Recruiting rankings and QB battle

[landrun]

So, 3*** freshman qb trevor knight beat out a 5***** junior qb with playing experience for the starting position at OU.

Looks like the recruiting rankings might not mean a whole lot .... or .... Stoops doesn't know what he's doing. :friendly_wink:

[SoonerorLater]

I think both of them were Rivals 4*.

[landrun]

The rankings I listed were from Scout.

[8timechamps]

Yeah, Scouts has him lower than Rivals.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that recruiting ratings/ranking mean ****. But, it's always fun to look back and see just how wrong they are.

[Curly Bill]

To say they mean sh*t is a stretch. I seem to recall Alabama's recruiting rankings have been pretty good lately, and seems their on-performance has been pretty good as well.

[8timechamps]

To say they mean sh*t is a stretch. I seem to recall Alabama's recruiting rankings have been pretty good lately, and seems their on-performance has been pretty good as well..

I don't know CB, I think a strong case can be made for them being ****. I mean if you and I were to go watch a high school football game, we could both pick out the kids that are going to be playing at the next level. If there were an elite kid playing, then you and I would also be able to point that kid out. So, from the perspective of identifying the talent that is out there, yeah, they do a decent job of that, but for being able to separate the level of talent, I think it's a big guessing game.

As for Alabama, well what does that say about Texas? They've certainly had plenty of top 5 classes in the past 5 or 6 years.

For the average fan, with no real interest in recruiting, the services and their rankings/ratings mean ****. For the fan with interest (even passing) in recruiting, then I would concede that the services and their ratings/rankings can sometimes offer good insight.

[Curly Bill]

I know the services are often full of crap: a 5 star flops, a 2 star makes it to the league, I get that. Saxets problem, at least one of em, is that no matter how good the kid is he's gonna be coddled and under-coached when he gets there, so they usually underperform. Alabama recruits topflight talent, coaches em up, and best I can see doesn't baby em and make into softies while they are there.

So...the services are often wrong, but they're also often right, and in that case I don't think you can argue that they're sh*t.

[Curly Bill]

...but yeah, I won't argue it's somewhat of a guessing game.

Just look at the NFL and how much time, effort, and money they spend on evaluating talent and they still often miss in the draft, even on 1st round guys.

[EatLeadCommie]

Recruiting rankings are not bunk. Sometimes they don't pan out, but more often than not, they do. QB is the toughest position to predict in that regard. A QB can have a 2 cent head in HS and put up gaudy stats that don't translate to the next level. Both Bell and Knight were highly ranked out of HS.

[SoCalBigRed]

To say they mean sh*t is a stretch. I seem to recall Alabama's recruiting rankings have been pretty good lately, and seems their on-performance has been pretty good as well.

texas won the recruiting battle every year, for like 10 year straight.

What'd it get them?

[8timechamps]

I know the services are often full of crap: a 5 star flops, a 2 star makes it to the league, I get that. Saxets problem, at least one of em, is that no matter how good the kid is he's gonna be coddled and under-coached when he gets there, so they usually underperform. Alabama recruits topflight talent, coaches em up, and best I can see doesn't baby em and make into softies while they are there.

So...the services are often wrong, but they're also often right, and in that case I don't think you can argue that they're sh*t.

Fair enough, but I still contend that to most people (that don't follow recruiting) they are junk. I say this because of all the times we heard about Texas' top class (from Texas fans), or we heard from fans about the next coming of [insert elite player].

For the folks that actually follow it, and look at more than just the stars, they are not ****.

So, I'll agree that they are half ****. :)

[8timechamps]

Recruiting rankings are not bunk. Sometimes they don't pan out, but more often than not, they do. QB is the toughest position to predict in that regard. A QB can have a 2 cent head in HS and put up gaudy stats that don't translate to the next level. Both Bell and Knight were highly ranked out of HS.

