Saban grayshirting in order to make room. Oversigning.com states Bama has twelve leaving, 9 seniors and 3 juniors, and they will be signing 25. They are at 21 now and are in on 10 more or so top recruits including Vonn Bell. How does the SEC get away with this?
http://m.ajc.com/weblogs/college-recruiting/2013/jan/21/nick-saban-switc...
I know one of the reasons is they'll accept commitments from players who they know won't qualify but still let them commit just incase.
Who is Robert Foster?
How does the SEC get away with it? The mainstream media allows it. The media loves a dynasty, and will do what they need to protect it and any finances involved.
There have been multiple article about this across several outlets...ESPN even had an OTL about this a few years back. I'm not saying I agree with the practice but as others have said, as long as the coaches are up front with it(and at this point recruits know this happens) then it's THEIR choice to take the risk and sign their LOI.
It's not just the SEC that has an oversigning issue...its just that the B10 is way more strict than other conferences. The B12 is nearly as bad if you look at the numbers.
I disagree that recruits knowing this happens = coaches being up front about it. If Saban tells that recruit directly, "hey, you might get gray shirted...", then fine. Despite knowing that 'Bama and others gray shirt, I would be willing to bet recruits assume they will be fine if they give a verbal 6 months or a year in advance.
I don't get the rationale behind telling a 17 or 18 year old kid "buyer beware" when trying to live out a dream or prepare for the future. Kids of that age and seasoned coaches aren't playing from the same deck.
Kids are told they may have to greyshirt. From Saban's own lips and confirmed by recruits themselves. If this routinely was the opposite then we'd see 203 guys complaining per team each year. Instead we have one every few years make a stink.
There were 2 from Alabama's recruiting class last year that got screwed over.
Plus, a recruit that doesn't play much after a year, and is then grayshirted is not big news. Nobody sends a reporter to check up on that one 4-star kid from last year and why he's no longer on scholarship. People are already paying attention to the next recruiting class and don't care about the man behind the curtains. Not to mention, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not hearing much news about players grayshirting does not equal, i.e., does not prove, there are not players grayshirting. #logic
203 guys per team? Again, c'mon. You're statements are so intellectually dishonest it's not even funny.
My statements are intellectually dishonest? How so?
An Ohio State freshman who doesnt even dress for away games and didn't get a snap in the spring game made ESPN headlines for saying he didn't come here to do school on Twitter. You think that a former/current Alabama player wouldn't blow up ESPN if they said something about oversigning and getting screwed? That is being intellectually dishonest.
No one said kids are not greyshiritng because we don't hear about. I stated that the kids KNOW it might happen and signed up for that risk to get a chance to play Alabama football. No one said anything about it not happening, what was stated was that in fact it is WELL KNOWN and even TOLD to recruits as they are being recruited. In fact, Saban is on record this year saying for the world to hear if you committ to Alabama you might be greyshirted depending on how thigns shake out. They know about and when it happens they may not be happy, but they certainly are not making a public stink about how they are getting screwed.
My point being, everyone involved knows the possiblity and they are willing to take that risk. Same thing with someone who takes a preffered walk on spot with the POTENTIAL of earning a scholly (rarely happens) when they COULD get a full ride somewhere else. They take on more risk to play at OSU than these kids who pick Bama and end up greyshirting (one year) and then getting a scholly. They all know the risk, but Bama's oversigning is actually LESS risky.
I don't love it, I think kids should be protected, but they are not being shady about it either because all parties know about it. I wouldn't sign my kid for that, but I also wouldn't push them to tale a preffered walk-on spot either.
I'm sure Saban uses words more simialr to this when asked about grayshirting from recruits, "Yea every once in a while it happens, but not with you, you can be something special and compete from day one." I don't think he ever goes in and tells someone they even "may" be grayshirted.
I'd love to hear what Urban thinks about this.
"I'm One Bad Buckeye, and I approve this message."
