SEC! SEC!

[Rockerbraves]

You just don't get it. No one in the Big-10 is allowed to oversign, period. If they do have a situation, where for example, they have to exceed the 25 limit to make up for a shortfall, they have to provide detailed proof that no existing scholarship athletes are being sacrificed to do so.

So explain how Minnesota was able to sign 99 LOI in the past 4 years?

[Glabra]

So explain how Minnesota was able to sign 99 LOI in the past 4 years?

Trying to see if I can find the details.

 

What I do know is that coaches are encouraged to establish their recruiting budget (number of openings for new signees) ahead of National Signing Day and stay within those limits; Big 10 coaches are allowed to sign up to 28 players to a single class, but they are required to petition the Big 10 office and prove that they have room for the 3 extra players and that signing the 3 extra players will not results in the removal of anyone currently on the roster with eligibility remaining. They are also not allowed to accept a signed letter of intent for numbers 26, 27, and 28 until they receive permission from the Big 10 office and the Big 10 office reviews the roster in question to make sure that there is room for those players before giving the coaches permission to accept those LOI.

 

To sum up, the checks and balances in place should prevent such crap from happening in the B-10, but I don't have the specific details around exactly how Minny got to 99. Once again, signing 99 over the course of 4 years doesn't automatically mean they were over 85 on the First Wednesday of February in any of those years, provided they had the necessary 'recruiting budget' every year. Understand?

[Rockerbraves]

Trying to see if I can find the details.

 

What I do know is that coaches are encouraged to establish their recruiting budget (number of openings for new signees) ahead of National Signing Day and stay within those limits; Big 10 coaches are allowed to sign up to 28 players to a single class, but they are required to petition the Big 10 office and prove that they have room for the 3 extra players and that signing the 3 extra players will not results in the removal of anyone currently on the roster with eligibility remaining. They are also not allowed to accept a signed letter of intent for numbers 26, 27, and 28 until they receive permission from the Big 10 office and the Big 10 office reviews the roster in question to make sure that there is room for those players before giving the coaches permission to accept those LOI.

 

To sum up, the checks and balances in place should prevent such crap from happening in the B-10, but I don't have the specific details around exactly how Minny got to 99. Once again, signing 99 over the course of 4 years doesn't automatically mean they were over 85 on the First Wednesday of February in any of those years, provided they had the necessary 'recruiting budget' every year. Understand?

The Buckeyes do seem to run a nice recruiting program. Sort of curious how offers work at Ohio State. From what I can gather Ohio State has a least 50 offers out there right now for this recruiting class. Are they accepted on a 1st come basis? What would happen if all 50 accepted the offers today? They obviously couldn't accept them all.

[detlef]

So explain how Minnesota was able to sign 99 LOI in the past 4 years?

Really? Is this a serious question? Honestly, most of the time I'm certain you are fishing.

 

If, between transfers, dropping out, leaving early for the pros, or any other innocent reason, 14 players manage to leave the program over the course of those 4 years, then Minnesota could easily sign that many players without abusing the system the way your Tigers do. That's the whole freaking reason why the rule allows teams to exceed 85 scholarships over the course of 4 years, because chight happens. Not chight as in, sign every kid you think you might want and then kick 20 to the curb every summer. But chight happens as in, not every kid sticks around all four years.

[Rockerbraves]

Really? Is this a serious question? Honestly, most of the time I'm certain you are fishing.

 

If, between transfers, dropping out, leaving early for the pros, or any other innocent reason, 14 players manage to leave the program over the course of those 4 years, then Minnesota could easily sign that many players without abusing the system the way your Tigers do. That's the whole freaking reason why the rule allows teams to exceed 85 scholarships over the course of 4 years, because chight happens. Not chight as in, sign every kid you think you might want and then kick 20 to the curb every summer. But chight happens as in, not every kid sticks around all four years.

Promise no fishing. Serious question. 99 LOI is for a 4 year period. LSU only had 105 in that same period and I would venture to say LSU has alot more players who leave for the pros than Minnesota. I would also assume Minnesota must of had a few redshirt seniors as well.

 

So do you think Minnesota has never forced a player out of there program?

