- Thread starter
- #1
MAIZEandBLUE09
Well-Known, and Feared, Member
- 23,505
- 2,817
- 293
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
This was a post on Redit. Some Alabama fan posted a fairly in-depth analysis of OSU's recruiting classes under Urban and the results are pretty damning:
Unmasking Ohio State as one of college football?s premier oversigners : CFB
It’s often mentioned that due to a conference rule, B1G teams are allowed to oversign by no more than three signees over their 85 scholarship limit each signing day. Three is considered a reasonable number for oversigning because there is expected to be some degree of offseason attrition from transfers, suspensions, etc. Compared to B1G teams, a team like Alabama will typically lose seven to eleven players with remaining eligibility every year to fit their signing class. There have been numerous articles written on this practice, and they will typically contain some version of this chart showing the total number of signees over a four year period as a tool to compare the severity of oversigning for different programs. There are a few reasons why tallying total signees isn’t a very accurate oversigning metric for comparing programs:
Ignores NFL early entrants
Ignores impact of JUCO signees
Ignores the number of actual enrollees versus signees
Ignores redshirt seniors returning for their 5th year
The impact of NFL early entrants is obvious as early entrants free up scholarship spots that otherwise wouldn’t have been available. Teams that sign JUCO players also receive a benefit in that if a team averages two JUCO signees every year, only four of the eight JUCOs will remain on the roster beginning the fourth year, assuming no redshirts are used. JUCOs can also be double counted if they sign with a college out of high school and then sign with the same team again after JUCO.
Here is a table showing the average signing classes for B1G (excluding Maryland and Rutgers) and SEC teams from 2012 – 2015, including average number of annual JUCO signees and NFL early entrants. What becomes apparent is that Ohio State signs a lot of players…essentially equal to Alabama. OSU was able to sign the same number of players despite the fact they had nine fewer scholarships to utilize over that time frame (82 vs. 85 for three years), and had hardly any JUCO signees or NFL early entrants to free up more spots compared to most SEC schools. How does this happen? Everyone knows that many teams oversign, but B1G schools are limited to only oversigning by three.
The answer is that Ohio State is processing players with remaining eligibility at a rate higher than most SEC schools, including Alabama. By the time Ohio State trims their current 88 scholarships down to 85, Meyer will have removed over 40 players with remaining eligibility from his roster in just over three years. This type of roster management is often overlooked because under B1G rules, the majority of these roster moves are announced before signing day and soon forgotten. To give an extreme example, B1G rules still allow a team with no exiting senior class to process 25 juniors on February 1st and sign a full class of 25 while still complying with the conference’s oversigning rule. Oversigning is a misnomer for what is really happening in these cases. By definition, oversigning has a blind spot in that it is only concerned with the time span from signing day forward. If you want an accurate picture for how many eligible players are actually being processed, you can’t simply start on signing day and look forward. You must look at how many players started the season with at least two years of eligibility remaining, and then determine how many of those players failed to return for the following season.
While OSU may not technically oversign by more than three, they are methodically removing players with remaining eligibility in order to allow space for large signing classes, which is the core issue with oversigning.
If you wanted to know what the SEC would look like with the B1G’s oversigning rule, Ohio State would be the perfect model. Instead of fans and media having to wait for the release of spring rosters and the dust to settle on the depth chart to figure out which players left the program, announcements would simply be made in late fall or early winter. The same roster management techniques (5th year seniors not returning, transfers, medical hardship scholarships) will still occur within the same time frame as they are currently; they would just be officially announced earlier.
Speaking of medical hardships, here’s a quote that was widely circulated in 2011.
By "not able to continue to play," Saban is referring to players who have suffered injuries so severe they might be granted medical hardships. Those players maintain their scholarships to the school but are no longer part of the team. Saban has done this with at least 12 players during his four years in Tuscaloosa, which raises red flags considering Ohio State's Jim Tressel, for example, has placed just four players on hardship scholarships in his entire 10-year tenure. Do Alabama players suffer debilitating injuries at a far greater rate than Ohio State players? Not likely.”
Predictably, Meyer has now used 12 medical hardships in a little over three years at OSU, outpacing Saban’s first three years. If you’re comparing recent history, Bama has used 2 medical hardships since 2012, while OSU has used 12. The two most recent hardship recipients at OSU (Reeves and Tanner) both fully participated in the Sugar Bowl and Championship Game, cleared by their medical staff before the games and finishing both games uninjured. Three weeks later and right before signing day, the OSU medical staff would not clear the players to continue their careers. Conveniently, this allowed OSU to reach their oversigning limit of 88 scholarships to comply with their conference rule.
It has been interesting to read some of the comments from Ohio State fans regarding Meyer’s roster management. Some have accepted these once despised roster management techniques and have welcomed the success that followed. Others still seem to be in denial and make every effort to rationalize their coach’s actions while vilifying other programs for the same transgressions. Either way, Meyer isn’t doing anything different than many other conferences. The question is, will other B1G programs follow suit, or will the talent gap between OSU and the rest of the conference continue to widen?