I think you have your answer with JT Barret. Although recovering from an injury, he has not been grey-shirted. It must be tempting to go that route when you are down a few schollys, but UFM has integrity.
Also, when I read the article and links, I can't figiure out just how "injured" were those two players were. They both IMMEDIATELY signed with Kentucky and Arkansas after Uncle Nick payed them a visit (at least he didn't text them). Saban is being legal, just not moral. Those kids were committed for quite a while too, Saban just found something better. Dick.
JT Barrett enrolled early to get the treatment. If he got a gray shirt, he wouldn't be signed and thus wouldn't get treated by OSU's staff. It is a drastically different philosophy though - one is come here and we'll make you better, the other is stay home and get better, then come here if you're better in a year.
Yep, you pretty much nailed the difference in philosophies. +1
Listen, I HATE the thought/idea of oversigning, both in that it gives certain schools an advantage over others, and just because of its "immoral" feel it gives off.
However, at some point we have to realize it is something a kid chooses to deal with when signing on with an Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, etc. As long as Saban is up front with the kids (I have no reason to believe he isn't, based on his makup and the way he deals with everything - head on), and the kids still choose to take that chance at Bama, then what are you going to do?
"What we do in life echoes in eternity"
What is up front about a last minute gray shirt offer?
To me the issue with oversigning isn't about last minute gray shirts(which happens less than you think). The issue is signing kids they know won't qualify and then "refer" them to local junior colleges which are essentially feeder schools for the SEC.
But like Wildbear said...at this point recruits know this happens and they have to live with the decisions they make.
Sounds fine to me, the kids fault for not qualifying. I believe that everyone is up front in these things, kid should have done better in school or change the rules so the kid has to qualify before they can sign.
I think you misunderstood my point...what I'm saying is that my main issue with "oversigning" is how the SEC essentially has feeder schools for the non-qualifiers. I agree...the kids know the risks, its on them for making the decision to put themselves is in that position in the first place.
We need to get some feeder schools then ;) haha, our fault for not setting that up!
I'm not sure how much more upfront you can get than the record of players abandoned for various reasons that Alabama has amassed under Saban. The record speaks for itself, Saban doesn't need to add anything. If coaches aren't bringing it up whenever they're competing with Alabama for a recruit, they're falling down on the job.
I think at some point we have to face the fact that some star athletes apparently prefer to take their chances with Alabama than take their chances (with better odds) at OSU or wherever else. Alabama isn't the problem here. Coaches being unable to beat out Alabama for recruits despite of Alabama's record is the problem.
BTW, the flip side of that coin is that I have exactly zero sympathy for players forced out at Alabama. You made a decision when you were a hot-shot recruit and coaches were calling you night and day. Live with it.
Read an article about this earlier,forget what web page.He has lost a few due to this grey shirting the last few years as well.A WR and RB last year.If I were this O-lineman from this years' class.I would sign with a team who wanted me,injury or not.Could you imagine us asking JT to grey shirt this year until his acl healed up??? Good god.But as long as kids agree to do this,Saban and SEC will continue the practice.
SCOTTC.
Tressel used grayshirting as recently as Cardale Jones. Now, I can't speak intelligently about offering a kid a grayshirt at the last minute however, assuming the grayshirt was always a possibility when offered, we can't really cry foul about it when we've done it on multiple occassions. We also did it with Todd Boeckman.
If I remember correctly, those grayshirts were used because of the current QB eligibility on the roster. Boeckman had Smith and Zwick in front of him. Even with the Redshirt, he would only have had a chance to start for one year if both of them stayed through their athletic senior year (which they did) . I believe it was similar with Cardale because of B. Miller .
You are correct, but the point is, we have used the same tactic to fill out our roster. I mean, do you think that both Boeckman and Jones said, "Hey Coach, I'd like to grayshirt this season" It was definitely a tactic our staff used to put our roster and team in the position to be successful.
We aren't privy to the conversations that Saban has had with these recruits, maybe he has mentioned it to some of them but they don't think it will happen. We don't know.
