2011 Signing Class? Oversigned?

by **friend10** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:23 am

Interesting article by Travis Stewart at texasfootball.com.
"SMU is bringing in an astronomical amount of signees for the relatively small number of senior's graduating (roughly 28 to roughly 12). Can we say oversigning? To make that work, SMU is going to have to greyshirt liberally, and unless that's been preapproved with certain targets, some kids aren't going to be happy. If I were you, I'd take one look at the pledge class now and then forget it-some of these kids will probably never see campus. Even if ten current pony players failed out or transferred, we'd still be a dozen scholarships short. That's a pretty big discrepency."

Thoughts?

by **JasonB** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:36 am

We had so many kids fail out over the last two years, the number of available scholarships aren't the problem. The 25 player limit is the problem. If we take 28, it means three will greyshirt unless there are academic issues.

by **ponyte** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:37 am

Just have to think JJ and his staff are better informed with our needs and capabilities than Travis. So far JJ hasn't had huge issues with over signing.

by **Junior** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:40 am

We have to assume that a handful won't qualify.

Also, since Preston enrolled midterm, can he count against the 2010 25 limit?

by **Stallion** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:41 am

I'm not one to defend oversigning - I think its an embarrassment to mission of College Football, but I doubt we are really going to have to run anybody off-probably won't even need to greyshirt. Numbers were down in fact due to 6 non-qualifiers in last class, 2 players who quit before school started, 1 NFL undergraduate, several who really did flunk out and perhaps more to come at semester end. 2 kids enrolled at midterm so those will likely count for previous year. We've got some more that probably will need to retake the SAT/ACT to qualify-we always do. I think every school should be alotted the same number of scholarships each year with concessions for NFL underclassmen and verified medical retirements. Boy then you'd really find out which Coaches could develop talent and men-and then we'd really find out whether these Coaches "just wanted to take a chance on the kid". I think that you should be able to take a chance on a kid-fine but if that chance fails then your gamble lost and don't get to go out with the same scholarship to take another chance on a marginal academic or behavior kid

by **ALEX LIFESON** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:55 am

ponyte wrote:Just have to think JJ and his staff are better informed with our needs and capabilities than Travis.

No way! There are one or two on this site that know a lot more than June Jones. :lol:

by **couch 'em** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:04 pm

Stallion wrote:I'm not one to defend oversigning - I think its an embarrassment to mission of College Football, but I doubt we are really going to have to run anybody off-probably won't even need to greyshirt. Numbers were down in fact due to 6 non-qualifiers in last class, 2 players who quit before school started, 1 NFL undergraduate, several who really did flunk out and perhaps more to come at semester end. 2 kids enrolled at midterm so those will likely count for previous year. We've got some more that probably will need to retake the SAT/ACT to qualify-we always do. I think every school should be alotted the same number of scholarships each year with concessions for NFL underclassmen and verified medical retirements. Boy then you'd really find out which Coaches could develop talent and men-and then we'd really find out whether these Coaches "just wanted to take a chance on the kid". I think that you should be able to take a chance on a kid-fine but if that chance fails then your gamble lost and don't get to go out with the same scholarship to take another chance on a marginal academic or behavior kid

Admirable sentiment, but wouldn't that tilt the playing field even more towards the established powers? Big state schools with strong programs already have the advantage in recruiting as they are already big time, so they can snatch up the talent with decent academics, and have the easy academic programs to keep them eligable. Don't up and coming programs need to be able to take a chance on the "damaged goods" recruit that top programs don't need to touch?

by **ponyte** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:07 pm

ALEX LIFESON wrote:
ponyte wrote:Just have to think JJ and his staff are better informed with our needs and capabilities than Travis.

No way! There are one or two on this site that know a lot more than June Jones.

