, here is a break down of the class signings for all BCS conferences.  No surprises here.  The conference with all those teams ranked in the top 15 in recruiting had the most players signed by a landslide.  Again, where would all those teams rank if they were restricted to only taking what they have room for like everyone else?

2011 Recruiting Numbers - Players Signed - Big 10, SEC, ACC, Pac12

B1G Signed   SEC Signed   ACC Signed   Pac12 Signed
Illinois 27   South Carolina 30   Florida St 29   USC 29
Iowa 23   Arkansas 30   Clemson 29   Wash St. 25
Ohio State 23   Tennessee 27   Virginia 26   Oregon St. 24
Minnesota 22   Mississippi 27   UNC 25   Washington 23
Indiana 21   Georgia 25   BC 23   Oregon 23
Michigan State 21   Auburn 24   GT 22   Cal 22
Wisconsin 20   Kentucky 24   VT 21   Arizona 21
Michigan 20   LSU 22   NC State 20   Colorado 19
Nebraska 19   Miss State 22   Duke 20   Utah 19
Northwestern 17   Alabama 22   Maryland 20   Stanford 19
Penn State 16   Vanderbilt 21   Miami 16   UCLA 16
Purdue 15   Florida 18   Wake 14   ASU 13
Total 244   Total 292   Total 265   Total 253
Average 20   Average 24   Average 22   Average 21


2011 Recruiting Numbers - Players Signed - B12 & Big East

Big 12 Signed Big East Signed
Ok State 27   Syracuse 26
Texas Tech 27   Cincinnati 24
Kansas 26   Rutgers 24
Kansas State 25   West Virginia 22
Iowa State 22   USF 21
Texas A&M 22   Pitt 20
Texas 22   Louisville 19
Baylor 19   UConn 16
Missouri 17      
Oklahoma 17      
         
         
Total 224   Total 172
Average 22   Average 21.5

4Jun/1023

Texas A&M – Off the Clock but Still Over the Limit

Thanks to Travis, someone who actually understands the real purpose of this website, we now have some numbers on Texas A&M.  The original claim from the Alabama fan was that Texas A&M was 5 over the limit with 90 scholarships at the present moment.  Travis did the legwork and has provided the following for everyone:

Click the link to continue reading >>> 

Filed under: Big 12 Continue reading
29May/1078

On the Clock

    

In a previous post, we responded to Alabama fans that were outraged by our March to 85 piece by giving them a homework assignment.  The assignment was for them to bring us a BCS school that needs to shed more than 6 scholarship commitments between now and August when the NCAA will required that all teams have their rosters down to 85 players.   It took a little bit of time, but we finally had a reader post a list of schools that he claims are over the limit and needs to shed players. 

Here's the list from the Alabama fan:

"You want other programs? Here ya go….

LSU currently has 91 players on scholarship (Need to cut 6)
Miami currently has 91 players on scholarship (Need to cut 6)
Texas A&M currently has 90 players on scholarship (Need to cut 5)
Washington currently has 88 players on scholarship (Need to cut 3)
Nebraska currently has 87 players on scholarship (Need to cut 2)

Texas was at 88 players on scholarship, had 2 transfer, and now needs to cut 1 more."

Okay, so where do we start?  First, let's get a table of the recruiting numbers for each of these schools in one place so we can easily look at them together here.  This is everything from 2002 - 2010; we'll narrow this down to the numbers we need for this investigation a little later in this post.

On The Clock

Teams Conf. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Average
LSU SEC 26 28 26 13 26 26 26 24 29 224 24.89
Miami ACC 24 24 28 17 22 19 33 19 28 214 23.77
Texas A&M B12 23 24 28 25 23 18 24 28 23 216 24
Washington PAC10 21 27 23 13 22 27 26 19 31 209 23.22
Nebraska B12 21 19 20 32 22 27 28 20 21 210 23.33
Texas B12 28 18 20 15 25 24 20 20 22 192 21.33

Done. 

Now, how do we figure out who went over the limit this year by accepting more signed letters of intent then they had room for given the number of scholarship commitments they had on National Signing day?  The math is really simple, but finding the actual roster numbers for the previous year online can be difficult, which is why we are asking you, the fans of these schools, to participate and help us determine if your team went over the limit.  We could do it on our own if all of these teams has a sweet online depth chart application like Notre Dame has available here; make sure you click on Roster Chart when you open the link (side note - if we had any sense at all we would build an application like this to house roster data for all 64 BCS schools and then charge a fee to access it - but as it is we barely have enough time to keep up with blog and our real lives). 