How do we determine if a recruit panned out? Most believe (myself included) that there isn't much of a gap between a 3 star kid and a 4 star kid. So, if a 3 star kid comes in and contributes does that mean he panned out? And if a 4 star kid comes in and plays the same amount (with similar stats) as that 3 star kid, does that mean he didn't pan out?

Here's my point:

Anyone that knows what they're looking at can go to a high school game and identify the players that have the ability to play college ball. Same can be said for identifying the elusive "elite" or 5 star player. It's not brain surgery.

I know that the services, for the most part, do a decent job of evaluating kids (some better than others). They give you an idea of what to expect from a kid. Where I think they fail is when they project a kid's impact. There is just no way to know enough about a kid (from their perspective) to be able to project how a kid will adapt to the college game. Coaches even miss, and they know much more than the services know.

I suppose my biggest issue with the services is in the "Class rankings". I put much more stock in the individual player rankings than I do the class rankings.

[Curly Bill]

texas won the recruiting battle every year, for like 10 year straight.

What'd it get them?

Did you not read the part where I talked about how they're coddled and under-coached once they get there? Reading is your friend.

[Curly Bill]

Fair enough, but I still contend that to most people (that don't follow recruiting) they are junk. I say this because of all the times we heard about Texas' top class (from Texas fans), or we heard from fans about the next coming of [insert elite player].

For the folks that actually follow it, and look at more than just the stars, they are not ****.

So, I'll agree that they are half ****. :)

And most people are dumb asses, but that doesn't mean we all have to be!

[Curly Bill]

How do we determine if a recruit panned out? Most believe (myself included) that there isn't much of a gap between a 3 star kid and a 4 star kid. So, if a 3 star kid comes in and contributes does that mean he panned out? And if a 4 star kid comes in and plays the same amount (with similar stats) as that 3 star kid, does that mean he didn't pan out?

Here's my point:

Anyone that knows what they're looking at can go to a high school game and identify the players that have the ability to play college ball. Same can be said for identifying the elusive "elite" or 5 star player. It's not brain surgery.

I know that the services, for the most part, do a decent job of evaluating kids (some better than others). They give you an idea of what to expect from a kid. Where I think they fail is when they project a kid's impact. There is just no way to know enough about a kid (from their perspective) to be able to project how a kid will adapt to the college game. Coaches even miss, and they know much more than the services know.

I suppose my biggest issue with the services is in the "Class rankings". I put much more stock in the individual player rankings than I do the class rankings.

This I have no issue with at all.

[8timechamps]

And most people are dumb asses, but that doesn't mean we all have to be!

It's just so hard having such a big brain, amirite?!

[Curly Bill]

It's just so hard having such a big brain, amirite?!

It does frustrate me that the general populace definitely does not, and yet I have to halfway try and coexist with em. ;)

[rock on sooner]

Did you not read the part where I talked about how they're coddled and under-coached once they get there? Reading is your friend.

Heh...

[thecrimsoncrusader]

I think both of them were Rivals 4*.

Rivals sucks.

[badger]

A little recruiting stars/rankings story:

It was reported that Miami under Larry Coker was not doing actual, honest to goodness college football recruiting, but rather, reporters and others were seeing computers in coaches offices open to recruiting sites, or they just pursued who the big boy programs pursued without knowing much else about the players.

If you missed this hilarious 2009 story about the true cause of the downfall at Miami, read it here (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-06-21/sports/um_1_online-recruiting-spencer-adkins-recruiting-analyst-tom). (via Orlando Sentinel)

In a nutshell, **** recruiting rankings.

[ouflak]

Well, let's all keep in mind that Knight actually hasn't proven himself yet. We've seen atleast a couple of named QB starters under Stoops come out and bomb. Whether that has anything to do with recruiting rankings or not, I'm not certain. But some of you are sounding like he's already averaged 300 yards for his first six games at OU. He's done nothing yet except win the pre-season battle. Let's see what happens when he really gets on the field.

[Scott D]

Let's also not forget that Johnny Autograph was a 3* recruit who decommitted from his original commitment because he was ascared that he'd never play ahead of some Marcus Mariota kid.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Let's also not forget that Johnny Autograph was a 3* recruit who decommitted from his original commitment because he was ascared that he'd never play ahead of some Marcus Mariota kid.