So as much as I don't care for Saban, oversigning, the SEC, etc...I'm not going to split hairs on grayshirting when it is a practice our staff has used, for one reason or another, multiple times in the last 5 seasons.
Click on the links in the article - these two guys felt screwed.
OSU did not use it multiple times in the past 5 years. It was 8 years in between Boeckman and Jones grayshirt years, and Jones was the only one since Boeckman. Also, Jones was aware well ahead of time that grayshirting was the only way he was getting a scholarship to OSU.
Jones' knowledge is key to this thread and to my approval of the practice
P.S. I thought what we did to Sabino was cheezy
As mentioned in the post they will be signing at least 25 according to oversigning.com. They had 9 seniors and 3 juniors out early. So 13 spots will need to be accounted for, 12 + 13 = 25. Not 3 or 4 but 13. That is a number that certainly makes it questionable to say the least. Every school would have instances of it happening. That isn't an issue. This is an issue when it happens in numbers, every year.
I'm not sure what the "issue" is. Are you saying Saban is a bad no good rotten person and shame, shame on him? Or are you saying Alabama is committing violations and should be investigated/punished? Because if it's the former, then, again, this isn't exactly a secret. You'll excuse me if I don't feel terribly sorry for a player who most likely had numerous top programs after him, chose Alabama DESPITE their record of shedding players who didn't pan out, and now has to choose between accepting a greyshirt, keeping him on scholarship but effectively ending his football career, and not being offerred a scholarship for next year. More importantly, I have a sneaking suspicion you aren't motivated by pure-as-the-driven-snow concern for the well-being of student athletes either.
Like it or not, this is a business. In fact, it's a very lucrative business. I see no point in complaining that right now Saban is better at it than anyone else (including Meyer, until proven otherwise). He's not cheating, he's just not sticking to the "unwritten rules". If these rules are so important, maybe they should be written down?
Oh, and if he is cheating, chances are it will catch up to him and Alabama. Everyone, including the rest of the SEC, and including me, would love to see them go down in flames now.
The issue would be continuing to over sign student athletes in a manner that isn't in their best interests. It is strange you know what my motivation may be. Saban has been a poster child for abusing this tactic and the point here, using the math, is he will have to "make room" for 13 spots. He is losing only 12 players from last years roster. If he signs 25 he will be 13 players over the roster limit. We are not talking 2 or 3 players here but 13. You're comparing Meyer to Saban and I would be interested to hear how they compare concerning this issue of fitting that many players over the limit into a class.
My thoughts are that Saban gives these kids the sales pitch that you come to Alabama and you will do great things, they commit, then this happens. Those players go there with the same thought, to play at Alabama. They are kids that are led to believe one thing to get them there, then late in the game forced to go another direction. It's as wrong as can be wrong in my book, lucrative business or not. Most are 17 year old kids when committing.
Ohio State should Gray Shirt J.T. Barrett.
its just a weird situation for me... it seems as if meyer is against it, however, there is no doubt in my mind the teams that do it gain a competitive advantage... so heres hoping meyer doesnt miss on as many prospects esp with the limited schollys
mark may wins douchebag of the year... again
"Saban Making Room"
And why wouldn't he? The NCAA has shown they're more interested in modifying the texting policy of recruits than making sure that all teams are playing and recruiting by the same rules. #lolNCAA
The biggest problem I have with oversigning is that the playing field is not level. Some conferences allow it and others don't. So it really drives me crazy when people say how great the SEC is when the field is tilted in their favor. If I hear about 'bama's or LSU's depth one more time I might...
It comes down to the NCAA making rules that all conferences can agree to.
Sorry for the double post. I'm an infrequent poster trying to it from my phone for the first time.
I ran some quick, preliminary numbers a couple of years ago and - at first, glance at least - it didn't appear that "oversigning" was correlated with on-field success. Keep in mind that several of the biggest oversigners were Sunbelt programs, if I'm remembering correctly.