Regardless, we have the number of players signed to each recruiting class (see table above), therefore, all we need now is to know exactly how many players were on scholarship on National Signing Day.  Typically, this is the previous year's total number of scholarship players (which will vary from school to school because not all schools are always at 85 every year) minus graduating seniors with no eligibility left and minus juniors who have declared for the NFL draft by the deadline on January 15th.  We refer to this number as the "recruiting budget."

Until we can get those numbers, let's just look at how many players each school has signed over the last 5 years.  We're going to subtotal 2007 - 2009 and then add 2010 to that number and call it the subtotal for 2007-2010.  We are also going to show you the 2006 numbers, which would represent the 5th year senior classes for these schools.  It is very likely that each of these schools will have a few 5th year guys on their roster.

On The Clock - Numbers for 2006 - 2010

Teams Conf. 2006 2007 2008 2009 (07-09) 2010 (07-10)
LSU SEC 26 26 26 24 76 29 105
Miami ACC 22 19 33 19 71 28 99
Texas A&M B12 23 18 24 28 70 23 93
Washington PAC10 22 27 26 19 72 31 103
Nebraska B12 22 27 28 20 75 21 96
Texas B12 25 24 20 20 64 22 86

For comparisons sake, now let's look at a few teams that we have investigated in the past and that we know are not over the limit.

Not On The Clock

Teams Conf. 2006 2007 2008 2009 (07-09) 2010 (07-10)
Georgia SEC 28 23 24 20 67 19 86
Vanderbilt SEC 25 14 21 18 53 24 77
USC PAC10 27 18 19 18 55 20 75
Stanford PAC10 18 19 17 22 58 23 81
Penn State B10 24 21 14 27 62 20 82
Ohio State B10 20 15 20 25 60 18 78
Northwestern B10 17 19 20 18 57 17 74
Notre Dame Ind. 28 18 23 18 59 23 82

And then finally, here is Alabama.  Still above those on the clock and way, way above those not on the clock.

Alabama

Teams Conf. 2006 2007 2008 2009 (07-09) 2010 (07-10)
Alabama SEC 23 25 32 27 84 29 113

(Important: It should be noted that the 2007-2010 numbers do not include the 5th year guys from 2006.  Therefore, schools that are under 85 in this column are either short-handed or they have a number of 5th year guys; schools that are way over 85 either have no 5th year guys or they have a few and the numbers are even worse.)

Before everyone gets all up in arms, there is more to this than just these numbers and this is where it gets really time consuming in trying to investigate oversigning.  From 2006 to 2010 a lot of things happen to the rosters, some things are legitimate and some things are not.  The numbers above are the numbers signed; we still need to know who left the team and who still remains from the 2006 class, which will give us the total number of scholarship players at the end of the 2009 season.  From there we can subtract the graduating seniors and early entries into the NFL.  That will give us our recruiting budget for the 2010 class. 

We're not asking that you guys hunt down the back story to every single transfer (although that would be nice), all we really need is the total scholarship commitments at National Signing Day, which is what we described above.  Once we have those numbers we will add the number for the 2010 class and see if it is over 85.

So there it is, we have provided a nice starting point for investing the schools Alabama fans have claimed are also guilty of oversigning players.  Now we just need your help to finish up the investigation.  Please post anything you have here and we'll continue to discuss.

Filed under: Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, SEC 78 Comments
6May/1023

2006 – 2010 Recruiting Numbers

Update 6/1/2010: This appears to be a very popular post.  It has been linked to a lot of websites over the last few days, and judging by the comments associated with the sites that have linked to it there appears to be some misconceptions as to what these numbers mean.   Here are couple of things to know before looking at the original post and the numbers.

1.) The table below is not a listing of teams from worst oversigners to least (we never said it was by the way).  It is simply the number of players that signed letters of intent (referred to as "commits") for each BCS school, sorted by the highest number of players signed to the lowest.   Granted, there is a strong connection between having a high number of players signed and oversigning.  However, not all teams that have high numbers are guilty of oversigning.  One reason for this could be the use of JUCO players that only have 2 years of eligibility, another reason could be consecutive years of attrition during the regular season or after national signing day on classes that were not oversigned.  For example, if a team has room for 23 guys and they take 22 and then 5 guys transfer during the spring, the team will go into the fall short 6...if this happens a couple of years in a row you could see teams with a high average number but yet never oversigned.  They too have a problem but it is not oversigning.

