This month has been amazing in terms of traffic to the site with over 1 million hits in 14 days. Word has spread to the masses about oversigning. Thanks to all the readers and followers who have helped spread the word -- keep up the great work!
This morning, we received a forwarded copy of this email from Mr. Hawley from one of our readers and we were able to confirm that it did originate from Mr. Hawley, and that we had his blessing to share his thoughts on the topic of oversigning with the rest of our readers.
From Mr. Hawley:
I appreciate your interest in the issue of oversigning. As you may know, the Big Ten is philosophically opposed to the practice of oversigning in all sports, and our long-standing rules in this area reflect as much. Consequently, we are pleased to see that the conversation regarding oversigning appears to be picking up steam nationally. We’ll continue to monitor that conversation, and when given the opportunity, we will continue to share our position that our approach better serves student-athlete welfare.
I do believe that we are heading in the right direction nationally. For example, there is now an NCAA rule in football—effective for the first time this year—that limits the number of prospects who may sign National Letters of Intent with an institution (28 during the regular signing period). In general, the NCAA rule is not as restrictive as Big Ten rules, but again, it’s a step in the right direction—we voted in favor of the rule and will continue to vote similarly in the future.
I can’t say whether the day will come when NCAA rules prohibit oversigning in any or all sports, but we obviously would welcome such a day. Continued pressure from the media and the public certainly help the cause.
I hope this is helpful to you. Again, thank you for your interest.
Things are moving in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work left to be done. Setting the cap at 28 does not eliminate the problem, as we have seen in the SEC, but is a move in the right direction. It should be noted that the SEC, the biggest offenders of oversigning, does not have supplemental rules in place to safeguard their student-athletes from oversigning and situations such as what Elliot Porter and Chris Garrett went through this past year.
The associate commissioner has been gracious enough to extend an invitation for further questions and we are working on that now and will share his response as soon as possible. In the meantime, we thought this was relevant and worthy of sharing.
Update: Just want to commend the guys who created the twitter account for oversigning - you guys are pounding the media, both locally and nationally on this topic. Good work! We can't wait for Cecil Hurt to ask Nick Saban about his recruiting numbers.
A new twitter account was created on January 1st http://twitter.com/Oversigning. This is not our account and is not affiliated with oversigning.com. However, the account appears to have been created by SEC fans/graduates that agree with the premise of this site, and it appears their purpose is to hound national sports journalists and media members to really start covering oversigning and discussing it openly.
The purpose of this site was to bring oversigning out of the dark, shine a bright light on it, and get to the bottom of whether or not it needs to be removed from college athletics. If it is true that the new Twitter account was created by SEC fans that want to take a stand against the actions of schools like LSU, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas (well basically the entire SEC West), then this site has served its purpose. We have never thought all SEC fans were advocates of oversigning, just the ones that benefit the most from its abuse; glad to see other people start to take a stand.
In addition to the new twitter account, someone, not us, has created a Wikipedia page for oversigning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversigning
This too is great to see - we encourage everyone that visits this site to visit our new friends at twitter and check out the Wikipedia site as well.
Best wishes to all for a Happy and Healthy New Year!
A few months back, oversigning.com was approached by Tim Hyland at about.com to do a question and answer session on the topic of oversigning and about the creation of this website. This interview was prior to the Wall Street Journal's piece on Alabama's players admitting they felt a little bitter about being pressured into taking medical hardship scholarships to free up roster space for oversigned recruiting classes. Had that story broke prior to our interview session with Tim Hyland, it probably would have been included in one of the answers.
Be that as it may, here is the link to the interview.
If we had to summarize the interview and give a bulleted list of the points we were trying to make it would look something like this:
- Nick Saban's comments about the fans not needing to know about his recruiting numbers or how he plans to get down to the 85 limit is what really sparked our interest in this entire topic. This article is what started it all.
- SEC by far signs the most players and abuses the oversigning loophole the most. When you see one team from one conference sign 15, 20, 17, and 19, and then another team from another conference sign 32, 23, 25, and 32, something is wrong with the system. To be clear, this is an SEC issue with the exception of a few other programs throughout the entire country.