Manziel should have never been a 3 star recruit based on the numbers he put up at the prep level. They were insane.

[SoonerNomad]

Manziel should have never been a 3 star recruit based on the numbers he put up at the prep level. They were insane.

Sometimes five-star stats and one-star brain add up to a three-star player.

[SoonerorLater]

Rivals is pretty spot on as being a predictor. Just go to Rivals and look at the recent past seasons of recruiting classes at Alabama, Auburn, Florida and LSU. When you look at those recruiting classes all you see are lots of stars. Really a thing of beauty to look at. Not coincidentally these are the teams that have won the championships since 2006.

[Mazeppa]

How many stars did Sam Bradford have? Anyone?

[8timechamps]

Rivals is pretty spot on as being a predictor. Just go to Rivals and look at the recent past seasons of recruiting classes at Alabama, Auburn, Florida and LSU. When you look at those recruiting classes all you see are lots of stars. Really a thing of beauty to look at. Not coincidentally these are the teams that have won the championships since 2006.

I mentioned this earlier, but it doesn't take a genius to identify a 4 or 5 star player in high school. That doesn't always mean they pan out, but the talent is pretty visible. Rivals (like all of the others) are terrible at anything below a 4 star.

But, to be fair, there's no way any service could get around to every high school in the country and spend enough time to rate every player appropriately. So, I take their rankings with a grain of salt.

The common thread with all of the schools you mentioned are many, not least of all is the open "grey shirt" policy. When a team can sign a full class (let's say 25 players), and continue to accept commitments from higher rated (or realistically, higher targeted) players, it harkens back to the days of no scholarship limits. Barry Switzer did pretty good with that set up too.

[Curly Bill]

Out of the all the recruiting services I think Rivals is far and away the best, but even they hammer it up pretty good a lot of the time.

[Curly Bill]

I mentioned this earlier, but it doesn't take a genius to identify a 4 or 5 star player in high school. That doesn't always mean they pan out, but the talent is pretty visible. Rivals (like all of the others) are terrible at anything below a 4 star.

But, to be fair, there's no way any service could get around to every high school in the country and spend enough time to rate every player appropriately. So, I take their rankings with a grain of salt.

The common thread with all of the schools you mentioned are many, not least of all is the open "grey shirt" policy. When a team can sign a full class (let's say 25 players), and continue to accept commitments from higher rated (or realistically, higher targeted) players, it harkens back to the days of no scholarship limits. Barry Switzer did pretty good with that set up too.

My question is if the schools that are having the most success right now are doing it on the basis of this "grey shirt" policy, why aren't we doing it?

[8timechamps]

My question is if the schools that are having the most success right now are doing it on the basis of this "grey shirt" policy, why aren't we doing it?

I wouldn't say that the "grey shirt" thing is solely responsible for the current success, but it's a part. There are a lot of factors at play; conference affiliation to some degree, recent national title success (which I think has a lot more affect than conference affiliation), staying "local" has something to do with it, etc.

I think the grey shirt thing is a horrible way to fill your board. I want a national title, but not at the expense of treating kids like commodities.

What is it going to take to get the elite players? I'm not sure OU ever stopped getting them, but if there is an issue there, winning will take care of it. Winning will take care of most issues.

[Curly Bill]

I wouldn't say that the "grey shirt" thing is solely responsible for the current success, but it's a part. There are a lot of factors at play; conference affiliation to some degree, recent national title success (which I think has a lot more affect than conference affiliation), staying "local" has something to do with it, etc.

I think the grey shirt thing is a horrible way to fill your board. I want a national title, but not at the expense of treating kids like commodities.

What is it going to take to get the elite players? I'm not sure OU ever stopped getting them, but if there is an issue there, winning will take care of it. Winning will take care of most issues.