2.) In order to determine if the numbers below indicate that a school oversigned, you need to understand what oversigning really is.  It is not just having really high numbers every year and it is not having more than 25 in a single class.  Oversigning is the practice of accepting more signed letters of intent on National Signing Day than you have scholarship openings for under the 85 limit when you accept the signed letters and then depending on attrition between signing day and the NCAA deadline in August to get down to 85.   This is where we have pointed to Alabama as the easiest to understand example of oversigning.  They had 66 players on scholarship on NSD, leaving only room for 19 new recruits; instead of signing 19 new recruits they accepted letters from 29 players.  So while Alabama has lower total numbers below, they were actually more guilty of oversigning than Auburn.  Auburn's issue is that they have had so much attrition (mostly academic) that they, despite having signed more players than anyone in the country, are always playing catch up.  This too is a problem, but it's a slightly different breed of cat.  How they have managed to avoid APR penalties is proof that the system for APR is flawed.

3.) Determining which teams oversign is time consuming process and requires some investigation.  You can't just look at the numbers below and say that all the teams that have signed more than 85 players are guilty of oversigning.  In order to determine who oversigned you have to look at the the 2009 team roster at National Signing Day and determine how many players are on scholarship when the new letters are accepted.  This number is typically the number of scholarship players on the 2009 roster minus graduating seniors that have exhausted their eligibility minus any players that have declared for the NFL draft by the deadline on January 15th.  Once you have that number you subtract it from 85 and that gives you the recruiting budget for the next class. Lastly, compare how many players a team signed to how many they had room to sign, and that is how you determine who oversigned.  It's not an easy process and it is part of the reason why few people really understand this process and how the numbers really work.  There will be those that point to the 1-year scholarship rule, but they fail to realize that scholarships are not renewed until July first, therefore, players with eligibility remaining are still on scholarship on signing day.

4.) The real purpose for the numbers in the table below was to show how many players were signed by each school in hopes of shedding light on the schools that are doing a good job of retaining players and keeping their numbers in check, as well as showing the schools that go through a lot more players.  Yes, there are some that are guilty of oversigning, but don't go away from this article thinking that everyone over 85 has oversigned because they haven't and don't come away thinking that this is a list of oversigning teams from top to bottom.   

Back to the original post:

The results below should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this site or knows anything at all about oversigning, but we thought we would post them anyways.  The chart below shows the average number of players signed per team by each conference for 2006-2010 and the table below the chart shows all of the BCS teams and their numbers (note the total and average columns in table are just for 2007-2010 so that you can get an idea of what each school has done in just the last four recruiting classes). 

There is really not a lot to say here that hasn't already been said.  However, these numbers do give us a pretty good indication of exactly who is doing the best job of recruiting and retaining players at a high rate.  The NCAA needs to do something to rein in some of these schools that are simply abusing the spirit of recruiting student athletes.  Although there is a NCAA By-Law that states that football scholarships are 1-year renewable contracts, we all know the true spirit of scholarship athletics is to recruit players with the intention of developing them over a 4-5 year period and making sure they graduate from your school.  These numbers make it pretty clear who is operating within that spirit and who is simply running through players with a win at all costs mentality.