At the time, I was inclined to think that the oversigning "problem" would sort itself out: if certain programs got a reputation for using up kids, over the long run, that'd begin to hurt their recruiting positions, as parents researched the problem, etc.
One of the big selling points of the Big Ten conference is that it combines first-rate academics (and overall college experience) with big time athletics. Not oversigning fits with that "branding" effort, whereas oversigning fits with what the SEC is all about. To each his own.
Maybe I'll check back-in with the numbers, see if any new trends have appeared. However, I am beginning to think that the SEC problem - in general - is sorting itself out, even if the verdict on oversigning is still out. Notice that the SEC is not as balanced as it was five years ago. Bama is dominating on a level not seen in the SEC in years. LSU just lost 11 early entrants to the NFL draft. Muschamp is just an okay coach. Spurrier is maxed-out at South Carolina. Several historical power programs are mired in mediocrity - Tenn, Ole Miss, Auburn.
Often, the foundation of a structure begins to weaken before you see visible damage on its facade. And I feel that the SEC structure is showing signs of stress. What does that have to do with the oversigning project? I'm not sure yet, but oversigning was just one way that the SEC has been batting above its weight class (to use a mixed metaphor).
Top notch analysis. When you combine 1) the coaching turnover that the SEC has "recently" had, where they had a bunch of openings and hired some pretty good coaches (Saban, Miles, Spurrier), 2) oversigning, which provides more depth, 3) aggressive recruiting, and and 4)favorable bowl sites and 5) match-ups against lower ranked BIG teams, you can see why the SEC dominance has been there recently.
If the BIG can 1) fill HC ranks with higher quality coaches like Hazell, 2) raise assistant coach pay levels to compete better with SEC assistant coaches (they have almost a 2 to 1 advantage there), 3) recruit more aggressively like UFM and company, and 4) hope that the rest of the SEC plays by the intent of the 25 recruit max, then things will even out a bit even if Uncle Nick continues to game the system.
Thanks - yeah, the SEC was always going to run into diminishing returns. They could only pay their coaching staffs so much; they were maxed-out in turns of recruiting numbers (limits to how much they could oversign), which in turn comes with certain negative trade offs; not enough victories to go around to satisfy fans/boosters of perennial winning programs like Tenn, Ole Miss, Auburn, FLA, etc., which leads to coaching turnover; eSECpn fatigue; among other factors.
And when organizations fall from the heights, they usually come crashing down hard. Remove Saban from Bama in a few years, and things could get ugly for a few years down in SEC country. Granted, their down period will be shortlived, because the SEC has a lot going for it; however, under "natural conditions," the SEC should be one of the dominant conferences, not the end-all-be-all of cfb.
As you suggest, right now the Big Ten has a lot more room to improve, given the fundamentals so to speak, compared to the SEC. Whether Big Ten programs get serious about doing so is another matter.
Agree with you both.
I am not optimistic about the Big 10. I know we all root for Hazell, and everyone thinks Kill is a swell guy etc. etc., but look what the Pac has done compared to the Big: Dickrod, Mora, Sarkissian, Shaw, and even Leach. The new Cal hire and Colorado hire both have better/longer track records than the Big hires and you gotta think the Big just falls further behind.
I agree, the majority of programs in the Big Ten have sustandard coaching staffs. At the top, however, Urbz and Hoke (upgrade over RR) will partly drag the league's image in a more favorable direction. And there are a few other solid head coaches at NW, MSU, and PSU. Nebraska is not content with mediocrity.
Thing is, it wouldn't take much for the Big Ten to experience a certain degree of improvement. Based on the "fundamentals," the Big Ten has been underperforming. When schools like Minnesota had G. Mason, Purdue had Tiller, Wisconsin had Alvarez (who really built the program for Bielema), and Ferentz was still trying, the league was right there at the top.
Agree that Alvarez did build it (and Bert did a nice job after) + Minnesota has been a disaster post-Mason. Only half-agree on Purdue and MSU. Not sure how I feel about NU ... compare it to Stanford and it becomes less impressive. Illinois screwed the pooch and IU, despite the referee led comeback against us remains to be seen. Same with PSU .. pride and emotion only carry you through the YSU game .... then you gotta play 10 more.