I know grey shirting isn't the only reason that Alabama and the like are winning, but if it helps then I'm all for it! If a recruit chooses to go to a school where they might be grey shirted than that is on them. If it was such a dirty underhanded practice you'd think it would hurt schools like Alabama in recruiting, but instead they seem to be cleaning up just as much as ever.

[sooner46]

I know Red shirt players get to practice with the team, but do grey shirt players?
If they do, I believe that would an unfair advantage for those teams.
Another year in there teams system.

[Sabanball]

.

I don't know CB, I think a strong case can be made for them being ****. I mean if you and I were to go watch a high school football game, we could both pick out the kids that are going to be playing at the next level. If there were an elite kid playing, then you and I would also be able to point that kid out. So, from the perspective of identifying the talent that is out there, yeah, they do a decent job of that, but for being able to separate the level of talent, I think it's a big guessing game.

As for Alabama, well what does that say about Texas? They've certainly had plenty of top 5 classes in the past 5 or 6 years.

For the average fan, with no real interest in recruiting, the services and their rankings/ratings mean ****. For the fan with interest (even passing) in recruiting, then I would concede that the services and their ratings/rankings can sometimes offer good insight.

Texas does generally recruit well, but they lack the coaching piece--and I would argue that they have for a very long time( 1 NC in 40 yrs) You can have all the talent in the world, but if you don't coach them up and develop that talent, then you're right--recruiting rankings in that case don't really matter.

[Ruf/Nek7]

Bama also benefits from over-recruiting. They get what they want and some which allows them to pick and choose when it comes to fielding a team. They have their typical 4/5* guys as well as the best of the 3* guys. OU has to just take what they can get it seems like.

[Sabanball]

Bama also benefits from over-recruiting. They get what they want and some which allows them to pick and choose when it comes to fielding a team. They have their typical 4/5* guys as well as the best of the 3* guys. OU has to just take what they can get it seems like.
Our recent success plays a big part in that, and I would also attribute to our recently newly added facilities. I think out of our current 18 2014 commits, they hail from 12 different states. Even as good as we were back in the 60s and 70s, our recruiting reach has never been this good.

[Ruf/Nek7]

Our recent success plays a big part in that, and I would also attribute to our recently newly added facilities. I think out of our current 18 2014 commits, they hail from 12 different states. Even as good as we were back in the 60s and 70s, our recruiting reach has never been this good.

Is it you guys that has the waterfall in the lockerroom? Or am I making the whole thing up? It escapes me at the moment.

[Sabanball]

Is it you guys that has the waterfall in the lockerroom? Or am I making the whole thing up? It escapes me at the moment.

Yes:

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/alabama-locker-room-waterfall/

[Ruf/Nek7]

Yes:

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/alabama-locker-room-waterfall/

Its cool but not as glorious as i thought it would be.

[8timechamps]

I know grey shirting isn't the only reason that Alabama and the like are winning, but if it helps then I'm all for it! If a recruit chooses to go to a school where they might be grey shirted than that is on them. If it was such a dirty underhanded practice you'd think it would hurt schools like Alabama in recruiting, but instead they seem to be cleaning up just as much as ever.

It's hard to argue with your line of reasoning, but there are situations that make the whole process shady. For example, let's say Florida recruits a kid (for the sake of this example, let's say he's a 4 star player), and the kid commits to Florida. He goes through his senior year as a commit to the Gators, and closes his recruiting process. Then, two weeks prior to national signing day, Florida tells the kid "thanks, but no thanks". The Gators have found a 5 star kid that wants to commit (and is playing the same position as the 5 star kid). Florida tells the 4 star that he can grey shirt and possibly get a scholly later.

With two weeks to go, how in the heck can a kid realistically find another school that he fells comfortable playing/spending his life for the next 4 years? If he commits elsewhere (assuming there's an open offer elsewhere), then he's bound by the NCAA, and if he decided he hates it, and wants to go back to Florida, then he's penalized and must sit out a year. It could be 3 years before the kid ever sees the field at Florida. Meanwhile, Florida has the kid they wanted all along, and they move on none the worse.