Edited December 21, 2010 by Rockerbraves

[detlef]

Promise no fishing. Serious question. 99 LOI is for a 4 year period. LSU only had 105 in that same period and I would venture to say LSU has alot more players who leave for the pros than Minnesota. I would also assume Minnesota must of had a few redshirt seniors as well.

 

So do you think Minnesota has never forced a player out of there program?

For starters, where are you all finding these numbers? I just want to look myself. For one thing, its hard to believe that the average for the Big 10 is 86 and the worst team in that league is pulling the average up. If that's truly the case, Minnesota needs to get their freaking act together. Of course, it could come down to the fact that they're just really bad at evaluating talent, so they give a lot of scholarships to kids who aren't that good and ultimately get cut or just quit. Which, btw, is something that I understand schools need to be able to do, so you have to somehow account for this.

 

And, regardless, the only one pretending everyone thinks this is all on the SEC and nobody else is you. I just got annoyed with you because, completely out of nowhere, you turned this into a thread about SEC dominance during the BCS era. Again, we all know this. The numbers don't lie. But each and every thread turns into which conference puts the best product on the field. Can't this be the one that doesn't?

 

So, yes, I'm sure Minnesota has forced kids out. It seems like many schools all over the place have forced kids out. It also seems like the Big 10 is leading the way in policing this and that should be commended. Because they still manage to field a quality product (even if not to the level of the SEC) despite having actual academic standards (and I'm sure they're plenty lax when it comes to many of the players) as well as keeping a tighter lid on their schools using kids as disposables.

[Rockerbraves]

For starters, where are you all finding these numbers? I just want to look myself. For one thing, its hard to believe that the average for the Big 10 is 86 and the worst team in that league is pulling the average up. If that's truly the case, Minnesota needs to get their freaking act together. Of course, it could come down to the fact that they're just really bad at evaluating talent, so they give a lot of scholarships to kids who aren't that good and ultimately get cut or just quit. Which, btw, is something that I understand schools need to be able to do, so you have to somehow account for this.

 

And, regardless, the only one pretending everyone thinks this is all on the SEC and nobody else is you. I just got annoyed with you because, completely out of nowhere, you turned this into a thread about SEC dominance during the BCS era. Again, we all know this. The numbers don't lie. But each and every thread turns into which conference puts the best product on the field. Can't this be the one that doesn't?

 

So, yes, I'm sure Minnesota has forced kids out. It seems like many schools all over the place have forced kids out. It also seems like the Big 10 is leading the way in policing this and that should be commended. Because they still manage to field a quality product (even if not to the level of the SEC) despite having actual academic standards (and I'm sure they're plenty lax when it comes to many of the players) as well as keeping a tighter lid on their schools using kids as disposables.

My numbers come from Rivals http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting.../2010/BIG10/all

 

Minnesota in 2010 signed 25 / 2009 class - 20 / 2008 class - 30 / 2007 class -24

 

Now I'm really confused if you think it's ok to cut a player. I thought that is exactly why you were angry with Coach Miles because this is what you accuse him of doing.

 

I only brought up the SEC records to offset the SEC bashing Oh and by the way Ole Miss is one of the top SEC who have oversigned and much like Minnesota don't have much to show for it.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Rockerbraves

[detlef]

My numbers come from Rivals http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting.../2010/BIG10/all

 

Minnesota in 2010 signed 25 / 2009 class - 20 / 2008 class - 30 / 2007 class -24

 

Now I'm really confused if you think it's ok to cut a player. I thought that is exactly why you were angry with Coach Miles because this is what you accuse him of doing.

 

I only brought up the SEC records to offset the SEC bashing Oh and by the way Ole Miss is one of the top SEC who have oversigned and much like Minnesota don't have much to show for it.

Dude, bringing in a reasonable number of signees and realizing that, sometime down the road a guy just isn't making it and letting him go is one thing. Stockpiling recruits, knowing damned well that a whole bunch of them are going to get cut loose regardless of how well they play is another. It's pretty obvious that some schools understand there's an honorable way of going about this and others don't, or each and every one of them would be doing it as badly as schools like LSU.