Fido - I'd like to see your numbers
There was a great post on mgoblog last year after the bowl season that showed correlation with the number of recruits signed in the last 4 years to outcome of the bowl game. The team with more recruits won 75% of the time, or more, if I remember correctly.
I would really find it hard to believe that oversigning is not correlated with on-field success. It obviously creates an advantage in depth and removes the guesswork in talent evaluation. Those are two huge advantages for a coach to have. However, you can also see that a coach could be so ineffective, or the caliber of recruits so low, that advantages gained by oversigning can not overcome those obstacles. Besides, considering the recent news about how much money football schools are investing on football players, when the Sunbelt schools are oversigning, where do those recruits stand academically and what kind of resources do those schools have to invest in them as students? (Also, I have to ask, is that why Sunbelt schools oversign, because of academics?) It's easy to see how focusing on schools in bowl games could eliminate those two potential confounders in fell swoop. Besides, in my opinion, we are looking more at how oversigning creates an edge--no one is claiming you can create a winner with oversigning. You can't just take any coach with 30/35/40 one and two stars, and even three stars, and expect to be a winner on the big stage. You can, however, take a decent/good coach with a program/facilities/tradition that allows them to pull four and five stars recruits, and add an extra recruiting class to the roster every four years, and in doing so, greatly increase your chances to win. That is the oversigning advantage.
The below data, which only include "big conference" teams, are far from ideal - "quick and dirty," based on what was readily available.
For example, the "OS" column includes average number of recruits between 2002 and 2010, while the ten year composite final "CR" computer rankings also begin in 2002 and go through 2011. Ideally, you'd probably begin the OS composite in 2002 and end it in 2009, and then begin the computer ratings composite in 2004 and end after 2011, to give a couple years "lag time" for the recruits to actually start impacting the on-field results. But I did not have time to clean up those issues.
Anyway, using these numbers, the correlation coefficient is -0.0870, i.e. not especially interesting.
Perhaps not surprising when we see programs like Iowa State, Ole Miss, Louisville, Kentucky, Zona toward the high end on "oversigning." Meanwhile, toward the low end are highly successful programs like Stanford, Ohio State, USC, Texas, Notre Dame, PSU, Clemson.
From what I remember, the Sunbelt teams tend to oversign a lot, too, so I don't suspect that the numbers would change much if we put all programs in the analysis.
OS CR
Auburn 28.11 11.90
Miss. State 27.44 34.40
Iowa State 27.00 56.70
South Carolina 26.89 19.70
Arkansas 26.56 26.80
Kansas State 26.44 54.50
Ole Miss 26.33 25.25
Alabama 26.11 12.90
Oregon State 26.11 46.90
West Virginia 26.11 38.55
Oklahoma State 25.77 31.60
Louisville 25.66 47.90
Kentucky 25.11 52.75
North Carolina 25.00 23.75
LSU 24.89 7.70
Arizona 24.88 41.50
USF 24.77 52.10
Texas Tech 24.66 34.70
Baylor 24.55 53.10
Oregon 24.44 24.00
Syracuse 24.44 56.70
Arizona State 24.33 34.60
Washington St. 24.33 48.70
Florida State 24.22 9.00
Mizzu 24.22 40.90
Purdue 24.22 48.50
Minnesota 24.11 55.90
Michigan State 24.00 38.80
Tennessee 24.00 11.60
Texas A&M 24.00 18.90
Oklahoma 23.89 9.10
Illinois 23.78 39.00
Miami 23.77 12.30
Colorado 23.66 46.60
Rutgers 23.66 46.40
Pittsburg 23.44 35.60
Florida 23.33 8.40
Nebraska 23.33 26.30
Virginia Tech 23.33 31.20
Kansas 23.22 55.80
N.C. State 23.22 35.10
Washington 23.22 30.00
Georgia 23.00 7.10
Wisconsin 22.67 45.60
Cincinnati 22.55 68.85
Indiana 22.44 66.05
Connecticut 22.33 66.20
Maryland 22.33 33.00
Cal 22.22 28.80
Virginia 22.11 37.90
Clemson 22.00 27.35
UCLA 22.00 22.70
Iowa 21.89 39.30
Michigan 21.67 11.60
Duke 21.55 62.80
Texas 21.33 7.20
Vanderbilt 21.22 66.00
