Clemson Is Oversigned Like a Mother

"unduly harp?" maybe, but nobody else is doing it...don't quit, brian. someone needs to point this stuff out.

Reply

Agree with einsteinrig. Oversigning has been around far too long without illumination or even comment, and the work you did along with EDSBS last year on the issue was eye-opening.

Reply

Brian: Keep it up; when the opposition resorts to name calling and personal attacks, it means you're winning the logic ... [i'll add more, but first gonna test how this program works....]

Reply

[ugh ... how annoying] ... anyway, to continue my thoughts: This IS actually quite a big issue with many touchstones. One: why do conferences like the Big Ten, by its own Rules, put themselves at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis conferences like the SEC?

Two: is this part of the reason for the alleged SEC "dominance" in recent years?

Three: what is fair/just for the student/athletes? I recently mentioned to someone in class that I loved CFB. They responded by saying they refused to watch big-time college sport cuz the players were "enslaved." Indeed, there's an argument to be made. Can't remember which, but EDSBS, SMQB or The Wiz did their annual posting on the "profit" made by each school on their players... so, there IS a fairness/justice argument to be made... Most would respond that it's not slavery because of the scholarships and because it's like "interning for the NFL." I say: "Not if you get cut ... "

Four: what was the point of the 85 scholly limit when put in place? and is that being undermined by the over signing?

Five: if Alabama and Clemson, et. al., get away with it each year, doesn't that just encourage -- indeed require (arms race and all) -- that every other school start over signing? When is the Big Ten going to change its Rule? (And it is notable that the Big Ten has softened its Rule twice now; you can sign 28 now and after 2009 (iirc) no need to report if you're over 28).

Six: How about the mid-majors and the lower tier conferences? With so much over signing, they should be outraged... But not too much is heard from the fans/programs of the MAC and Sun Belt. Why/why not?

Anyway, that said, Brian, what DO we do with the argument that "if you don't produce on the field, you're out?" On the one hand, your argument is about LYING. Coaches don't tell the recruit about the over signing and so kid and parents are being misled. Well, I still think there are problem(s) even Coach is up-front and says: "Produce or Get Out!"

But, I'm not sure that the moral argument -- "It's just wrong" -- is enough. I agree! It's just wrong, but sadly, "Produce or Get Out" is actually the correct lesson to be teaching (particularly if we recognize CFB as an NFL training ground -- in the NFL, you produce or you're cut!). Moreover, the whole world is "Produce or Get Out." Jobs, graduate programs, seemingly everything...

Just as importantly, the "it's-wrong" argument is severely undermined if the coach is up front with the kids/parents. Lying is wrong; but if the coach tells the kids/parents that he's running a "Produce or Get Out" program, it may be odious, but it's the kid's/parents' choice.

And it's really hard to imagine how that would play out in the real world. Recruit A gets only one offer; he makes his choice regardless of the type of program. Recruit B gets an offer from "Produce or Get Out" School and an offer from "You're In No Matter What" School. Recruit B probably picks the second School; but in the real world, how does that play out? Does School 2 haul in the better players because of the extra benefit? or does the "Produce or Get Out" philosophy create a more competitive, motivated player which leads to more wins, higher profile, etc.? Does this really matter to the recruit at all? Or is it the NAME or the WINS or the NFL FACTORY that are more important to the recruit.

So, I'm not sure how to combat the logic of the "Produce-or-Get-Out" argument. I'm left with arguing that the NCAA doesn't allow it. (But honestly, I'm woefully under-informed on NCAA rules, so the Rules may or may not prohibit it).

Oh, and, sadly, another point for the "produce or you're out" folks: what's the recruit's/parents' responsibility here? Shouldn't parents and recruits be aware of schools that practice "Produce or Get Out"? Shouldn't parents and recruits ask? This is one reason I want to encourage you to keep posting about this issue; parents and recruits need to be educated that this is going on and need to ask the right questions!

As an aside, there is a "not necessary" argument here too. That is demonstrated by the Big Ten schools and, I think, USC as an example. Whatever you may think of tOSU, Tressel does NOT over sign and has had success without resorting to the "Produce or Get Out" philosophy...

Anyway, in short (ha!), there is a LOT to discuss on this issue and i say, KEEP IT UP!. TAKE THE FIGHT TO THEM!

Reply

Don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

Clemson says it has yet to oversign in the last nine years, yet without a shred of evidence to the contrary, other than I guess you have an ax to grind, you accuse them otherwise.