 

And, yes, I realize it's tough to make the team at a school like LSU. I'm not talking about rewarding mediocrity. I'm talking about being realistic with these kids. My guess is, that's what the schools who aren't always over the limit do. They might tell a kid that he's welcome to come on board and may get a scholarship, but that he's a bit of a long-shot. If that kid is smart, he might want to look at a slightly lesser school who's fired up to have him there. Unless his parents can afford to pay for him to play without a scholarship for a year or two.

 

I'd bet some of these guys will offer a scholarship to anyone who's got even a snowball's chance in hell of making the team. If they somehow catch fire, cool, they've got a great player. If they're better than they thought but still not good enough. Well, at least they're not going to be playing for another SEC team, because it will be too late. They'll be stuck playing D-II and nothing that coach has to worry about. Win-win. Well, win-win for the coach. Too bad some kid gets hosed.

 

Again, if they want to be able to treat the players like this, then the players should be able to transfer without penalty and get paid a little something along the way.

Edited December 21, 2010 by detlef

[Glabra]

The Buckeyes do seem to run a nice recruiting program. Sort of curious how offers work at Ohio State. From what I can gather Ohio State has a least 50 offers out there right now for this recruiting class. Are they accepted on a 1st come basis? What would happen if all 50 accepted the offers today? They obviously couldn't accept them all.

I don't follow recruiting closely enough to be able to answer that. I do know that Tressel's recruiting philosophy is a bit different from other top programs:

 

- Recruit players that are a good fit for the program, ie, 'want to be Buckeyes'; which usually translates to a high number of in-state players that have grown up wanting to play for Ohio State, and lesser prima donnas like Clarett.

- A majority are academically sound and can represent the school well when a mike is thrust in front of them.

- A sprinkling of elite out-of-state talent at critical positions.

- Recruit 'Big Speed', ie, not just fast little guys like Oregon or slow behemoths like Ohio State of years past

- Stay under the numbers limit and regularly reward walk-ons with schollies to fill the gaps

Edited December 22, 2010 by Glabra

[Glabra]

Ironically, UGA is the ONE SEC program that steers clear of the mud and DOESN'T indulge in oversigning.

My mistake..UGA, UF and Vandy are all kosher. No oversigning.

[untateve]

My mistake..UGA, UF and Vandy are all kosher. No oversigning.

 

What is your source that indicates no oversigning by Florida?

[Rockerbraves]

What is your source that indicates no oversigning by Florida?

100% of the teams in Division 1 are guilty of running off players, however certain teams just do it less than others. While Urban Meyer seems to be one of those SEC coaches who does it less one could argue his deep down reason for being an advocate against oversigning is because it would give Florida a competitive advantage over the other SEC teams. Reason being is that the Gators at least during his reign seem to always get first pick of the top recruits.

[untateve]

100% of the teams in Division 1 are guilty of running off players, however certain teams just do it less than others. While Urban Meyer seems to be one of those SEC coaches who does it less one could argue his deep down reason for being an advocate against oversigning is because it would give Florida a competitive advantage over the other SEC teams. Reason being is that the Gators at least during his reign seem to always get first pick of the top recruits.

 

I don't care what the reason, I'm just hoping that Florida doesn't participate in this type of behavior.

[Rockerbraves]

I don't care what the reason, I'm just hoping that Florida doesn't participate in this type of behavior.

They do it more than say Penn State. who only signed 82 LOI during the past 4 seasons.

Outback Bowl

Florida (93) vs Penn State (82)

Florida +11, Penn State -11

.

[detlef]

I don't care what the reason, I'm just hoping that Florida doesn't participate in this type of behavior.

The question that needs to be asked is; Are they going over 85 per 4 years for noble reasons? They signed 93 players over the last 4 years. However, how many guys left early for the pros? Gotta think a few did. Maybe 4-5? OK, so now you're at 88 or so. Now, how many guys flunked out of school? Quit for some other reason? Transferred because they realized they were buried on the depth chart? Just completely failed at that level? I mean, we're talking 4th string players that you'll never hear of are scholarship players. There has got to be some natural attrition.

 

I mean, if you bring in a DT under scholarship and the kid just eats himself off the team, should you have to honor his scholarship as long as he's willing to keep showing up for practice? Even if he just stands around and doesn't do dick? There's a difference between that and stockpiling signees, 10-20 of whom you know are very unlikely of making the cut.

