Oversigning (capacity 25, everyone welcome! maybe)

[SmoovP]

And the other kid, the one who is now losing that spot?

Which kid?

The one who flunked out?

The one who got hurt?

The one who transferred for playing time?

 

[SmoovP]

No there isn't. It is a core principle of the rebuttal being presented here by you and Gator.

The numbers are irrelevant. It could be 4 guys to fill 2 spots, or even 2 guys to fill 1 (and oversigning by 1).

You need to fill spots and are risking overload by assuming some won't qualify.

If they all qualify, then someone is left without a seat in this game of musical chairs.

The point that none of you guys will concede is that there is more to the issue than simple math.

 

[SmoovP]

How about we boil it down to the very core of the issue?

Let's say you have as many kids who have signed LOIs as you have scholarships to give, whether that be 10 or 25.

Do you tell the next kid in line:

a) Glad to have you aboard! We'll take good care of you. Guar-an-tee it!
b) We've signed as many kids as we can guarantee spots, but we will most likely fit you in through attrition. Odds are very good, nearly certain, but ultimately you need to know there's some chance you'll have to grayshirt or JUCO it, and it's your decision.
c) Sorry, we're full.

I'm fine with B and C.

And the assumption around here seems to be that it is universally A.

My assumption is that it is B or C.

 

[jwinslow]

The point that none of you guys will concede is that there is more to the issue than simple math.

You and gator have claimed they have to oversign in case some of them do not qualify. When we ask you to explain what happens if they all qualify, you change the subject to Jim Tressel being classless or that it's complicated.

It really isn't. You've made it quite clear that some of the oversigning is to protect against the risk of non-qualifiers.

Other factors like privately known attrition are a factor, and I'm working on breaking that down (though given the jukes seen so far, I am not sure it's going to be dealt with directly).

They do NOT change the fact that some of the recruits are oversigned to protect against non-qualifier fallout, as you and gator have made clear repeatedly.


If they all had spots already, then the oversigning was not because of academic non-qualifiers. But we all know that's a relevant part here.


And those kids do not all have spots on the team. Something has to give for them to all get in the door.

 

[Deety]

And the assumption around here seems to be that it is universally A.

My assumption is that it is B or C.

Wrong. The issue is the continuing "but - but - but" defense of A. If you would like to say A is ethically wrong, and that kids should be protected from that sort of lie, that's all it takes.

I would agree that the B and C could be more common, though we don't know if the coaches lie or not.

 

[Muck]

Which kid?

The one who flunked out?

The one who got hurt?

The one who transferred for playing time?

The kid who is sitting at home on signing day waiting for the LOI that he was promised...but never comes.

The kid who gets called into the coach's office and told that he needs to make different plans because the University isn't renewing his scholarship next year.

 

[jwinslow]

And the assumption around here seems to be that it is universally A.

My assumption is that it is B or C.

No, it is not universally A.

The point is it should never be A, no matter how unfortunate it is to be stuck with the consequences of signing unqualified prospects.

Yet you and Gator continue to defend A for exactly that reason, even if it isn't the overriding way those extra kids get in.

 

[SmoovP]

Wonderfullly irrelevant but telling as the extent of your rebuttal.

Jim Tressel is hardly a perfect man. That doesn't change the grand canyon sized gulf between Spurrier and Tressel when it comes to handing off the risk to kids.

I take it you have no actual rebuttal of the concept of making kids shoulder the risk?

It's perfectly relevant. I keep hearing how it is a moral and ethical sin to accept 28 LOIs. You guys like to high-horse about the evil SEC, but there are no perfect coaches or perfect programs.

I keep hearing '28 LOIs is bad, bad, bad and wrong, wrong, wrong'.

Conceptually, you have a point. But when it gets down to specifics, its not that simple or clear cut.

 

[Deety]

It's perfectly relevant. I keep hearing how it is a moral and ethical sin to accept 28 LOIs. You guys like to high-horse about the evil SEC, but there are no perfect coaches or perfect programs.

I keep hearing '28 LOIs is bad, bad, bad and wrong, wrong, wrong'.

Conceptually, you have a point. But when it gets down to specifics, its not that simple or clear cut.

There we go. :)

 

[jwinslow]

It's perfectly relevant. I keep hearing how it is a moral and ethical sin to accept 28 LOIs. You guys like to high-horse about the evil SEC, but there are no perfect coaches or perfect programs.

And yet you're arguing it is all B or C.

I keep hearing '28 LOIs is bad, bad, bad and wrong, wrong, wrong'.

No, it isn't. 28-30 LOIs most of the time with no tiny (18-20) classes to balance them out is wrong. It requires recycling scholarships from kids so you can max out your recruiting classes each year, rather than offering responsibly with limitations to prevent those overloads that must be dealt with.

Conceptually, you have a point. But when it gets down to specifics, its not that simple or clear cut.

Again, you are dodging the issue.

You've made it crystal clear some oversigning is done in expectation of non-qualifiers, so you'll be stocked up when the Noel Devines do not qualify.

If that's the case for part of the signees, then that part has been duped into thinking they have room if they all qualify.

 

[SmoovP]

Again, the assumption is that the coaches don't have a plan for if and when that happens.

It seems to be assumed that the kids aren't warned that JUCO might be a possibility.

I don't think that's very likely.

If a coach is lying to kids, that kind of thing will get around to high school coaches in a big hurry, and that high school is forever closed to that coach, and that's not a self-serving strategy for a coach.

 

[jwinslow]

If a coach is lying to kids, that kind of thing will get around to high school coaches in a big hurry, and that high school is forever closed to that coach, and that's not a self-serving strategy for a coach.

You and Gator keep putting that out there as though Nick Saban is having trouble with his reputation.

 

[SmoovP]

No, it is not universally A.

The point is it should never be A, no matter how unfortunate it is to be stuck with the consequences of signing unqualified prospects.

Yet you and Gator continue to defend A for exactly that reason, even if it isn't the overriding way those extra kids get in.

I'm not defending A. It's wrong and I've said so more than once.

I don't think it happens on the scale that seems to be the conventional wisdom around here though, nor do I think it happens at every SEC school.

 

[jwinslow]

I don't think it happens on the scale that seems to be the conventional wisdom around here though, nor do I think it happens at every SEC school.

If it's happening at all as a byproduct of consistent oversigning, that's wrong and explains exactly why we detest that approach overall.

It doesn't have to happen 12 times every spring for oversigning to be a classless practice.

 

[Deety]

Again, the assumption is that the coaches don't have a plan for if and when that happens.

It seems to be assumed that the kids aren't warned that JUCO might be a possibility.

I don't think that's very likely.

If a coach is lying to kids, that kind of thing will get around to high school coaches in a big hurry, and that high school is forever closed to that coach, and that's not a self-serving strategy for a coach.

Speaking for myself, I was just arguing the principle that you don't promise a scholarship you can't guarantee. We seem to be on the same page about that now, so all good here.

I would say that there should still be a difference between a LOI that has a guaranteed spot attached to it, and one where the school cannot yet account for that scholarship. I'd like to see the kids sign something that shows they are aware of that uncertainty.

Then again, it would be good to see if that language is included in the LOIs, though I doubt it. Anyone know offhand where we might be able to look at that language?