- The purpose of this site is to raise awareness to the topic of oversigning and hopefully help get it removed from college football.
- Oversigning is not a rules violation, which is part of the problem. It is a by-product of the NCAA's 25/85 scholarship limits and their recruiting by-laws. Oversigning is a loophole that is being exploited.
- Oversigning creates a competitive advantage by allowing coaches access to a larger pool of players, hedge against academic and medical attrition, and ensure that they maximize the full 85 scholarships by forcing out lesser players to transfer to lesser schools or pressure kids into taking medical hardship scholarships to free up roster space, much of which we saw at alarming rates this preseason.
- It is our opinion that no coach should have to "get down" to 85 scholarships after national signing day. They should sign what they have room for and encourage who they have to stay and get better (unless the kid is a criminal or not making the grades) by coaching them up and making men out of them instead of just throwing them off on another coach - after all they thought enough of them when they signed them. Coaches are paid millions of dollars to evaluate talent, why should we give them an out if they miss on a guy? Why should we allow them to get rid of student-athlete simply because they don't pan out to be as good as a coach thought they would be? If a coach has a shortfall due to unexpected attrition, then he can give those scholarships to deserving walk-on players in their 4th or 5 th year as a reward for all their hard work.
- Lastly, we hope the NCAA takes a long hard look at the oversigning issue and revamps some of their recruiting by-laws to include a lot more transparency in roster management. The LOI should be a two way binding agreement. Perhaps scholarships need to go back to being 4 year deals instead of one. Each school should only be able to sign what they have room for on National Signing Day. There needs to be an exit interview for all players transferring and especially all players placed on medical hardship scholarship in order to determine if they felt like they were wrongly pushed in that direction. We will know when this problem has been solved when we see teams like Alabama and LSU, who both have very, very small senior classes on scholarship and are only losing roughly 8-12 scholarship guys next year, sign classes in the 8-12 range - as it stands right now they are both on track to sign 20+, and you can rest assured that we will see all kinds of crazy stories next spring between signing day and August when both teams shove guys off in order to make room for the new load of recruits.
Thanks again to Tim Hyland for his interest in the topic of oversigning and for reaching out and giving us the opportunity to answer some questions. If you haven't visited his blog, we encourage you to - Tim does a great job covering college football.
I think we can all agree to one degree or another that oversigning is a major issue. It took some time for some of you to come around, but with all of the news coming out around the country, especially from sources far more credentialed and reliable than us, it's pretty clear to see that this issue must be dealt with.
Note: we removed the link to Doyle's article on oversigning and replaced it with a much better one from Andy Staples.
So let's hear some solutions. We have spent enough time arguing back and for as to whether or not it is a problem, that debate is over, time for solutions.
Post your solution in the comments section and we'll discuss there.
Update: Our Solution
There are several areas surrounding the signing process that have an affect on oversigning, such as, determining academic eligibility, a student-athlete's desire to transfer, greyshirting, and injuries.
There is already a working model in place for dealing with all of these areas and doing so without oversigning players. The Big 10 Conference has been at the forefront of this issue for decades and it has worked with great success with regards to preventing oversigning.
Our solution would be to take the Big 10 Conference model and tweak it slightly and have it apply to all BCS conferences. The overall theme in our proposal is to turn the LOI into a more meaningful agreement - for intents and purposes, the LOI might as well be considered a scholarship agreement, not just a one-way agreement that binds the recruit to the school but not the school to the recruit.
1. Determining the annual recruiting budget. The NCAA provides a baseline 25 scholarships per year rule, but as we know 25 x 4 = 100 and 100 > 85 (plus with the redshirt rule there could be some 5th year guys on scholarship). Therefore, a standing 25 rule across the board does not work and needs to be adjusted annually on a team by team basis. But how do you do this? The most accurate way of determining how many openings a school has for new scholarship players is to take the previous year's scholarship roster and then remove graduating seniors, 5th year players that have exhausted their eligibility, and juniors that declare for the NFL draft or (new) any student-athlete that declares to transfer by the January 15th deadline.
This method of determining the number of available openings is in line with the NCAA mission of preserving the amateur status of student-athletes and ensuring that their educational experience is paramount. Don't worry, we'll address the 1-year renewable scholarship stuff and the transfers in a minute.
