• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
SmoovP;1861121; said:
And if half a dozen of those 25 LOIs don't qualify academically, you've fucked yourself.
Click to expand...
It appears we have very different ethics. If that's the justification for promising what cannot be promised, I can't really argue it, though I suspect academic institutions would have to take academics more into account during recruiting, silly as that would be. But in any case, we're coming from two entirely different mindsets as to acceptable and ethical behavior, so I'm not really sure where else to go with this.
 
Upvote 0
one might say this is done to create an advantage over those who do not sign six uber talented prospects with rough transcripts
SmoovP;1861121; said:
And if half a dozen of those 25 LOIs don't qualify academically, you've fucked yourself.
Click to expand...
then mayne you should stop offering that many unqualified kids, and forcing them to shoulder the consequences of oversigning instead of yourself.

Offering an unqualified prospect is a risk you take. It should be your choice to risk losing that scholarship.

It should not be a risk taken by a backup a less talented recruit who did their job.


This is precisely why we talk about the reputation thr sec has compared to the big ten (other conferences do it too, but not with the same frequency). Not because all teams resort to forcing ten kids out per year like bama, but because they intentionally put their kids in situations to be cut or forced to delay enrollment.
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1860557; said:
It would be funny if you weren't absolutely serious in using that as a defense without seeing the implications.
Click to expand...

It would be funnier if you could understand some simple concepts. Let me ask you a question: when a kid accepts an offer, and it is before signing day, are they bound to accept their verbal offer? I'll help you out: they are not.

Every year, are there kids who do the baseball cap switch at the last minute and sign with someone else? Yeah, there are.

Not every institution is the Ohio State University. It is all puppies and flower petals if all of your guys who verbal to you sign with you, and it is great that you only go after and convince kids to verbal that will be slam dunk academically eligible. That world you live in is not the world of every program.

So since the athletes in question do not have to send in a fax LOI in February to S.C., even though they pinky swore, and since it is not completely unusual to see some of the kids pay less attention to their grades in the spring (when H.S. football eligibility and playing time is not as uppermost in the minds of some players), it is not - unheard of - for a few kids who gave a verbal not to qualify. (For example, for kids in the state of Florida there is a standardized test that all seniors have to take in order to graduate, even if some football happy teachers gave them a 3.0.) There are SAT and ACT tests, and sometimes re-tests to take.

So I find the smug holier than thou attitude here to be slightly annoying when you are looking a a system where the coaches are all trying to "guess" how many kids will honor their promise, how many kids will qualify by passing their last semester grades, and, unfortunately, assume that none of the kids with no past criminal records will do something dumb with their buddies that summer and get arrested for - say - selling weed or punching out some kid over a girl and getting a felony battery charge.

And you are also assuming that every one of your guys currently in the program is not going to quit, flunk out, transfer, get in trouble, etc., and by any of these means open up a spot or two in the 85. It is entirely possible that Spurrier has a better idea of the number of people on his squad in March of 2011 than YOU do. The fact that some of the athletes are still listed as currently on his team on the oversigning.com website is not binding on him. He may know of transfers and medical problems that we are unaware of, and it is none of your god damn business, actually.

As it stands the SEC cap is 28 LOI signed between Feb and March, and the total number of scholies cannot be over 85.

Everyone here is going nuts because right now SC has 30 verbals for a likely 28 spots. That y'all are going nuts I find amusing. Because "the simple implications" are that two kids likely will not wind up enrolled for non-nefarious reasons. For the three million dollars a year they pay a coach it behooves him not to come in less than 85 if he can help it. This example is not the "OMG - they are launching Seniors from the program like V-2s to make room for the ovahsignsinses!!!!!" that y'all like to make a knee jerk conclusion every time you more verbals than spots.

BTW. Good article on topic below.

http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2010/08/02/offering-a-helping-hand/
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1861171; said:
one might say this is done to create an advantage over those who do not sign six uber talented prospects with rough transcriptsthen mayne you should stop offering that many unqualified kids, and forcing them to shoulder the consequences of oversigning instead of yourself.

Offering an unqualified prospect is a risk you take. It should be your choice to risk losing that scholarship.

It should not be a risk taken by a backup a less talented recruit who did their job.


This is precisely why we talk about the reputation thr sec has compared to the big ten (other conferences do it too, but not with the same frequency). Not because all teams resort to forcing ten kids out per year like bama, but because they intentionally put their kids in situations to be cut or forced to delay enrollment.
Click to expand...
1-30days-pour-wine-lg-63555269.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Gator, what exactly is wrong with only telling the kids who are guaranteed a scholarship that they will have one, and telling the other kids they will likely have one by the time they start classes but that if nobody flunks out, they'll have to JUCO, grayshirt, or just go home?

Why is honesty not an option?
 
Upvote 0
Deety;1861229; said:
Gator, what exactly is wrong with only telling the kids who are guaranteed a scholarship that they will have one, and telling the other kids they will likely have one by the time they start classes but that if nobody flunks out, they'll have to JUCO, grayshirt, or just go home?

Why is honesty not an option?
Click to expand...
Because the kid might go elsewhere?
 
Upvote 0
That's an easy position to take for an institution that already has higher admission standards than the NCAA minimum.

There isn't a ten-mile gap between qualifying and not qualifying. It often comes down to the very last minute of the very last class. Predicting who will and won't qualify isn't a precise science.

Offering a kid who might be just on the edge of qualifying might be just the motivation he needs to buckle down and hit the books, and there isn't anything morally or ethically wrong with doing so. Giving him an opportunity to better himself by working hard is the exact opposite of ethically or morally wrong.

Insisting that all kids in all schools have to measure up to an academic standard supplied by OSU - or they aren't allowed to play - is the same as insisting on institutionalizing your own competitive advantage.

No thanks. I'll pass.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1861301; said:
That's an easy position to take for an institution that already has higher admission standards than the NCAA minimum.

There isn't a ten-mile gap between qualifying and not qualifying. It often comes down to the very last minute of the very last class. Predicting who will and won't qualify isn't a precise science.

Offering a kid who might be just on the edge of qualifying might be just the motivation he needs to buckle down and hit the books, and there isn't anything morally or ethically wrong with doing so. Giving him an opportunity to better himself by working hard is the exact opposite of ethically or morally wrong.

Insisting that all kids in all schools have to measure up to an academic standard supplied by OSU - or they aren't allowed to play - is the same as insisting on institutionalizing your own competitive advantage.

No thanks. I'll pass.
Click to expand...
So that's one in the "honesty is not the best policy" column.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1861313; said:
Now wait, I was told - pretty forcefully - by an admin here that it wasn't so much about the 'competitive advantage', but about 'hurting kids'.
Click to expand...
In the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to concede that schools are oversigning just for the fun of tricking kids into thinking their schollies are a sure thing, and not because it helps the school in any way.
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1861301; said:
Offering a kid who might be just on the edge of qualifying might be just the motivation he needs to buckle down and hit the books, and there isn't anything morally or ethically wrong with doing so. Giving him an opportunity to better himself by working hard is the exact opposite of ethically or morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I haven't really weighed in on this topic because I don't really care all that much either way. I'm just swooping in on this one point...

Except that the schools can't have (and don't want) all of the players (to) qualify. They are offering 12 kids the chance to better themselves, but counting on 6 of them to fail at it.

And if all 12 do what they are supposed to do to get qualified?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top