Recruiting Numbers 2007 - 2010

Teams Conf. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 07-10 Total 07-10 Average
Auburn SEC 25 30 29 28 32 119 29.75
Ole Miss SEC 30 22 31 37 25 115 28.75
Miss. State SEC 24 33 27 27 26 113 28.25
Alabama SEC 23 25 32 27 29 113 28.25
Arkansas SEC 26 27 26 31 25 109 27.25
Kansas State B12 30 34 33 25 17 109 27.25
South Carolina SEC 24 31 23 29 23 106 26.50
West Virginia BigEast 16 28 30 26 21 105 26.25
LSU SEC 26 26 26 24 29 105 26.25
Iowa State B12 30 25 25 26 28 104 26.00
Oklahoma State B12 29 23 28 26 27 104 26.00
Kentucky SEC 31 29 20 29 26 104 26.00
Baylor B12 29 29 23 28 23 103 25.75
Washington PAC10 22 27 26 19 31 103 25.75
Arizona State PAC10 24 24 28 22 27 101 25.25
Washington St. PAC10 24 27 27 22 25 101 25.25
Louisville BigEast 25 18 26 29 27 100 25.00
USF BigEast 28 27 24 29 20 100 25.00
Oregon PAC10 21 29 22 26 23 100 25.00
Virginia Tech ACC 22 26 31 22 21 100 25.00
Mizzu B12 25 27 24 25 23 99 24.75
Miami ACC 22 19 33 19 28 99 24.75
North Carolina ACC 28 24 18 28 28 98 24.50
Syracuse BigEast 24 27 26 16 29 98 24.50
Minnesota B10 22 24 29 20 24 97 24.25
Tennessee SEC 22 32 18 22 25 97 24.25
Florida State ACC 31 20 32 21 23 96 24.00
Nebraska B12 22 27 28 20 21 96 24.00
Oregon State PAC10 33 34 18 24 18 94 23.50
Oklahoma B12 28 21 21 23 29 94 23.50
Cincinnati BigEast 19 23 24 25 22 94 23.50
Texas A&M B12 23 18 24 28 23 93 23.25
Illinois B10 27 23 28 22 20 93 23.25
Florida SEC 27 27 22 17 27 93 23.25
Michigan B10 19 20 24 22 27 93 23.25
Texas Tech B12 34 26 16 25 25 92 23.00
Connecticut BigEast 22 29 22 21 20 92 23.00
Colorado B12 22 28 21 20 21 90 22.50
Rutgers BigEast 26 23 20 23 24 90 22.50
N.C. State ACC 22 26 17 26 21 90 22.50
Maryland ACC 22 26 17 26 21 90 22.50
Arizona PAC10 25 19 24 24 22 89 22.25
Purdue B10 27 19 26 20 24 89 22.25
Wisconsin B10 23 18 26 21 24 89 22.25
Michigan State B10 28 23 21 23 21 88 22.00
Cal PAC10 20 26 22 21 19 88 22.00
Iowa B10 21 22 25 20 21 88 22.00
Pittsburg BigEast 27 24 19 20 24 87 21.75
Kansas B12 25 23 20 25 18 86 21.50
Georgia SEC 28 23 24 20 19 86 21.50
Texas B12 25 24 20 20 22 86 21.50
Boston College ACC 20 18 29 18 21 86 21.50
Virginia ACC 23 24 18 25 18 85 21.25
Duke ACC 26 21 17 27 20 85 21.25
Indiana B10 21 20 20 19 25 84 21.00
UCLA PAC10 22 11 23 27 23 84 21.00
Clemson ACC 20 23 25 12 23 83 20.75
Penn State B10 24 21 14 27 20 82 20.50
Notre Dame Ind. 28 18 23 18 23 82 20.50
Georgia Tech ACC 16 20 20 21 21 82 20.50
Stanford PAC10 18 19 17 22 23 81 20.25
Wake Forest ACC 15 20 17 23 19 79 19.75
Ohio State B10 20 15 20 25 18 78 19.50
Vanderbilt SEC 25 14 21 18 24 77 19.25
USC PAC10 27 18 19 18 20 75 18.75
Northwestern B10 17 19 20 18 17 74 18.50

Note regarding data above:  The Total and Average columns are for 2007-2010; we included 2006 numbers just to show how many players were signed prior to the current 4 year rosters.  The theory here is that if a team signed 115 players in four years, like Ole Miss did, and signed 30 the year prior to that, you have to imagine that they have a few 5th year guys who red-shirted.  So in addition to 115 new players in 4 years, you should have a handful of 5th year guys as well.  This just further exposes the oversigning of players relative to taking 5th year guys into account.

29Apr/109

Harvey Perlman Recognizes the Difference in Recruiting Practices

Harvey Perlman, Nebraska's Chancellor, among other things, recently spoke about conference expansion and how he thinks it will affect Nebraksa and College Football as a whole.  We won't go into the specifics regarding conference expansion-there is already enough speculation and plenty of other blogs already talking about it night and day-but we want to touch on something Mr. Perlman mentioned regarding the NCAA and recruiting. 