The Big 10 uses a method very similar to this (they don't have the transfer rule, we added that here as part of our proposal) and it provides their coaches with the exact number of openings they have room for on National Signing Day with is the first Tuesday in February.
2. Limit schools to only accept the number signed letters of intent that they have scholarship room for. In keeping with our theme, limiting the number of LsOI that can be accepted makes coaches work harder to ensure that every LOI they accept is in essence a scholarship. If it is determined that a school has 17 scholarship openings and they can only sign 17 players to LsOI, coaches will work harder to make sure that all 17 are good to go.
So using the established budget (above #1) schools are only allowed to accept that number of signed letters of intent.
Again, the Big 1o has been doing this for decades.
3. Handling student-athletes that want to transfer. This is another tough topic to regulate. The current system allows student-athletes to transfer pretty much whenever they want, provided they get a release from the school they are at and provided they are willing to sit out a year. In many, many cases this is a very one-sided arrangement and players are often shafted by having to sit out, which is why many of them transfer out of Division 1A to avoid having to sit out.
We purpose that student-athletes be allow to declare their transfer intentions by the same deadline Juniors have to declare for the NFL, January 15th. If they declare to transfer by the 15th they can avoid having to sit out 1 year.
This isn't the perfect solution, not sure there is one, but here is what it does. A.) Gives the student-athletes an opportunity to transfer without penalty, B.) Protects schools from being caught off-guard with off season transfers (don't worry we'll address student-athletes transferring after the 15th deadline) and not having scholarships to replace them with, C.) Completely eliminates students transferring because the roster is oversigned and they are buried deeper than they would be on roster that is not oversigned.
For student-athletes that want to transfer after the January 15th deadline, they can still do so, but they have to sit out a year. In order to make it equitable for the schools, they will be able to replace the transferred student with a new recruit, but only after the transferred recruit is enrolled into the new school. This means that the school cannot accept a signed letter of intent from a recruit binding him to the school until the previous player has finished transferring. This eliminates a school from having a new recruit bound to a letter of intent before the opening is really available, which is what is happening now. This also gives schools an option to replace the player in the current year if they so choose, provided they stay under 25 overall.
This overall plan for handling transfers gives student-athletes an out, protects schools from not being able to replace transferred students, and eliminates the scenarios we see where coaches have oversigned their roster and players start to transfer because they had a "mutual agreement" with the coach that it was in their best interest to transfer.
4. Handling academic eligibility. This is one of the main reasons why we see coaches oversign. The problem here is that often time when a player doesn't qualify academically they usually don't make it back. Two years ago Huston Nutt signed 12 players he knew wouldn't qualify academically and two years later did any of those players actually make it back to Ole Miss? Maybe a couple, but the rest were simply a pawn in the recruiting game where Nutt was trying to generate a buzz at his new school by signing 37 recruits. Total bullshit.
So here is how we solve the problem. In keeping with our overall theme of making the LOI a more binding agreement, if a player is signed and doesn't make it then he is given the option to be sent off to prep school for 1 year and the school has to eat the scholarship while he is there.
This makes it a true partnership, gives the school an opportunity to take a slight risk without putting the kid at risk, and it eliminates oversigning to hedge bets against academic ineligibility.
5. Handling the non-renewal of the 1-year scholarship. We're not going to say that we think they should go back to the 4-year scholarship agreements because we do think there are definitely situations where a player should be denied renewal of his scholarship, but we are going to say that non-renewal should only happen when a student-athlete doesn't meet the academic requirements, violates a campus law or criminal law in public, or violates clear cut, written team rules. As for the team rules there needs to be complete transparency and player cannot be removed without written explanation of the rules violation and the NCAA should hold an exit interview for each player removed for violation of team rules to ensure that players are not being run off by a school through the combination of a coach not renewing his scholarship and the financial aid department agreeing with the coaches ruling simply because they don't want to disagree with him.
6. Scholarship shortfalls. In order to ensure that all 85 scholarships are used, coaches will have the option to give out 1 year scholarship rewards to any 4th or 5th year walk-on players who have proven themselves worthy of a scholarship reward for excellence in the classroom and in the community.