I agree that kids that know well in advance should be aware, but more times than not, they don't get that much notice. It's a sketchy process at best.

[Sabanball]

It's hard to argue with your line of reasoning, but there are situations that make the whole process shady. For example, let's say Florida recruits a kid (for the sake of this example, let's say he's a 4 star player), and the kid commits to Florida. He goes through his senior year as a commit to the Gators, and closes his recruiting process. Then, two weeks prior to national signing day, Florida tells the kid "thanks, but no thanks". The Gators have found a 5 star kid that wants to commit (and is playing the same position as the 5 star kid). Florida tells the 4 star that he can grey shirt and possibly get a scholly later.

With two weeks to go, how in the heck can a kid realistically find another school that he fells comfortable playing/spending his life for the next 4 years? If he commits elsewhere (assuming there's an open offer elsewhere), then he's bound by the NCAA, and if he decided he hates it, and wants to go back to Florida, then he's penalized and must sit out a year. It could be 3 years before the kid ever sees the field at Florida. Meanwhile, Florida has the kid they wanted all along, and they move on none the worse.

I agree that kids that know well in advance should be aware, but more times than not, they don't get that much notice. It's a sketchy process at best.

A couple of thoughts on 'gray-shirting':

Despite what you might think, gray- shirting is rarely used. At Bama, we've had two gray shirts in the last two yrs--TWO. Both were to allow players that were hurt their last yr in hs to rehab. In fact, one of them, Bradley Bozeman, was allowed to go ahead and enroll early with the rest of his class this fall because of his quicker than expected recovery and a spot opened up due to a player dismissal. So that really only leaves one.

Also, this allows players that are willing to wait(some are) in line to go through our program, instead of just turning them away. Believe it or not, some players are willing to wait 3 yrs just for a chance to put on a sooner or Bama jersey--hell, in our program, you generally wait at least 2 yrs no matter what(unless you are truly an elite player)

ALL teams do it--including in the Big 12. The SEC does not have exclusive rights to gray shirt. And I really wish some of you would quit with this sanctimonious ' well, WE'VE just got too much integrity to do that, we won't win at all costs like you guys in the South will' mantra. That's bull and you guys know it. If Bob thought gray-shirting was the right thing for a certain player then I'm confident that he would offer it. Also, if you're going to claim that SEC teams do it more, then provide some data and facts to back that up.

If it is unethical or wrong, then why isn't there a national outcry to ban the practice? Has your athletic director or even Bob put forth a rule proposal at the most recent ncaa meetings to make it illegal or restrict it in some way?

I agree, gray-shirting is not for every player. But there are cases where it is appropriate and mutually beneficial for the player and the program. That's why each one is decided on a 'case by case' basis. To continually pooh-pooh the whole practice and act like it's something dirty and unethical is just simply uninformed and ignorant.






EDIT:The new SEC rule only allowing 25 signees (regardless of academics) makes a gray shirt more final. Also, Bama has NO ONE on a gray shirt this yr.

[Curly Bill]

I think the gray-shirting excuse, that some people do it, but we don't cause we're too righteous for it is a lame excuse for getting out-recruited, and for less than stellar results as of late compared to some of the people that supposedly do it.

[8timechamps]

A couple of thoughts on 'gray-shirting':

Despite what you might think, gray- shirting is rarely used. At Bama, we've had two gray shirts in the last two yrs--TWO. Both were to allow players that were hurt their last yr in hs to rehab. In fact, one of them, Bradley Bozeman, was allowed to go ahead and enroll early with the rest of his class this fall because of his quicker than expected recovery and a spot opened up due to a player dismissal. So that really only leaves one.

