Leaving ?

[FeelLikeAStranger]

I posted a Big 10 oversigning primer in the Recruiting forum.  I found some new info tonight that includes timelines and what the schools have to do.  If anyone else wants to go through the oversigning.com link and look for more nuggets, be my guest.  I'm trying to learn the ins and outs myself.

Based on this info, I believe that the you can do a +3 oversign under 25 scholarships* without having to be mid-terms, but you have to notify the Big 10 office ahead of signing day, notify WHO was oversigned, and then document how you came back into compliance by fall.  In this case, I believe Okafor and Ward DO essentially add 2 oversigning "slots", as it is known that they will be graduating.  This is most likely why we heard NOW, as opposed to March.

* Over 25 definitely has to include enough mid-terms to count against the previous class to get down to 25/year limit.  This could possibly come into play next year.

I'm going to move any further discussion over to that thread.  Please join in.

That's the way I read it.  "Oversigning" seems to be "over 25". 

Oversigning is anything over the amount of scholarships leaving the program. 

[Toe]

believe the rule in the SEC is do what you want and try not to get caught by the NCAA!

Worked for Cam Newton

Wait, wouldn't that be do what you want and hope the NCAA turns a blind eye?

[NIdahohusker]

Unless they can be counted as 'graduating seniors' at that point, they don't add to the budget. 

This is where I am confused.  If they are graduating, why wouldn't they be counted as "graduating seniors" thus reducing the number on scholarship?

May graduation is after signing day in February.  Had they graduated in December, then we add two slots to our recruiting budget.  Since they don't, they are still counted as scholarships until May, at least in the eyes of the Big 10.  The two scholarships become available in May.  I believe those two scholarships can be used for the incoming class, but not the "slots."

Oh, and by the way, this is all my "best guess" in trying to sort out bits and pieces of the oversigning rules in the Big 10, incomplete info on the scholarship players on the roster (e.g. Marrow), etc..  I will always accept corrections if info proves to be wrong, and it often is, so as always, please check my math and my info and let me know.

But you can "oversign" by 3, correct?  So why can't we use two of those oversigning spots anticipating those two leaving in May or whatever?  Those two spots free up, so we have schollies for them in the fall....right??

At the NCAA level there is nothing in the By-Laws to stop oversigning. To be honest, when they created the 85/25 limits I don’t think they ever really considered the topic of oversigning or thought that it would be an issue. This is where the Big 10 has been out in front on addressing this issue. The Big 10 allows its schools to sign 25 players per year and as many as 3 extra with the following provisions: if a school plans to sign more than 25 players they must petition the conference office and get approval to do so they must have 3 player enroll early and count towards the previous class – this also means that the previous class had to be under the 25. In addition, schools are required to prove the Big 10 office that no one will be pushed out of a scholarship in order to make room for the 3 extra players. Simply put, the Big 10 Conference watches this closely and schools are not going to get away with oversigning.

http://nittanywhiteout.com/2011/01/10/oversigning-sucks-or-why-the-big-ten-can-still-claim-moral-superiority/


Simply put, you CAN oversign, but you have to count against the previous class.  To count against the previous class, you have to enroll in January.  Thus, a mid-term JUCO transfer (like Seisay) can be counted as an 'oversign', but you can't just sign 3 additional HS players for the upcoming class without slots or scholarships available for them.  You also have to justify HOW you got below 85 scholarships to the Big 10 office.  It's not as simple as saying  we have a budget of 16 and thus we can sign 19, from what I'm gleaning from the available sources.

So, based on that, we can sign our budget plus an oversign of 1 at this time.  That's it, as far as I can tell.  So, the max class will be 17 or 18, depending on the total # we had on scholarship at the end of the season.  If Marrow was on schollie, then it was 83.  if he wasn't, it was 82, subtract 14 for the graduating senior class.  = 68 or 69  subtracted from 85 =  16 or 17 + 1 (Seisay)

But we can justify to the Big 10 that Ward and Okafor were not pushed out, but are graduating after 4 years in the program. What if we have 10 guys graduating in May after being in the program for four years. We would have to be down to 75 schollies if that were the case. I am going to hold on my opinion that NU will make a case that two more slots should open up because theese players on on schedule to graduate and will move on.

[FeelLikeAStranger]

Unless they can be counted as 'graduating seniors' at that point, they don't add to the budget. 

This is where I am confused.  If they are graduating, why wouldn't they be counted as "graduating seniors" thus reducing the number on scholarship?

May graduation is after signing day in February.  Had they graduated in December, then we add two slots to our recruiting budget.  Since they don't, they are still counted as scholarships until May, at least in the eyes of the Big 10.  The two scholarships become available in May.  I believe those two scholarships can be used for the incoming class, but not the "slots."

Oh, and by the way, this is all my "best guess" in trying to sort out bits and pieces of the oversigning rules in the Big 10, incomplete info on the scholarship players on the roster (e.g. Marrow), etc..  I will always accept corrections if info proves to be wrong, and it often is, so as always, please check my math and my info and let me know.

But you can "oversign" by 3, correct?  So why can't we use two of those oversigning spots anticipating those two leaving in May or whatever?  Those two spots free up, so we have schollies for them in the fall....right??