Outside of a few small tweaks, this is by in large the system the Big 10 conference has been using for sometime and it has proven to eliminate oversigning. We added a few things here and there but the overall theme is to make the LOI a TWO-WAY binding agreement and restrict coaches to accepting only what they have room for on National Signing Day. This completely closes the oversigning loophole that is being exploited and resulting in kids like Elliott Porter getting screwed over before he even gets started on his college education.
Just wanted to let you guys know that we have been contacted by NCSA and they have expressed an interest in providing some content from their recruiting experts on the topic of oversigning.
We are working on the details, but they have indicated that they would be willing to provide video footage of their experts talking specifically about oversigning and what they see from their end. Based on what Brian Davidson wrote in his blog on NCSA's site regarding oversigning, the video footage, or whatever additional content we get from them, should be very interesting and relavent.
"I also would like to point out that there are several steps an athlete can take to make sure they aren’t among the casualties. The NCSA curriculum teaches student-athletes how to walk the fine line between getting the last scholarship offer that is truly available and receiving a scholarship that is contingent upon the school not snagging the commitment of one more blue-chipper. In essence the ability to make sure that your spot on the roster is secure. Its just one more advantage of real recruiting education."
A new reader to the site posted this earlier today and we thought it was worth its own post and discussion. Very interesting angle on the coaching bonuses being tied to recruiting rankings, if true it definitely adds more motive as to why oversigning is taking place.
What do you guys think? See you in the comment section.
By definition, the 25/85 Scholarship Rule institutionalizes and encourages over signing. 25 x 4 classes= 100 scholarships + a class full of Red Shirts = 125. So why 85?
I have heard (or read) it argued that the 85 limit rather than 100 or 125 presumes normal attrition due to injuries, academics, etc… but how did they come up with 85? Four classes full of 25 recruits divided by 4 classes equals 6.25 players per class or 1/4 of each class which becomes 8 players per class or 32%. So how does a team lose 1/4 of a player due to attrition? Why 6.25 which in reality is 8 players per class?
Emphasis on Recruiting Rankings only serves to encourage more over signing. You don’t have to visit many Team Fan Sites to come to the conclusion that how one’s team fares in the World of Recruiting Rankings has been elevated to nearly as important as how many games one’s team wins and loses. Recruiting Rankings are of such elevated importance that they even serve as a palatable “yea, but” substitute for wins among many a fan base.
This emphasis on Recruiting Rankings that encourages over signing has become so systematic that at many schools such as my Alma Mater, Oklahoma State, annual bonuses are based on Team Recruiting Rankings with the major services. The problem lie’s in how these services calculate their rankings. Quantity counts. If a coaching staff wishes to enhance its Recruiting Rankings to reap personal financial reward, over signing is the simplest and most logical method… and even worse than that it encourages the signing of highly rated recruits the coaches know won’t qualify… but what if they do? Yet more over signing.
The scholarship limit rules have done a great job at creating parity in FBS Football and preventing the monster programs such as the Nebraska’s and Oklahoma’s of the 60’s and 70’s from stock-piling hundred’s of players many times just to keep them from playing for their competition.
The problem with the rules is that they bureaucratically violate the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) Principle rendering predictable results. The victims are the high school kids that are lied to and deceived, the credibility of the rules themselves, and the credibility of the system.
IMO, in keeping with the KISS Principle and to gain credibility, the NCAA needs to re-write the rules making no presumptions about attrition and eliminate all exceptions to the 25 per year rule. In other words, drop the 85 rule altogether and let the 25 per year rule and natural attrition dictate how many scholarship players any given team has in any given season.
There would need to be limits placed on the total number of Scholarship Transfers a team has and perhaps a limit on the number of Walk On scholarships a team might reward to retain the positive effects of the 25/85 Rule on College Football but the rules as they are now are way too inconsistent, lend little credibility, emphasize the wrong thing (Recruiting Rankings), and victimize the weakest and most vulnerable of all the ingredients… the High School kids that systematically and institutionally get the shaft at their first venture out of the nest.