 

I mean, that's why schools are allowed to bring in over 85 players per 4 years, because things happen. Honestly, one would guess that having that number in the high 80s to low 90s is using the rule as it is designed and nothing any school should be ashamed of.

Edited December 22, 2010 by detlef

[Glabra]

The question that needs to be asked is; Are they going over 85 per 4 years for noble reasons? They signed 93 players over the last 4 years. However, how many guys left early for the pros? Gotta think a few did. Maybe 4-5? OK, so now you're at 88 or so. Now, how many guys flunked out of school? Quit for some other reason? Transferred because they realized they were buried on the depth chart? Just completely failed at that level? I mean, we're talking 4th string players that you'll never hear of are scholarship players. There has got to be some natural attrition.

 

I mean, if you bring in a DT under scholarship and the kid just eats himself off the team, should you have to honor his scholarship as long as he's willing to keep showing up for practice? Even if he just stands around and doesn't do dick? There's a difference between that and stockpiling signees, 10-20 of whom you know are very unlikely of making the cut.

 

I mean, that's why schools are allowed to bring in over 85 players per 4 years, because things happen. Honestly, one would guess that having that number in the high 80s to low 90s is using the rule as it is designed and nothing any school should be ashamed of.

to clarify something, 85 is not a limit over 4 years. it's a limit on number of scholarship players going into any season.

the other limit is: no more than 25 athletes enrolled on scholarship in an incoming class. there are numerous ways to skirt around the 25 limit, but these are the 2 limits.

 

so when you hear 93 over 4 years, what you need to consider is, on a year-year basis, what was the 'recruiting budget' the school had (recruiting budget = 85 - anticipated number of students that'll remain on scholarship after attrition); and does that tally up with 93 over 4 years. In a very simplistic scenario, 93 over 4 years means every year over that period, the school had a shortfall of aprox 23 due to attrition; assuming they were not stretching the rules.

[untateve]

I've also read that when incoming freshmen enroll in January, they can count toward the prior year's total, not the upcoming year's total.

[detlef]

to clarify something, 85 is not a limit over 4 years. it's a limit on number of scholarship players going into any season.

the other limit is: no more than 25 athletes enrolled on scholarship in an incoming class. there are numerous ways to skirt around the 25 limit, but these are the 2 limits.

 

so when you hear 93 over 4 years, what you need to consider is, on a year-year basis, what was the 'recruiting budget' the school had (recruiting budget = 85 - anticipated number of students that'll remain on scholarship after attrition); and does that tally up with 93 over 4 years. In a very simplistic scenario, 93 over 4 years means every year over that period, the school had a shortfall of aprox 23 due to attrition; assuming they were not stretching the rules.

Of course, but if they gave out 93 scholarships over 4 years, then the delta is 8 total kids either needed to naturally move on or had to be denied scholarships. But it is too simplistic to assume that each and every one of those kids signed in 2007 were still around. Hell, they lost 4 juniors to last year's draft alone. I know Harvin was an underclassman when he went. So there's at least 5.

 

Not sure where the 23 shortfall number comes from. Why wouldn't it be 8? Could you explain that?

[Rockerbraves]

Of course, but if they gave out 93 scholarships over 4 years, then the delta is 8 total kids either needed to naturally move on or had to be denied scholarships. But it is too simplistic to assume that each and every one of those kids signed in 2007 were still around. Hell, they lost 4 juniors to last year's draft alone. I know Harvin was an underclassman when he went. So there's at least 5.

 

Not sure where the 23 shortfall number comes from. Why wouldn't it be 8? Could you explain that?

Don't forget to count the 2006 class recruits who were redshirted as well. They should still be on the roster as well. Not sure what % redshirt but would think most freshmen get redshirted. So like in Florida's case you would need to add x (06' RS) amount to that 93 signed LOI.

[Glabra]

Of course, but if they gave out 93 scholarships over 4 years, then the delta is 8 total kids either needed to naturally move on or had to be denied scholarships. But it is too simplistic to assume that each and every one of those kids signed in 2007 were still around. Hell, they lost 4 juniors to last year's draft alone. I know Harvin was an underclassman when he went. So there's at least 5.