USC 21.11 4.20
Boston College 20.33 44.50
Penn State 20.33 23.70
Notre Dame 20.00 14.65
Ohio State 20.00 11.00
Georgia Tech 19.66 47.90
Wake Forest 19.33 61.60
Northwestern 18.89 66.15
Stanford 18.89 36.75
Penult: my gut feeling, btw, is that "oversigning" would help the likes of Saban and Les Miles, but will often reflect desperation by the likes of lesser coaches in the Sunbelt, Kentucky, etc. Thus, the overall numbers kind of cancel eachother out, making oversigning look less effective than it really is (when it's in the "right" mercenary hands = top notch coaches at southern football factories).
On the other hand, then it becomes very difficult to disentangle the oversigning variable from the other variables that work in the favor of coaches like Saban and Miles - i.e., it becomes a very difficult case to prove. Yet, Big Ten fans are constantly complaining about oversigning without being able to show much "hard evidence."
I'm not really sure this is the fight I'd have the Big Ten pick - i.e., "boo hoo, they're not playing fairly." Rather, in addition to hiring better coaches, the Big Ten could be much more cutthroat about explaining why a football scholarship to SEC schools is such a dead end for so many promising young men. The Big Ten should be selling its strengths, not its "woe is me" weaknesses.
Agree with your upper paragraph -- oversigning doesn't help "as much" if you're at a smaller school, oversigning 2 and 3 star recruits. It might help you compete with schools of your caliber that aren't oversigning similar 2 and 3 star recruits, but at an elite school where you already pull in 4 and 5 star recruits, it allows you to pull even more in that you wouldn't normally be able to because of size limitations, and this allows you to build the kind of crazy depth at every position that allows for a competitive advantage over a similar quality team that couldn't (or wouldn't) oversign because they just flat out aren't going to have that kind of depth unless the NEVER EVER MISS ON A RECRUIT as far as projecting quality. But we all know not every recruit pans out and sometimes you have to live with them, but under Saban, he just pushes 'em out the door to make room for the next one that may pan out better.
From wiki on oversigning:
On April 15, 2008, Saban was asked by reporter Ian Rapoport how he was going to handle the numbers and when does he you start to worry about it? Saban replied "I'm not worried about them. It'll all work out. I mean, the whole thing has a solution to every issue. You don't put yourself in a position where you don't know what's coming." Rapoport respond, "So you're not going to tell us?" to which Saban replied "We know how it has to be managed, and it will be managed. 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. Don't even ask. Aiight?"[26]
I don't have an issue with oversigning as an onfield advantage, I have more of an issue that you are playing around with probably the only way some of these kids can get an education or the path to a loftier goal. College maybe a stepping stone to the NFL or a true pass to a college education that can get them a good job, either way it is the future of many kids in this nation. To play around with their futures like that is just immmoral and unjust.
for most higher education students its meet a certain standard of academics and you get to keep your scholarship or financial aid and stay in school. For some of these athletes who think solely on the merit of winning but don't really think about education, they can lose their future because some of these coaches feel the kid isn't as good as the next one coming in. That is wrong and I do not support that type of behavior no matter how much winning it brings. I am proud that I follow a team that has standards above winning yet still wins. Tatgate was a smear on the program but a victimless crime that was only illegal in the NCAA's eyes. but if OSU was ever this blatant with scholarships for these kids, then I would have a serious problem. It is one thing to be disappointed as a fan, it is another to be disappointed as a human being.