Unmasking Ohio State as one of college football?s premier oversigners : CFB
It’s often mentioned that due to a conference rule, B1G teams are allowed to oversign by no more than three signees over their 85 scholarship limit each signing day. Three is considered a reasonable number for oversigning because there is expected to be some degree of offseason attrition from transfers, suspensions, etc. Compared to B1G teams, a team like Alabama will typically lose seven to eleven players with remaining eligibility every year to fit their signing class. There have been numerous articles written on this practice, and they will typically contain some version of this chart showing the total number of signees over a four year period as a tool to compare the severity of oversigning for different programs. There are a few reasons why tallying total signees isn’t a very accurate oversigning metric for comparing programs:
Ignores NFL early entrants
Ignores impact of JUCO signees
Ignores the number of actual enrollees versus signees
Ignores redshirt seniors returning for their 5th year
The impact of NFL early entrants is obvious as early entrants free up scholarship spots that otherwise wouldn’t have been available. Teams that sign JUCO players also receive a benefit in that if a team averages two JUCO signees every year, only four of the eight JUCOs will remain on the roster beginning the fourth year, assuming no redshirts are used. JUCOs can also be double counted if they sign with a college out of high school and then sign with the same team again after JUCO.
Here is a table showing the average signing classes for B1G (excluding Maryland and Rutgers) and SEC teams from 2012 – 2015, including average number of annual JUCO signees and NFL early entrants. What becomes apparent is that Ohio State signs a lot of players…essentially equal to Alabama. OSU was able to sign the same number of players despite the fact they had nine fewer scholarships to utilize over that time frame (82 vs. 85 for three years), and had hardly any JUCO signees or NFL early entrants to free up more spots compared to most SEC schools. How does this happen? Everyone knows that many teams oversign, but B1G schools are limited to only oversigning by three.
The answer is that Ohio State is processing players with remaining eligibility at a rate higher than most SEC schools, including Alabama. By the time Ohio State trims their current 88 scholarships down to 85, Meyer will have removed over 40 players with remaining eligibility from his roster in just over three years. This type of roster management is often overlooked because under B1G rules, the majority of these roster moves are announced before signing day and soon forgotten. To give an extreme example, B1G rules still allow a team with no exiting senior class to process 25 juniors on February 1st and sign a full class of 25 while still complying with the conference’s oversigning rule. Oversigning is a misnomer for what is really happening in these cases. By definition, oversigning has a blind spot in that it is only concerned with the time span from signing day forward. If you want an accurate picture for how many eligible players are actually being processed, you can’t simply start on signing day and look forward. You must look at how many players started the season with at least two years of eligibility remaining, and then determine how many of those players failed to return for the following season.
While OSU may not technically oversign by more than three, they are methodically removing players with remaining eligibility in order to allow space for large signing classes, which is the core issue with oversigning.
If you wanted to know what the SEC would look like with the B1G’s oversigning rule, Ohio State would be the perfect model. Instead of fans and media having to wait for the release of spring rosters and the dust to settle on the depth chart to figure out which players left the program, announcements would simply be made in late fall or early winter. The same roster management techniques (5th year seniors not returning, transfers, medical hardship scholarships) will still occur within the same time frame as they are currently; they would just be officially announced earlier.
Speaking of medical hardships, here’s a quote that was widely circulated in 2011.
By "not able to continue to play," Saban is referring to players who have suffered injuries so severe they might be granted medical hardships. Those players maintain their scholarships to the school but are no longer part of the team. Saban has done this with at least 12 players during his four years in Tuscaloosa, which raises red flags considering Ohio State's Jim Tressel, for example, has placed just four players on hardship scholarships in his entire 10-year tenure. Do Alabama players suffer debilitating injuries at a far greater rate than Ohio State players? Not likely.”
Predictably, Meyer has now used 12 medical hardships in a little over three years at OSU, outpacing Saban’s first three years. If you’re comparing recent history, Bama has used 2 medical hardships since 2012, while OSU has used 12. The two most recent hardship recipients at OSU (Reeves and Tanner) both fully participated in the Sugar Bowl and Championship Game, cleared by their medical staff before the games and finishing both games uninjured. Three weeks later and right before signing day, the OSU medical staff would not clear the players to continue their careers. Conveniently, this allowed OSU to reach their oversigning limit of 88 scholarships to comply with their conference rule.
It has been interesting to read some of the comments from Ohio State fans regarding Meyer’s roster management. Some have accepted these once despised roster management techniques and have welcomed the success that followed. Others still seem to be in denial and make every effort to rationalize their coach’s actions while vilifying other programs for the same transgressions. Either way, Meyer isn’t doing anything different than many other conferences. The question is, will other B1G programs follow suit, or will the talent gap between OSU and the rest of the conference continue to widen?
I love this guy.