At the NCAA level there is nothing in the By-Laws to stop oversigning. To be honest, when they created the 85/25 limits I don’t think they ever really considered the topic of oversigning or thought that it would be an issue. This is where the Big 10 has been out in front on addressing this issue. The Big 10 allows its schools to sign 25 players per year and as many as 3 extra with the following provisions: if a school plans to sign more than 25 players they must petition the conference office and get approval to do so they must have 3 player enroll early and count towards the previous class – this also means that the previous class had to be under the 25. In addition, schools are required to prove the Big 10 office that no one will be pushed out of a scholarship in order to make room for the 3 extra players. Simply put, the Big 10 Conference watches this closely and schools are not going to get away with oversigning.

http://nittanywhiteout.com/2011/01/10/oversigning-sucks-or-why-the-big-ten-can-still-claim-moral-superiority/


Simply put, you CAN oversign, but you have to count against the previous class.  To count against the previous class, you have to enroll in January.  Thus, a mid-term JUCO transfer (like Seisay) can be counted as an 'oversign', but you can't just sign 3 additional HS players for the upcoming class without slots or scholarships available for them.  You also have to justify HOW you got below 85 scholarships to the Big 10 office.  It's not as simple as saying  we have a budget of 16 and thus we can sign 19, from what I'm gleaning from the available sources.

So, based on that, we can sign our budget plus an oversign of 1 at this time.  That's it, as far as I can tell.  So, the max class will be 17 or 18, depending on the total # we had on scholarship at the end of the season.  If Marrow was on schollie, then it was 83.  if he wasn't, it was 82, subtract 14 for the graduating senior class.  = 68 or 69  subtracted from 85 =  16 or 17 + 1 (Seisay)

But we can justify to the Big 10 that Ward and Okafor were not pushed out, but are graduating after 4 years in the program. What if we have 10 guys graduating in May after being in the program for four years. We would have to be down to 75 schollies if that were the case. I am going to hold on my opinion that NU will make a case that two more slots should open up because theese players on on schedule to graduate and will move on.

See the primer thread in recruiting for more info.  This is essentially correct after reading more clarified info on the rules I posted there.  The issue at this point is more the number of scholarships available, notifying the Big 10 if you are planning to oversign vs. your budget and who is being oversigned, and then coming back into compliance.

As it stands, with Seisay already counted as taking a scholarship, and Ward/Okafor counted as open schollies on the way out, we have enough to sign a total of 17 players (not including Seisay) without having to document/justify any additional defections to be in compliance with the 85 rule.  We have 12 verbals currently and thus 5 real spots left open.  Again, whether we started with 82 or 83 as a baseline is in question-nowhere have I seen a definitive answer on whether Marrow is/was/will be on scholarship or not for 2011 or 2012- and 14 graduating seniors, giving us a recruiting budget of 16-17.  ASSuming we count Seisay against 2010 as a mid-term, we are looking at 17 recruits for 16-17 spots at this point.  Now, given the rules, that means we could sign 19-20 total, as long as we can come back into compliance within Big 10 rules.  Medical hardships (Kreikemeier?), student athlete-initiated transfers, documented academic/discipline issues, etc would all be easily 'allowable' reasons for guys currently on scholarship to be cut loose and square us with the Big 10 if we a) notify that we are going to take our oversigning exemption, and b) decide to oversign.

[Red Said Ted]

Nicely done!  19-20 would be SWEET! 

[redfred]

Been gone for a bit (It's hard to believe that there are some places in this world that don't have decent internet) and I didn't really have a chance to explain my previous post in this thread. I want to make it clear that I wasn't pointing fingers.....just giving a different point of view.

Since that time, in Bo's presser, he stated pretty much what I feel about one and four year scholarships. I loved the fact that he laid the responsibility of development and player success on the staff to a great degree i.e. If they don't have the talent....then they(the staff) made a poor judgement call in making the commitment and if they don't develop, then the staff hasn't motivated or taught well enough.

Of course, I also agree that it is a two way street. There are very good reasons to help someone move along. Examples include; breaking team rules, breaking the law, not attending class, not following orders or directions, instigating too many altercations within the team, the list goes on.

What I don't agree with is dumping someone for not producing on the field if he has worked hard, followed rules, done his best, maintained a positive relationship with other players.....this list also goes on. Bo made it clear that no one will be dumped (this does not mean the they won't help a player find a better home if it is mutually agreeable) with the only criteria being lack of performance.


Nebulous territory comes in the "laziness" area. This is a tough one, and one that becomes very subjective at times......in the SEC....too often. I want to make it clear that I don't suffer slothfullness well. I don't like it when I see it in myself, and I hate being around those who are. The reason? It's infectious. It's a good reason to eliminate a cancer like this from a team....any team. But without "quantifiable" evidence it gets dangerous to start "culling the herd" too fast. It is,in my opinion, OK to bounce someone who doesn't make meetings, doesn't do the required number of drills, bad mouths the coach to his face in front of the team etc etc. It gets hard when a a player is bounced for "perceived" lack of effort while completeling all that is asked.

Someone just mentioned to me on my return flight that NU has offered(and accepted) 65-70 scholarships in the last four years, while some schools have offered (and accepted) over 100. IF THIS IS TRUE then some schools have clearly crossed my comfort line. Some schools need to be held more accountable for the commitments they are making. I never want NU to be in this group.

[FeelLikeAStranger]

Nyatawa had an article this week that cleared some things up.  The Big 10 asks you for the best estimate before signing day, which includes transfers, early grads, etc., so Ward and Okafor DID open two slots, in fact. 

[tfree32]

Nyatawa had an article this week that cleared some things up.  The Big 10 asks you for the best estimate before signing day, which includes transfers, early grads, etc., so Ward and Okafor DID open two slots, in fact. 

Unfortunate that in their time here, in terms of making a difference on the field, leaving and opening up slots for replacements is likely the biggest contribution either has made to the program.