Bryan Kelly over at Bleacher Report recently wrote an article on oversigning. Basically, as with many Bleacher Report articles, they are in the form of a slide show or in a "top 10" format. Kelly, having read our site, decided to use some of the data here as the basis for his article "The 10 Worst College Football Teams for Oversigning Recruits." He added some analysis and opinion to the data he collected and formulated his own list of schools.
We're not going to critique his article because the reason we are posting a link to it here is not because of what he says in the article, although he does have some very strong opinions. We are posting a link here and writing this because of what one of the readers had to say in the comments section.
Click the link to continue reading >>>
We received this email earlier today and thought everyone who follows this site would find it interesting.
"You might already received news about this transfer and Alabama’s March to 85 – Star Jackson.
Here in Alabama, this one has been rumored for over a year, but it looks like it is finally coming to fruition. Several media outlets are reporting that quarterback Star Jackson will transfer. Ever since this kid stepped on campus several years ago, I’ve had to listen to crazy stories about Jackson being the future and probable Heisman winner. Of course this was before the tide signed 5 star AJ McCarron in 2009 and 5 star QB Phillip Sims in 2010.
I love your website, please keep it up. I find great entertainment reading these Alabama tide newspapers and message boards. I was born and raised in San Diego and moved to Alabama in 1985. The move was a culture shock especially at 16 years old, but I love living on the beautiful gulf coast.
The hardest part about living in Alabama is the crimson tide sidewalk alumni. I’ve never seen a more arrogant and obnoxious fan base. I spent one school year in Tuscaloosa before moving across the state to the University of Auburn. I also spent a lot of money putting my daughter through 4 years up there and she graduated from Alabama in May 2009.
I really feel I can look at this objectively since I wasn’t brain washed with Alabama and Auburn at an early age, but I’ve lived here off and on for the last 25 years. I can imagine all the emails you probably receive from these oversigning schools, especially the tide fans. You can talk/chat with them until you’re blue in the face, but it won’t do any good. Their fan base has an aura around them that gives them a feeling of entitlement, their god given right to have a minor league farm system. Scholarships are for one year and one year only and the god-like saban has the right to cut any player he feels isn’t living up to that 5-star rating. Unless you’ve lived in Alabama, I really don’t think you can imagine this culture. Most all sidewalk alumni worship the tide first, then god and then family, I’m not kidding. Most measure their self-worth with the success of Alabama football.
I’m not one of those black helicopter guys, because I’ve seen the cheating with my own eyes. I’m sure you don’t want to hear about it, but 3 current tide players are from my high school. I’ve known 2 of the kids since the 9th grade and the other transferred in for his senior year. I’ve seen these “gifts” and “benefits” they received. Now that the tide has won another national title, their feeling of entitlement is growing. Unless the NCAA steps in, college football has been thrown back to the 70’s all over again.
Even as an Auburn fan, I’m objective enough to admit that the playing field needs to be evened. The oversigning must be reigned in and controlled. Tuberville didn’t do a good job at recruiting the last 6 years and the Auburn fan base knows he signed way too many “project” players. His “sign and place” practice made most fans I know sick. Tuberville got lazy after the 2003 season of jet-gate and the undefeated 2004 season. Tuberville routinely signed 10 or so kids he knew were questionable and played the percentages that only half would make it in to school. This sure doesn’t make Auburn fans proud we oversigned by x players. Would any school’s fan base be proud? The diehard bama fans I work with are proud of the fact that saban will cut a player who is underperforming. It doesn’t mater if a kid blew his knee out the year before and needs another year to get full speed; they need to make room for their next set of studs, so they say cut’em. Is this ruthless? Yes, but that is the price you pay for championships. I can’t tell you how many times I heard this said at work or sports talk radio.
I don’t have the answers for oversigning, but I see the problems. I’ve been saying for 2 years now that some of these stories should be getting back to the parents about scholarships being taken away or forced to go with the “medical hardship” scholarship. These kids are naive in thinking it can’t happen to them, but the parents must be right there with them. They think … “my kid is a 5-star and there is no way he’d be cut”. I’m sure most of them all believe they’re receiving a 4 to 5 year scholarship commitment. Don’t you think some stories should surface? What about a story on a kid that was forced to transfer? The University of Alabama controls the state media and any big story on Alabama oversigning practices or cheating won’t come from within the state. The Memphis paper broke the last major infraction at Alabama and the same thing will have to happen again and I’m betting on the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Saban is really starting to recruit heavy in Georgia and this isn’t setting well with the bulldog nation.