 

Not sure where the 23 shortfall number comes from. Why wouldn't it be 8? Could you explain that?

93 divided by 4

[detlef]

Don't forget to count the 2006 class recruits who were redshirted as well. They should still be on the roster as well. Not sure what % redshirt but would think most freshmen get redshirted. So like in Florida's case you would need to add x (06' RS) amount to that 93 signed LOI.

Of course, red shirts. Then why have we all been fixating on 4 year runs? It should be 4+.

[Rockerbraves]

Of course, red shirts. Then why have we all been fixating on 4 year runs? It should be 4+.

I've mentioned redshirts a few times. That aside what always amazes me is when senior day is played and you only see maybe 10 seniors being presented. I've always wondered whatever happen to all those 20 somethng kids who signed in that class.

 

I would love to see an attrition report on exactly what happens to all those missing kids from that recruiting class. If a school averages signing say 25 a class and most of them redshirt that means a school is working with 125 LOI over 5 years which means 40 disappear from the roster.

[detlef]

I've mentioned redshirts a few times. That aside what always amazes me is when senior day is played and you only see maybe 10 seniors being presented. I've always wondered whatever happen to all those 20 somethng kids who signed in that class.

 

I would love to see an attrition report on exactly what happens to all those missing kids from that recruiting class. If a school averages signing say 25 a class and most of them redshirt that means a school is working with 125 LOI over 5 years which means 40 disappear from the roster.

That seems like a bit much. I would guess that about half redshirt, which means you're really looking at closer to 110. And, again, so many major programs are having kids leave a year or (sometimes 2) early. I mean, I picked that one UF year out or random and there was 4-5. I would guess that transfers make up a decent number especially since we're talking about going 4 deep on the depth chart. Some must see the writing on the wall and just go somewhere else rather than riding the pine forever. And speaking of those who are buried on the depth chart, they're obviously not going to play on the next level, so now they're just another college kid. Well, how many college kids drop out? Plenty.

Edited December 22, 2010 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

I don't care what the reason, I'm just hoping that Florida doesn't participate in this type of behavior.

Florida Cuts Two to Make Scholarship Cap

by PeteHoliday on Mar 22, 2010 11:39 PM CDT

 

According to a tweet today by Palm Beach Post writer Ben Volin, the Florida Gators were two scholarships over the 85-player cap as of National Signing Day this year. Ignoring the question of how Volin knew this (or "calculated" it) for now, it's worth noting that two players were allegedly cut, to make the cap. One of them, defensive tackle Gary Brown, had some legal trouble last year and the other, defensive tackle Edwin Herbert, was a JuCo transfer who didn't make any meaningful contributions on the field last year.

 

It stands to reason that, had it not been for Meyer engaging in the dreaded "over-signing", these two humble student athletes would still have their scholarships.

 

This case illustrates the fact that quality coaches are always going to have a plan for making it under the cap. There is little doubt that Meyer would've kept these guys if he could. Florida, like most other major football programs, budgets to give out 85 scholarships every year, and it really does them very little good to save the money. If the player is not causing problems and there is even an outside shot he could turn into a contributor, you might as well keep him around. The limit changes that, though, because once you hit the cap, those guys who might turn into something by their senior year are keeping you from having the younger kids who could be something right away or in a year or two with a couple left on scholarship.

 

Meyer had a plan. Pursue a certain number of players and, depending on how many of them he got, some cuts might have to be made. It would have been suicide for him to offer a single scholarship before he had a prioritized list of which players were on the chopping block and how many commits he'd need before he had to start throwing off dead weight.

 

As has been true throughout this over-signing debate, the math is immutable: if the limit is 85 and your current roster plus the new scholarships you promise exceeds that number, someone has to get cut. The faulty reasoning, however, is in assuming that cutting a player is somehow immoral or unacceptable.

 

The idea that a player is owed 5 years worth of free tuition and a spot on a roster because he, at one point, signed a letter of intent is laughable, and this is an example of how stories like this should play out: a few relatively unsurprising roster moves drawing little in the way of commentary or righteous indignation.

 

Brown and Herbert might have gotten five full years of free education, but they got more than most folks get and, just like with Academic scholarships, these grants don't come no-strings-attached.

[Cameltosis]

Interesting