“You don't know that for sure," Perlman said. “There could be some advantage to joining the Big Ten depending on what the deal is. There could be some disadvantage, too."

Such as?

“They have a different set of recruiting rules than we have," Perlman said, “which might impact what we're able to do."

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100424/BIGRED/704249814/-1

Finally, someone other than Jim Delany, who wrote this lovely memo to the rest of college football, openly admits that there is a difference in recruiting practices amongst the conferences, so much so that it could affect whether or not a school such as Nebraska decides to join the Big 10 Conference. 

Greetings from the Big Ten Conference,
...
I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards.

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/020907aaa.html

This is what we have been talking about the entire time on this blog.  First we have the raw numbers that lay bare the truth behind oversigning, now we have someone outside of the Big 10 who has publicly acknowledged that there truly is a difference in recruiting rules for the Big 10 schools, so much so that it would influence Nebraska's decision to join the Big 10 conference if invited to do so.

Our point all along has been that the NCAA's recruiting rules were not intended to be the standard by which everyone in the country operates; the NCAA rules for recruiting are BASELINE rules that were intended to provide some sort of structure for 119 universities across the entire country.  It has been our position all along that it is up to Conference Commissioners and University Presidents to further expand those rules to fit their athletic and academic missions.  Based on the numbers we have shown and the research we have done, it is very clear that the SEC has done very little to expand upon those rules in ways other conferences have already.  It wasn't until last year when, for perception reasons mainly, the SEC went to a 28 max rule, something the Big 10 has been doing for 10-15 years.  Ironically, as our data shows, this hasn't reduced the number of signed commitments across the SEC, at least not yet. 

Perlman talks about the NCAA's reach when it comes to conference expansion, but he also sheds light on how the NCAA regulates across the board:

This is a common misconception among fans and some media members, Perlman said. The NCAA isn't all-powerful.

“The NCAA certainly has an interest in conference realignment," he said, “but it's not a player.

“Conferences are independent units. The Big Ten doesn't have to come to the NCAA to get permission to do what it wants to do. The NCAA regulates around the margins."

Bottom line: The entire purpose for this blog is increase awareness as to the topic of oversigning and how all conferences operate a little differently when it comes to recruiting.  Our data and research shows that the SEC signs more players than anyone else in the country, by a landslide.  We also believe that kids are being done a disservice through the practice of oversigning and we believe that it has created a competitive advantage which makes competing for a national championship more about the battle of who wins recruiting than who develops talent  or who does a better job coaching.

21Feb/100

All BCS Schools

Here are all the schools from the BCS conferences (and Notre Dame) and their recruiting numbers for 2002 - 2010.  We previously had this broken down by conference, but finally got around to putting all the data into one table for easy reference.  This table is sortable so knock yourself out.