Sorry for this long email and any spelling or grammatical errors. I’ve been typing on this email since 7am during my breaks and lunch. I feel like it is a little therapeutic to vent a little of the frustration I see and feel every day. Hopefully one day the playing field gets leveled and over a 4-year period Auburn signs the same number of recruits as Vandy and the spring minor league system is done away with forever.
Have a great day!
Thanks for taking the time to write, Jeff. It's obvious that your message was sparked by the recent news that Star Jackson plans to transfer from Alabama, something we pegged about a month ago.
The answer to oversigning is to help force the NCAA to further regulate the way coaches manage their scholarships and their LOI's. It is our goal to somehow help get new By-Laws passed that will eliminate the oversigning of players and make coaches more accountable for their recruiting numbers. There is no place for oversigning in college athletics and it needs to be put to stop.
A good friend forwarded us a link to this LSU message board where they have been talking about oversigning. It is really interesting to read people's opinions on the topic. Great stuff LSU fans! Thanks for reading the site. Congrats on the Saints winning the Superbowl!
If you haven't read the news, Michael over at Braves & Birds - The Atlanta Sports Blog has been reading our site and decided to write an essay on the topic of oversigning and the nature of our website. Michael is an Attorney from Atlanta, Georgia, we on the other had are not attorneys (we didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn, but we're going to give this a go anyways), but we did we bounce emails back and forth with Michael and he seems like a personable guy, not to mention he has been blogging since we were in diapers.
So let's take a look at the article.
"I've been reading Oversigning.com over the past few weeks and enjoying the discussion. The authors there take a much harder line on oversigning than I would and at times, their writing devolves into unhinged attacks on the SEC from every angle. (Comparing endowments? Really?) In those instances, they come across as excuse-making Big Ten fans who want to justify the fact that SEC teams have won more national titles in the past four years than Big Ten teams have won in the last forty."
Yeah, we're pretty hardcore on the topic of oversigning. People write about it from time to time, especially during the off-season and around signing day, but we are the first and only website completely dedicated to the topic. Why? Two reasons: 1.) During the 2007 during the National Championship game, we saw a graphic that showed the number of players signed in each of LSU's and Ohio State's previous 5 recruiting classes: LSU 28, 26, 13, 26, and 26 = 119 and Ohio State 16, 24, 18, 20, and 15 = 93. A difference of 26 players, or essentially an entire recruiting class. That raised an eyebrow. It was the first time we could remember a broadcast ever showing those kind of numbers. 2.) A couple of months later we saw Nick Saban on ESPN battling it out with a local sports reporter over his recruiting numbers which led us to this link. That raised a second eyebrow. The thing that really got us going was Nick Saban saying:
"It's none of your business. Aiight? And don't give me this stuff about the fans need to know, because they don't need to know."
Something about that has always bothered us. It wreaks of someone having something to hide.
Unhinged attacks on the SEC. Have we attacked the SEC, probably so, has it been unhinged, no not really. If we were attacking the ACC for oversigning, then it would be considered unhinged, but to take the conference with the worst problem with oversigning to task is not unhinged attacking in our opinion. Calling out the SEC for running off Georgia Tech, Tulane, and Sawenee isn't really all that unhinged either, in our opinion, it's more like factual history. The post regarding endowments was a follow up on two fronts: 1.) Texas joining the Big 10, and 2.) The SEC running off academic universities because of disagreements on athletic competition, specifically football, and how that has left them poorly positioned in terms of adding a powerhouse like Texas who wouldn't consider joining the SEC back in the 90's because of the poor academic standards. Again, those are facts, not unhinged attacks.
Click the link to continue reading >>>
We're flattered!!!! Shocked, but flattered nonetheless. Here's a link; we'll break it down over the weekend.
Okay, we couldn't wait...
We're going to address this one comment and tackle the rest later this weekend.