Yeah, I knew the second I hit the submit button I had posted a hopelessly naive statement.

by **go4it** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:10 pm

The NCAA now limits college football teams to 28 signees between 2 Feb and 31 May. The SEC started applying the new 28-cap rule last year -- and it worked so well that Auburn and LSU signed 32 and 29, respectively. That's because the cap can be bypassed by enrolling recruits before or after the dates in the rule.

A school can bring in 25 new scholarship players each year and have no more than 85 on scholarship at once.

by **Stallion** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:10 pm

No I think schools that kept their kids in school would dominate. Schools that were really interested in graduating players would have 20 Seniors and more lettermen at each class level every year while those that recruited academically marginal kids would have about 8 Seniors. Then the educational reputation of the school would be a much bigger factor in the decision a recruit would make. Right now there is too much pressure to take kids that have no business stepping foot on a College Campus. Keep the same ACT/SAT Sliding Scale which is an embarrassing low standard anyway ie the Coach could still "take a chance on a kid". Those schools that took too many marginal qualifiers or behavior risks would be penalized for taking those gambles. The same kids would go to JUCO where they belong and then be eligible after graduating from JUCO.

by **go4it** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:22 pm

There has been increased scrutiny of the over signing issue in recent years. The last 3-4 years have been really over the top. Hereâ€™s how a BCS CONFERENCE COMPARISON 2002-10 looks:
[b]SECÂ[/b]
Average annual signees per team: 27.6Â
Highest annual average: Auburn, 28.1Â
Lowest annual average: Vanderbilt, 21.2Â
[b]BIG 12[/b]Â
Average annual signees per team: 24.3Â
Highest annual average: Iowa State, 27.0Â
Lowest annual average: Texas, 21.3Â
[b]BIG EAST[/b]
Average annual signees per team: 24.1Â
Highest annual average: West Virginia, 26.1Â
Lowest annual average: Connecticut, 22.3Â
[b]PAC-10[/b]
Average annual signees per team: 23.2Â
Highest annual average: Oregon State, 26.1
Lowest annual average: Stanford, 18.9Â
[b]ACCÂ[/b]
Average annual signees per team: 22.2Â
Highest annual average: North Carolina, 25.0Â
Lowest annual average: Wake Forest, 19.3Â
[b]BIG TEN[/b]
Average annual signees per team: 22.2Â
Highest annual average: Purdue, 24.2Â
Lowest annual average: Northwestern, 18.9Â

Source: Great Web Site with lots of information Oversigning.com

by **EastStang** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:26 pm

I agree with Stallion on this one. If you could punish those schools with bad APR's quicker, then you would see some parity. However, the NCAA has long abandoned the concept of educating players by becoming a de facto minor league for the NFL and the NBA. The NBA now takes sophomore aged kids who have no business going to college. They are one and dones. Why should the colleges be in the business of serving as a development league for the NBA? Let the NBA and NFL develop their own minor leagues like MLB and NHL and develop players there. Guess what, if a kid is offered a paycheck out of high school by pros, that would do a lot to clean up college football and basketball. Then kids would have a choice, go to college or go pro. Then the kids who really wanted an education (like NHL and MLB college prospects) would go to college and those that couldn't care less about studying would go for the cash.

by **friend10** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:29 pm

Think these kind of numbers are depressing for our walk ons...? Doesn't look like much room to earn a scholarship.

by **go4it** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:55 pm

I think you would be surprised at APR ratings. Donâ€™t think punishing schools with bad APR's quicker would bring any parity. Most of the big powers are doing fairly well:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... -team.html

by **go4it** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:07 pm

[quote="friend10"]Think these kind of numbers are depressing for our walk ons...? Doesn't look like much room to earn a scholarship.[/quote]

I think you're right for just about any college football program in the top 50. It goes back to the
philosophy that an individual should never pick a school for the football program alone. Unless youâ€™re a 4-5 Star recruit and football is the most important aspect of the selection. All other student athletes should select the school they want a degree from and where they will be happy; especially a walk-on.

Having said that almost every school will reward walk-ons with a scholarship every year or two; even at Big Football Schools. Hard work is rewarded.