All BCS Schools

Teams Conf. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Average
Auburn SEC 31 27 29 22 25 30 29 28 32 253 28.11
Miss. State SEC 30 28 23 29 24 33 27 27 26 247 27.44
Iowa State B12 27 26 29 27 30 25 25 26 28 243 27.00
South Carolina SEC 27 28 29 28 24 31 23 29 23 242 26.89
Arkansas SEC 23 25 32 24 26 27 26 31 25 239 26.56
Kansas State B12 30 17 26 26 30 34 33 25 17 238 26.44
Ole Miss SEC 18 21 25 28 30 22 31 37 25 237 26.33
Alabama SEC 19 19 29 32 23 25 32 27 29 235 26.11
West Virginia BigEast 34 24 24 32 16 28 30 26 21 235 26.11
Oregon State PAC10 20 22 36 30 33 34 18 24 18 235 26.11
Oklahoma State B12 28 31 19 21 29 23 28 26 27 232 25.77
Louisville BigEast 23 31 24 28 25 18 26 29 27 231 25.66
Kentucky SEC 15 22 28 26 31 29 20 29 26 226 25.11
North Carolina ACC 23 26 25 25 28 24 18 28 28 225 25.00
LSU SEC 26 28 26 13 26 26 26 24 29 224 24.89
Arizona PAC10 29 26 29 26 25 19 24 24 22 224 24.88
USF BigEast 20 29 25 21 28 27 24 29 20 223 24.77
Texas Tech B12 24 25 26 21 34 26 16 25 25 222 24.66
Baylor B12 25 22 20 22 29 29 23 28 23 221 24.55
Syracuse BigEast 24 23 32 19 24 27 26 16 29 220 24.44
Oregon PAC10 24 23 29 23 21 29 22 26 23 220 24.44
Arizona State PAC10 29 22 22 21 24 24 28 22 27 219 24.33
Washington St. PAC10 28 18 27 21 24 27 27 22 25 219 24.33
Mizzu B12 23 23 25 23 25 27 24 25 23 218 24.22
Florida State ACC 22 20 26 23 31 20 32 21 23 218 24.22
Purdue B10 27 26 28 21 27 19 26 20 24 218 24.22
Minnesota B10 27 27 24 20 22 24 29 20 24 217 24.11
Tennessee SEC 25 22 24 26 22 32 18 22 25 216 24.00
Texas A&M B12 23 24 28 25 23 18 24 28 23 216 24.00
Michigan State B10 21 21 31 27 28 23 21 23 21 216 24.00
Oklahoma B12 24 24 18 27 28 21 21 23 29 215 23.89
Miami ACC 24 24 28 17 22 19 33 19 28 214 23.77
Illinois B10 23 27 24 20 27 23 28 22 20 214 23.78
Colorado B12 31 25 20 25 22 28 21 20 21 213 23.66
Rutgers BigEast 24 25 23 25 26 23 20 23 24 213 23.66
Pittsburg BigEast 23 26 25 23 27 24 19 20 24 211 23.44
Florida SEC 23 26 23 18 27 27 22 17 27 210 23.33
Nebraska B12 21 19 20 32 22 27 28 20 21 210 23.33
Virginia Tech ACC 20 23 20 25 22 26 31 22 21 210 23.33
Kansas B12 22 27 21 28 25 23 20 25 18 209 23.22
Washington PAC10 21 27 23 13 22 27 26 19 31 209 23.22
Georgia SEC 31 25 20 17 28 23 24 20 19 207 23
Wisconsin B10 25 22 23 22 23 18 26 21 24 204 22.67
Cincinnati BigEast 23 24 18 25 19 23 24 25 22 203 22.55
Indiana B10 21 25 26 25 21 20 20 19 25 202 22.44
Connecticut BigEast 14 20 28 25 22 29 22 21 20 201 22.33
N.C. State ACC 22 21 22 24 22 26 17 26 21 201 23.22
Maryland ACC 22 21 22 24 22 26 17 26 21 201 22.33
Cal PAC10 21 28 19 24 20 26 22 21 19 200 22.22
Virginia ACC 26 22 19 24 23 24 18 25 18 199 22.11
UCLA PAC10 26 19 26 21 22 11 23 27 23 198 22.00
Clemson ACC 26 17 27 25 20 23 25 12 23 198 22.00
Iowa B10 22 22 21 23 21 22 25 20 21 197 21.89
Michigan B10 21 17 22 23 19 20 24 22 27 195 21.67
Duke ACC 22 14 24 23 26 21 17 27 20 194 21.55
Texas B12 28 18 20 15 25 24 20 20 22 192 21.33
Vanderbilt SEC 22 22 20 25 25 14 21 18 24 191 21.22
USC PAC10 22 28 19 19 27 18 19 18 20 190 21.11
Boston College ACC 17 24 20 16 20 18 29 18 21 183 20.33
Penn State B10 22 11 25 19 24 21 14 27 20 183 20.33
Ohio State B10 24 16 24 18 20 15 20 25 18 180 20.00
Notre Dame Ind. 18 21 16 15 28 18 23 18 23 180 20.00
Georgia Tech ACC 15 21 24 19 16 20 20 21 21 177 19.66
Wake Forest ACC 20 23 18 19 15 20 17 23 19 174 19.33
Stanford PAC10 16 26 12 17 18 19 17 22 23 170 18.89
Northwestern B10 22 22 15 20 17 19 20 18 17 170 18.89

Filed under: ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, SEC No Comments
19Feb/101

Texas, Endowments and Academic Rankings

In an earlier post, we mentioned that there was no way on earth Texas would ever go to the SEC (not that the SEC is looking to expand, but our point was that the SEC, by virtue of running off 3 solid academic universities because they couldn't see eye to eye on how to handle recruiting players and competing in athletics, does not have the entire package to offer an institution like Texas; in contrast, the Big 10 by maintaining an emphasis on academics is now poised to possibly add another powerhouse program to the conference, Penn State being the first in 1990.  The last two teams to join the SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina).  To further reinforce our logic, here are some staggering numbers for you to ponder.