Also, this allows players that are willing to wait(some are) in line to go through our program, instead of just turning them away. Believe it or not, some players are willing to wait 3 yrs just for a chance to put on a sooner or Bama jersey--hell, in our program, you generally wait at least 2 yrs no matter what(unless you are truly an elite player)

ALL teams do it--including in the Big 12. The SEC does not have exclusive rights to gray shirt. And I really wish some of you would quit with this sanctimonious ' well, WE'VE just got too much integrity to do that, we won't win at all costs like you guys in the South will' mantra. That's bull and you guys know it. If Bob thought gray-shirting was the right thing for a certain player then I'm confident that he would offer it. Also, if you're going to claim that SEC teams do it more, then provide some data and facts to back that up.

If it is unethical or wrong, then why isn't there a national outcry to ban the practice? Has your athletic director or even Bob put forth a rule proposal at the most recent ncaa meetings to make it illegal or restrict it in some way?

I agree, gray-shirting is not for every player. But there are cases where it is appropriate and mutually beneficial for the player and the program. That's why each one is decided on a 'case by case' basis. To continually pooh-pooh the whole practice and act like it's something dirty and unethical is just simply uninformed and ignorant.

I can't speak for every school in the Big XII, as I don't follow their program/recruiting, but I know the Sooners/Stoops does not and has not used grey shirting. Offers are made, and if the spots get filled before a kid commits (to the same position), then it's too bad. Every year, OU pulls offers when positions are filled. There is no "if you come and wait, you may get an offer". It doesn't happen. If you think it happens at OU, you are badly misinformed.

I think you are old enough to remember the major violations at OU, and the subsequent punishment. It wasn't the death penalty, but it was pretty damn close, and with the exception of SMU and Penn State, may have been some of the strictest sanctions sent down from the NCAA. I can assure you that the folks directly involved in the program (I'm not talking about boosters, fans, etc.) will NOT "do anything to win". I know that's a pretty common bond in the SEC, but it's not at OU.

You are getting defensive because I called "grey shirting" a shady process. If, as you say, Bama has only done it twice in the past couple of years, then great. Right now, Bama doesn't need to grey shirt, they have the ability to use their recent success as a great recruiting tool. But, don't come here telling us what is or isn't bull****, the SEC is the dirtiest conference in the game. You and I both know that is true.

As for Bob or the Conference putting forth an amendment at the recent NCAA meetings, really?! You're acting like it's just that simple, and that there aren't things more important that need to be dealt with first. C'mon, you know better than that

Grey Shirting is common in the SEC. It's not at OU. I'm not sure it is anywhere else in the conference (sans Texas).

[8timechamps]

I think the gray-shirting excuse, that some people do it, but we don't cause we're too righteous for it is a lame excuse for getting out-recruited, and for less than stellar results as of late compared to some of the people that supposedly do it.

What does being "righteous" have to do with it? It's called "doing the right thing". Why is it that some people find it so hard to believe not everyone is open to shady practices?

[8timechamps]

A couple of thoughts on 'gray-shirting':

Despite what you might think, gray- shirting is rarely used. At Bama, we've had two gray shirts in the last two yrs--TWO. Both were to allow players that were hurt their last yr in hs to rehab. In fact, one of them, Bradley Bozeman, was allowed to go ahead and enroll early with the rest of his class this fall because of his quicker than expected recovery and a spot opened up due to a player dismissal. So that really only leaves one.

Also, this allows players that are willing to wait(some are) in line to go through our program, instead of just turning them away. Believe it or not, some players are willing to wait 3 yrs just for a chance to put on a sooner or Bama jersey--hell, in our program, you generally wait at least 2 yrs no matter what(unless you are truly an elite player)

ALL teams do it--including in the Big 12. The SEC does not have exclusive rights to gray shirt. And I really wish some of you would quit with this sanctimonious ' well, WE'VE just got too much integrity to do that, we won't win at all costs like you guys in the South will' mantra. That's bull and you guys know it. If Bob thought gray-shirting was the right thing for a certain player then I'm confident that he would offer it. Also, if you're going to claim that SEC teams do it more, then provide some data and facts to back that up.

If it is unethical or wrong, then why isn't there a national outcry to ban the practice? Has your athletic director or even Bob put forth a rule proposal at the most recent ncaa meetings to make it illegal or restrict it in some way?