Good work there, keep it up.

Reply

Jason, that's not the point. The reason they haven't oversigned for the last 9 years is because they are cutting players based on "Produce or Get Out", never mind that they were trumpeting one of the guys as what's great about college football the season before. And how does "9 + 2 + 1 + like 5 maybe at the outside = 26." not equal evidence? Wasn't that the whole point of this article, to give all of the figures when accused of having no sources?

Reply

yes because since they said it, it must be true. did you even read what he wrote?

Reply

wile_e8, you're missing the point, and if Brian Cook knew anything about Clemson's class or roster he wouldn't miss it either.

Clemson had six early enrollees this year, of which two don't count for the upcoming class because they counted for last year's class.

Plus an incoming freshman kicker from Myrtle Beach is going to be a walk on for this upcoming season.

Just wondering if Cook's math included that...

Reply

Also, Clemson's official scholarship breakdown, before the recent Ray Ray situation included the scholarship breakdown:

16 players in the class of 2008
18 players in the class of 2009
16 players in the class of 2010
12 players in the class of 2011
23 players in the class of 2012
= 85 scholarships, 84 after Ray Ray, and if this year is like just about every other year in the past, there will be a handful that will transfer, quit football, not qualify academically etc.

Then there is this from a Mark Schlabach column in ESPN today:
"Privately, people close to the situation say Bowden didn't have a choice. After injuring his knee, McElrathbey didn't regularly attend his rehabilitation sessions. He vanished for days at a time and didn't respond to telephone calls and text messages from coaches.

"It's like he wasn't even a part of the team," said one person close to the situation who requested anonymity. "There were rules and there were Ray Ray rules. He thumbed his nose at the coaches and they got sick of it. It's a complicated story. Nobody wants to trash the kid. But some of the things he's done here have just been inexcusable. He just wasn't doing the thing he was supposed to do. You can't have rules for one kid and different rules for the other 84 players."

Reply

No Jason, you're missing the point. He's talking about the number 85, not the NCAA's 25 a year signing limit and early enrollees. He doesn't care when they sign, he cares that all of them are signed. If they are all signed, then they all count towards the 85 scholarship limit (regardless of what class they belong to).

Reply

There are two issues here. Brian's thesis is that oversigning in general is wrong, and it is against the spirit of college football that makes the game so exciting. That is the point he continues to defend and that he and EDSBS (and SMQ too, I think) brought up last year. If he had examples in the Big 10, he would bring them up. If it happened at Michigan, he would bring it up and consider it wrong.

The second issue is Ray Ray. We can spin this any number of ways and none of us know the truth. Ray Ray would have his version, Bowden his, and the truth probably is somewhere in the middle. I would persist that even if Ray Ray missed some meetings and rehabs and coaches claim they tried to contact him, Ray Ray probably was treated like he was expendable throughout that time, he wasn't given adequate rehab and coaching, he felt like his coaches abandoned him, etc. If you get hurt, and you don't feel like your coaches give a damn that you rehab and are on the team, chances are, you'll have a bad attitude. Could that fly at a job? No. But it's easy to say "the coaches did these things and Ray Ray was the problem." But we have no idea how involved the coaches actually were and if they created an environment that left Ray Ray feeling part of the team, valued, and that they wanted him to rehab.

I walked onto my track team as a distance runner, and they were putting me under consideration for scholarship the next year. But the assistant coach who worked with me left. I got sick. I got injured. I didn't contribute that year. I'd go to workouts, and sure, the coach would tell me what to run, but I was responsible for all my own splits. He showed no interest in coaching me. Some guys WITH partial scholarships in the same position were treated the same way. From my class, all 7 walks ons and the one scholarship guy quit. Technically, the coach did all he was required to do. But he didn't coach us. He wasn't there for us. He didn't provide us the resources and support we needed to return to our previous level. A couple years later, that coach won NCAA coach of the year. He was great with the elite athletes, but people who could grow into contributors, as all conference performers but not All Americans, weren't coached at all. I did have some responsibility for not being more assertive with him about my needs, but the end result was me missing a few practices and meetings and eventually quitting the team, mostly because I didn't feel like I was part of it. I was not really coached. Of course, I was not on scholarship, but I probably would have received one had I not gotten injured and then ill.

What I'm trying to illustrate was that while the coach technically organized my workouts and rehab with trainers, he was not there, he was not invested, and acted like he didn't give a damn. I'm sure his perspective was he provided all the coaching necessary and it was my problem.