Endowments

SEC Schools $$$   Big 10 Schools $$$   Pac 10 Schools $$$
Vanderbilt 3.48b   Michigan 7.1b   Stanford 17.2b
Florida 1.21b   Northwestern 6.5b   USC 3.7b
Alabama 1.00b   Minnesota 2.8b   Washington 3.2b
Arkansas 876m   Ohio State 2.3b   Cal 2.8b
Tennessee 867m   Purdue 1.8b   UCLA 2.6b
Kentucky 831m   Penn State 1.6b   Wash State 678m
LSU 593m   Wisconsin 1.6b   Arizona 519m
Georgia 572m   Indiana 1.6b   Oregon 498m
Ole Miss 495m   Illinois 1.5b   Oregon State 476m
South Carolina 438m   Michigan State 1.2b   Arizona State 407m
Auburn 378m   Iowa 1.0b      
Mississippi State 350m            

TEXAS - $16.1 billion

 

Regardless of where Texas might go, if anywhere, they will be the big dog on the block (sans Stanford in the Pac10) when it comes to endowments, but as you can see, Texas would definitely be more at home with the schools of the Big 10 or Pac 10 when it comes to endowments.

And again, the point here is that the Big 10 and the Pac 10, by not selling their souls for football, appear to be in very strong positions when it comes to the topic of conference expansion and sustainability.

Texas also ranks 47th in the US News and World Report rankings, which puts them right at home with the Big 10.

We found that link we were talking about earlier where Texas had already looked at joining the SEC and decided they were not a good fit.  Main article here.  But we found the article reading The Rivalry, Esq. about the "Death of the Big 12 Conference."

The Longhorns next turned to the Big Ten.

Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT's profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that 10 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.

Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away — but the appeal of having 10 of 12 schools in the same time zone was seen as a plus.

But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT's overtures.

That left the SEC as a possible relocation target for the Longhorns — until Berdahl let it be known that UT wasn't interested because of the league's undistinguished academic profile. Only two of 12 schools in the SEC were American Association of Universities members and UT officials saw admissions standards to SEC schools as too lenient.

"We were quite interested in raising academic standards," Berdahl says. "And the Southeastern Conference had absolutely no interest in that."

So that's three major categories: endowments, academic rankings, and recruiting numbers (we touched on that here), where it is crystal clear that Texas is a much better match for the Big 10 than they ever would be for the SEC. "Frank the Tank's Slant" has everything else covered.

17Feb/104

Coach Comparisons

We have already compiled recruiting numbers for schools and conferences, see our "Recruiting Numbers" link above for that data, but now let's take a look at the numbers for National Championship coaches from 2002-2010.  Make sure to read our footnotes at the bottom regarding the data in the table below.

National Championship Coaches 2002 - 2010

Coaches Conf. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Average
Saban (03/09) SEC 26 28 26 0 0 25 32 27 29 193 27.50
Miles (07) SEC 28 31 19 13 26 26 26 24 27 220 24.44
Meyer (06/08) SEC 22 19 25 18 27 27 22 17 27 204 22.66
Brown (05) BIG12 28 18 20 15 25 24 20 20 22 192 21.33
Carroll (04) PAC10 22 28 19 19 27 18 19 18 20 190 21.11
Tressel (02) BIG10 24 16 24 18 20 15 20 25 18 180 20.00

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.

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

And to further put that into perspective, only 4 BCS programs in the entire country have signed fewer players than Ohio State's Jim Tressel, Stanford (170), Georgia Tech (177), Wake Forest (174), and Northwestern (170).  Notre Dame tied with (180).  For Jim Tressel to win a NC, compete for 2 more, and win the Big 10 Conference 5 Times in a row with those kind of numbers is simply amazing.   The same goes for Pete Carroll, although his numbers are just slightly higher, and what he did at USC.  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.

Click the link to continue reading >>>

12Feb/100

Conference Comparisons

Draw your own conclusions...

