So how does oversigning work?

franstheman

franstheman

Well-Known Member
Are you allowed to bring in only 25 in a year even if 25 means you are still under 85? Or is it only 25 a year period? So when people say Alabama oversigns cause they bring in 32 players, how are they able to if they are only allowed 25 signed LOI in a season?
 
This link explains it a little bit. Basically a letter of intent is a one way binding agreement, an athlete gives their intent to go to that university, but the school is not bound to give them a scholarship. So you can offer 35 scholarships and then wait and see which 25 players you actually want at the last minute, pull the offer out from under the kid and then they have to try to scramble to find another school or walk on at your school.

Oversigning in college football - College football recruiting oversigning - NCAA oversigning
 
Ronco said:
Why? That would be offering protection to the athlete. Having said that, I can see limited oversigning.
Click to expand...



Yes, I can too. Maybe there is a potential question if the player can clear the academic clearing house to be eligible or maybe there is something else the player has to clear up prior & they may not. It's a letter of "intent" so I think the wording speaks volumes with what it is. It's not a letter of "commitment" at that point. As long as both parties know the ramifications of what could happen.
 
Oversigning provides a competitive advantage overtime, it allows for coaches to more rapidly make up for failed recruiting evaluations. The fact that Paul Rhoads is now doing this in big way at isu should concern people in Iowa.
 
Long, but I will try to explain it as I understand it to be......

I don't know the absolutes of the 25 per year signing, except that there are numerous ways around that. Many programs take more than 25 on signing day EVERY YEAR. However, they must all be down to 85 by the begining of fall camp. Oversigning programs simply find creative ways to thin the roster in time.... medical issues, transfers, etc...... as many suggest, they review the roster after conditioning and spring practices and cut those that aren't going to play. More of a business model like a pro sports team. They feel that a scholarship is earned and is a competitive position that you have to continue to earn through athletic excellence and contribution.
Those against oversigning, like KF, believe that a scholarship is a commitment on both sides and that once given, is not taken away easily. So, as long as the player meets academic requirements, and puts forth effort to contribute, that he should remain on scholarship.
Obviously these are two vastly differing viewpoints. Players earned their scholarships for to their athleticism and performance in HS, not their academic abilities or community involvement. So, should they be required to continue to earn them for the same thing in college? Or, should they be allowed to slack, and still get the ride?
 
ICHawkI said:
Oversigning provides a competitive advantage overtime, it allows for coaches to more rapidly make up for failed recruiting evaluations. The fact that Paul Rhoads is now doing this in big way at isu should concern people in Iowa.
Click to expand...

This is not true.
 
ICHawkI said:
Oversigning provides a competitive advantage overtime, it allows for coaches to more rapidly make up for failed recruiting evaluations. The fact that Paul Rhoads is now doing this in big way at isu should concern people in Iowa.
Click to expand...

Lemming.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Yes, I can too. Maybe there is a potential question if the player can clear the academic clearing house to be eligible or maybe there is something else the player has to clear up prior & they may not. It's a letter of "intent" so I think the wording speaks volumes with what it is. It's not a letter of "commitment" at that point. As long as both parties know the ramifications of what could happen.
Click to expand...

There's no need to sign anything if both parties know what can happen. You simply tell the player "If we have space, you're the next one on the list." If the player wants to wait and see, that's fine. Nothing wrong with a gentlemens' agreement. The fact that schools have the player sign something that prevents them from speaking to other schools and finding a fall-back option AND THEN don't following through with the scholarship is a problem. It leaves players out in the cold.

LOIs should be binding on both parties unless extenuating circumstances (academics, legal issues or injury) prevent the player from being able to follow through with their commitment.
 
VAHawkFan said:
There's no need to sign anything if both parties know what can happen. You simply tell the player "If we have space, you're the next one on the list." If the player wants to wait and see, that's fine. Nothing wrong with a gentlemens' agreement. The fact that schools have the player sign something that prevents them from speaking to other schools and finding a fall-back option AND THEN don't following through with the scholarship is a problem. It leaves players out in the cold.

LOIs should be binding on both parties unless extenuating circumstances (academics, legal issues or injury) prevent the player from being able to follow through with their commitment.
Click to expand...

That takes away a lot of freedom from the players as well.
 
Ronco said:
Why? That would be offering protection to the athlete. Having said that, I can see limited oversigning.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with protecting the athlete, too?

Basically oversigning sounds like a way of locking down a recruit so that other schools can't have them, while you decide in the meantime whether you want to use a scholarship on them. This should NOT be allowed. Particularly since other schools (like Iowa) apparently decide that they don't want to do this, and give other schools who do it a competetive advantage. It really chaps my a$$.

All I want is a level playing field. It's bad enough that some schools have a natural advantage because of big in-state populations and good recruiting grounds, but it's compounding the advantage because some of these schools are also oversigning.
 
Last edited:
VAHawkFan said:
In my opinion the biggest issue isn't that of freedom. It's about having a system that equally protects both parties. Currently the consequences for not honoring a LOI go only one way.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, there is no system that equally protects both parties. In all of these scenarios that I've seen thrown around its assumed the kids are getting absolutely nothing out of playing D1 college football on a full scholarship.

It's just a process, even if there is oversigning we have no way of knowing if a program tells a kid, "hey we're oversigned, and you'll be out if we don't have enough attrition, do you still want to sign?" and the kid still signs.
 
clicheusername3 said:
That's what I'm saying, there is no system that equally protects both parties. In all of these scenarios that I've seen thrown around its assumed the kids are getting absolutely nothing out of playing D1 college football on a full scholarship.

It's just a process, even if there is oversigning we have no way of knowing if a program tells a kid, "hey we're oversigned, and you'll be out if we don't have enough attrition, do you still want to sign?" and the kid still signs.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. If someone has all the facts, understands that a school is oversigned, is willing to live with the uncertainty and chooses to sign anyway...no harm, no foul. That's the choice they willingly made. And having paid my own way through school, I know they're receiving a great opportunity (or a potential great opportunity).

However, I still feel that's a flawed process. Just as we can't assume kids didn't know, we also can't assume they did. And a process with a one-way binding LOI that prevents the athlete from changing their mind without potential recourse, while the school can do so freely, is a process with room for improvement in my opinion.
 
bighawkeyedaddy said:
This link explains it a little bit. Basically a letter of intent is a one way binding agreement, an athlete gives their intent to go to that university, but the school is not bound to give them a scholarship. So you can offer 35 scholarships and then wait and see which 25 players you actually want at the last minute, pull the offer out from under the kid and then they have to try to scramble to find another school or walk on at your school.

Oversigning in college football - College football recruiting oversigning - NCAA oversigning
Click to expand...


Dirty and not something I see Iowa doing.
 
I am for two extra offers per year. This would be used for attrition purposes, whether academic, personal, injury or otherwise. This would protect the student athlete, yet give the coaches & schools something to lean on the players with - do your homework son & be good or you are out.

But taking 4, 5 or 7 extra players is crap. It is an unethical coaching practice, IMO, and should not be abused like it is.... That said, I would do it at ISU! About the only way to get ahead at that school, without cheating.
 
VAHawkFan said:
In my opinion the biggest issue isn't that of freedom. It's about having a system that equally protects both parties. Currently the consequences for not honoring a LOI go only one way.
Click to expand...

I agree. Of course, protections for students would have to be conditional on making grades and some code of conduct. This, of course, could be abused, but it would be something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top