"The point that the Oversigning.com authors miss is that most of the schools in the SEC that sign beyond their recruiting budgets are recruiting from some of the worst high school systems in America. Put yourself in Houston Nutt's CrazyDome for a moment. You're recruiting primarily from high schools in Mississippi, which rank in the bottom five in just about every output statistic. If you have 20 open spots on your football team, you'd be nuts to recruit only 20 players when you know that you are likely to have 4-5 academic casualties."
We didn't miss the point, in fact, we addressed it directly, here:
"One last comment on this. If Alabama (and other SEC schools) truly take more signees because the pool of players they have to select from dictates that they need to take extra to account for the mass numbers that won't make it academically, isn't that an indication of a much bigger problem? And what kind of message is it sending to kids? Shouldn't the message be: "if you want to play football here you need to be squared away academically or we can't even afford to look at you as a prospect.""
"Nutt even told the media that he knew players wouldn't make it academically but wanted them to go to JUCO in Mississippi and come back to Ole Miss in two years, and that is why the SEC put a limit on the number of signees to a single class at 28. Again, this sends the wrong message to kids. The message should be: if you want to play at Ole Miss, you had better have your ducks in a row when you start high school because you are going to need to have the academic chops to succeed in a 4-year institution and developing the tools you will need (such as good study habits, time management, etc.) starts your freshman year of High School, not the last semester of your second year in JUCO. But that is just our opinion."
We get it that certain schools in certain areas do not have the same pool of players to select from in terms of academics. But oversigning and running through those kids is doing NOTHING for them or the region in the long run. Our man, Willian Huie was talking about this back in 1941. Schools in Mississippi and around the southeast have been doing it (oversigning) FOR FRICKING DECADES and it hasn't helped the overall academic standings of the region. Those regions still rank amongst the lowest in the country. Not that not oversigning is going to solve the academic problems of a region, but it certainly isn't helping. And regardless, why should Ole Miss or Alabama be allowed to subsidized their academic attrition just because their region has poor secondary educational systems? Maybe removing the subsidy will motivate the universities to take more action in helping the high school systems.
Or maybe they need to look at starting with primary education:
We found this really cool web application for educational statistics. It's interactive and shows the state by state comparison of primary education. Check it out. It would be great to find the same thing for secondary education.
Here are a couple of snapshots - click to enlarge:
We'll get into the rest later, but go read the essay. The author is a very good writer and his blog has been around for years.
Thanks for reading Michael!!!
We love our readership here at oversigning.com and truly appreciate the time anyone takes to read this site, much less send a response. Our readers have a voice, and with that an email from: Fury
"Your site would have more credibility if you had a clue. The reason the SEC signs so many, is because they are in a recruiting hotbead & THEY CAN.
You can talk about how many players are signed on signing day, but it is frivilous. You currently list Alabama as signing 29 this year & 27 last year, but you fail to recognize that THREE recruits are being counted TWICE in BOTH lists. Theses are players who delayed enrollment, and show up on multiple signing classes. This happens all the time, and shows that you all your statistics are incomplete, and not withstanding. The signess ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MATTER. Some signees don’t qualify, some aren’t on athletic scholarship, some delay enrollment for personal reasons, & some sign MLB contracts. The fact is, every school knows only 25 can enroll & only 85 are on scholarhip – AND THEY MAKE THOSE DEMANDS. EVERY scholarship at EVERY school is awarded on a 1 year basis that must be renewed. Football signees ARE NOT signing 4 year agreements, that is against the NCAA by-laws.
Furthermore, check out these numbers:
In ‘08, Bama signed 32, only 23 enrolled in the Fall to “count” on the ‘08 class. In ‘09, Bama signed 27, only 22 enrolled in the Fall to “count” on the ‘09 class."
So where do we start? "The SEC signs so many players because THEY CAN" or "signees ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MATTER." Or, "all of your statistics are incomplete."
We'll start with a bottom line: There are no excuses for going over by 1 player, much less 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or like back in Boddy Dodd's day, 20-25. When you have 66 returning players you should sign 19, period. And that doesn't mean you should gather a pool of 28 signed letters of commitment on signing day and narrow it down to 19 legit players by some date in the future.
We address the other points after the jump. Click the link to continue reading >>>