Yes, Ray Ray as a scholarship athlete should attend every meeting and rehab assignment, but for all we know, he was treated with a lack of value the entire time, like he wasn't wanted once he got hurt. For all we know he felt abandoned by Bowden. Coaches are responsible for an athletes success once they face hardship, for navigating them through it.

The truth behind this story is likely in the middle. It would be wrong to blame Ray Ray without being there, and it would be wrong to blame Bowden entirely. Nonetheless, it IS bad PR and it is shady, even if it is defendable in this specific case.

In general, however, oversigning means that every year, you look for a handful of Ray Rays, or you hope a handful of your recruits do not qualify. If you don't see a problem with that, well, what does your academic institution stand for? Your football team is an extension of the university, not the other way around. All the math that Brian and others have done on this subject shows that coaches need to find people to cut or hope people don't qualify. College football is NOT a business despite the $$ involved. Players are student athletes. The job of a coach is to coach them in the game of football, to provide a team environment, to provide them academic assistance to help balance the strain of studies and sports, and to navigate them through personal hardships. Why? Because these men are 20; they shouldn't be expected to have all the skills to cope with certain life issues and not have it affect their performance at that age. Good coaches navigate their players through those times. So if a coach has to find multiple people to cut to make room for new signees, I blame the coach as much as the players.

Reply

It's interesting that Jason listed 12 players in the class of 2011, because Scout's commit list for 2007 showed 23 players signed LOIs for that class. They had 11 early enrollees?

Reply

There are only 12 players who are official members of the class of 2011. Some were early enrollees, like Jacoby Ford or Jeff Ogren, others are no longer on the team, etc. Pretty typical.

kgh10, I fully understand the point about 85 players on scholarship. In Bowden's tenure, Clemson has not started a fall camp with 85 players on scholarship yet. I doubt if that will change this fall. I believe there were 82 at the start of camp last year. The usual habit is to reward diligent, upper classmen walk-ons with one year scholarships to round out the full number of 85 maximum towards the end of fall camp.

Reply

BuckeyeBeau:

You may have had some good points, but I couldn't finish reading your long-ass thesis/term paper after not being able to get past chapter one and two.

You, of all posters, seem to have an axe to grind with your argument. Is this your excuse for the annual Buckeye trouncing at the hands of the SEC???

Well, that would be a stretch, considering CLEMSON IS IN THE ACC... And although you didn't expressly say it, the implication by word assimilation and association is quite clear.

Nice try though.

As far as the topic at hand, yes Clemson has some explaining to do if there is any truth to these seemingly adaquate numbers Brian is using.

Reply

The Clemson athletic dept treated Ray Ray with compassion and respect. Ray Ray is going to get his degree and he has been offered a graduate coaching job. What is the problem here? Charles E

Reply

Charles,

The problem is that he's going to have to do it on his own dime now, as his scholarship was pulled.

Reply

The more important question is, who cares about Clemson? They haven't been a true CFB power in two+ decades, and their little paw print logo is flaaammming. Well, at least they have that stupid piece of rock.

Reply

TO #13: Hmm... so much to say, so little time ... how about this -- one: until your team shows up in the national championship game for the annual beat down by the SEC Champ, you really shouldn't talk trash (particulary if your team got a beat down by an SEC non-Champ -- indeed, not even the second- or third-best SEC team) ... two: the issue about oversigning started (and got over-heated) with a discussion of Alabama's '08 signing class; thus the references to the SEC. Three: axes to grind -- if they exist -- don't make well-articulated arguments any less valid. Four: I'm glad you think I had some good points ... ciao

Reply

Buckeye Beau:

Focus on the issues.

1) It doesn't matter who my team is. Your post smells like sour grapes.

2) Until there is clear evidence that Florida or LSU was involved in oversigning, you can't lump all SEC teams together because of something that went on at Alabama. It's a stretch. And to use every opportunity available to revert back to the discussion of Alabama, in an attempt to link the entire SEC, well... it smells like sour grapes!

3) Having an axe to grind does not consequently dismiss your point, but your point is pure speculation. If you were presenting facts, then your "axe to grind" would be immaterial. But, because you are offering excuses-laden assertions about The SEC, completely void of any facts, renders your "axe to grind" a little more substantive. Consequently, your post begins to smell more like sour grapes.

Reply

And by the way Buckeye...

I never said you had any good points. I said you MAY HAVE. Huge difference. A little reading comprehension goes a long way in this world.

Reply