Conference Comparisons 2002 - 2010

Comparisons SEC Big 12 BigEast PAC10 Big10 ACC
Average # of Total Recruits Signed Per School: 227 219 215 208 199 199
Total Players Signed: 2,727 2,629 1,737 2,084 2,196 2,394
Highest Single School Total: 253 243 235 235 218 225
Lowest Single School Total: 191 192 201 170 170 174
# of Times Over 25 in Single Class: 54 37 23 28 18 22
# of Times 28 or More in Single Class: 33 24 14 14 5 10
# of Back to Back Classes of 25 or More: 35 24 11 8 6 5

Update:
The ACC is now on the board.  When putting all of this together we really didn't know what to expect; we knew that the SEC signed a lot of players, but we had no idea just how many and we certainly didn't expect such a wide margin between SEC and the ACC.  The numbers are staggering.

Filed under: ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, SEC No Comments
12Feb/101

Texas, Big 10 Birds of a Feather

 

Do not fall out of your chair, that is unless you have been living in a cave lately and haven't heard the news about the possibility of Texas joining the Big 10.  When the Big 10 announced that conference expansion is a topic on the table for discussion, the Internets went wild.  In fact, Frank the Tank's Slant has devoted more time to it than we ever thought about devoting to the topic of oversigning.  If you haven't been to his Blog, go there.  It's a great read and Frank really does his homework. 

Frank put together a Big 10 Conference Expansion Index, based on a scale of 1-100 with 100 being the highest possible score, in which he categorized and ranked potential candidates to join the Big 10.

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/ 

In his index, Frank has Texas as the leader with an index score of 96; second in his index was Notre Dame at 91.

We're not going to go into all of the details of Big 10 expansion or whether or not we think Texas would consider joining the Big 10; Frank has more than covered all the bases and if you really want to know more about it you should check out his blog and read it.

We just want to add one thing to the discussion in terms of recruiting.  In looking closely at Texas' recruiting numbers (which is an indication of how they run their program), they would fit right in with the Big Ten.  Since 2002 Texas has a total of 192 commitments with an average of 21.33 per year.  That would put them right in line with Michigan (195, 21.67), Penn State (183, 20.33), and Ohio State (180, 20.00), all of which rank towards the bottom of the Big 10 in terms of total numbers taken each year.  In case you haven't noticed, we tend to like programs that keep their numbers in check.  To see more of these numbers, click here.

Texas takes the lowest number of players in the entire Big 12 Conference; it's almost as if they are out of place with regards to where their numbers are in comparison to the rest of the conference.  This tells us several things:

  • They are not running players through their program; meaning they take very few risks on borderline academic players and they don't oversign players only to push out the lesser talented or injury-prone players to make room for new recruits. 
  • We believe that how you manage your roster is like a calling card for what kind of program you run.  Texas has a pretty good calling card when you consider the success they have had on the field and the number of recruits they do it with.  Compare Texas to Alabama for just a second: since 2006, Alabama has taken LOI's from 136 players to Texas' 110.  Where did those other 26 players go?  Did they ever make it into school at Alabama or were they cut from the team to make room for Saban's classes of 32 and 27?
     
  • Strong academics.  Texas has the best academics in the Big 12 (by a long shot) and they would fit right in with the Big 10.  But how do low recruiting numbers = good academics?  Maybe it's the other way around, good academics = lower recruiting numbers.  Just look at our conference charts linked above.  The schools with lowest recruiting numbers tend to have better, if not the best academics in their conferences.  Here are some schools at the bottom of each of their conferences in terms of the number of recruits signed each year: Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford, and Texas.  Now compare that to the list of names at or near the top of the conferences: Auburn, West Virginia, Mississippi State, Kansas State, etc.

Missouri is another school that seems to be in the middle of the Big 10 expansion conversation.  Not that a decision like this would depend on the number of recruits a school normally takes, but we did find it interesting that Missouri, if added to the Big 10, would be at the top of the board with the highest number of recruits per year.  In fact, they would be tied dead even with Purdue at a 218 recruits since 2002 and a yearly average of 24.22.

Our hats off to Texas for running their program the right way and always making sure to stay within their recruiting budget.  We think Texas would be an awesome addition to the Big 10, obviously they are match for each other in terms of academics, and we hope it happens.  If the 3 games against Ohio State and the Rose bowl thriller against Michigan are any indication, Texas joining the Big 10 would really make things interesting.

Hook 'em Horns!