I agree, gray-shirting is not for every player. But there are cases where it is appropriate and mutually beneficial for the player and the program. That's why each one is decided on a 'case by case' basis. To continually pooh-pooh the whole practice and act like it's something dirty and unethical is just simply uninformed and ignorant.


I wanted to add one more thought about the bolded statement.

So, given the hypothetical example I posted earlier in this thread...that seems perfectly acceptable to you? If it does, then your definition of "dirty and unethical" is much different than mine.

[Curly Bill]

What does being "righteous" have to do with it? It's called "doing the right thing". Why is it that some people find it so hard to believe not everyone is open to shady practices?

I'm open to winning at the same rate that Alabama and those other "shady practice" people are!

[8timechamps]

I'm open to winning at the same rate that Alabama and those other "shady practice" people are!

Because you're shady. :D

[Curly Bill]

I'm not hearing the national outcry about this being sooooo shady. I'm not hearing the cries of upset recruits that this is sooooo shady. I'm not seeing recruits turn away from Alabama and those other "shady" programs for doing this. I'm sure not seeing those programs fall on hard times for being sooooo shady. So, what exactly are we gaining by being more upright than they are, other than to see them out recruiting and outperforming us on the field?

[stoopified]

There are countless examples over the years of recruiting rakings proving meaningless.Arthur Atkins is a can't miss bluechip DL recruit,Cedric Jones is a lesser rated DLr recruitBoth come in the same year to OU from the same highschool,Jones is a star at OU,Atkins a nonfactor.Rhet Bomar,Brent Rawls are national bluechippers who bombed,lessr percieved talentd White and Bradford become All-American and win the Heisman. Nothing new here at all.

[badger]

ALL teams do it--including in the Big 12. The SEC does not have exclusive rights to gray shirt.

Let's put grayshirting aside and look at what the real SEC problem has been to the point that your college presidents stepped in to stop it: Oversigning.

Recent Bammer class commitments:
2006: 27
2007: 24
2008: 32
2009: 30
2010: 28
2011: 26
2012: 26

If you're not grayshirting them, then you're sealing them away in packing crates with tiny holes punched in them so they can breathe, but not play football, because as everyone is well aware, the NCAA disallows more than 25 in a class, so from 2006 till the college presidents said "The SEC is getting embarrassed, knock it off please," you had ONE class under the 25-player limit.

Now I'm not totally Bammer bashing --- at least you didn't sign 37 in a class (http://blog.al.com/chatter/2009/03/about_those_37_recruits_ole_mi.html).

[jkjsooner]

Then, two weeks prior to national signing day, Florida tells the kid "thanks, but no thanks".

Actually you miss the worst part about grey shirting. We're not talking about saying "no thanks" before signing day. We're talking about doing it after you've signed 30 kids.

These contracts are one-sided. Players are bound to their commitments but schools are not.

[jkjsooner]

Let's put grayshirting aside and look at what the real SEC problem has been to the point that your college presidents stepped in to stop it: Oversigning.

Recent Bammer class commitments:
2006: 27
2007: 24
2008: 32
2009: 30
2010: 28
2011: 26
2012: 26

If you're not grayshirting them, then you're sealing them away in packing crates with tiny holes punched in them so they can breathe, but not play football, because as everyone is well aware, the NCAA disallows more than 25 in a class...

Exactly.

Also keep in mind that you only have 85 scholarships at any one time. Unless you're dropping scholarships for unproductive players (something else that is common in the SEC) you're not going to have 25 scholarships per year.


As for recruiting rankings, you can't look at them in a player-by-player basis. That being said, people have posted numbers on here before that show that five star guys make it to the NFL at a much higher rate than 4 star guys who make it at a higher rate than 3 star guys. If you look at it from 30,000 ft the rankings do matter a lot.

Some teams may have coaches that are good at finding the hidden diamonds. Coaches should be better at evaluating guys they're interested in than a national recruiting service.

[SoonerorLater]

It does work both ways. A recruit can walk this up to signing day and change his mind at the last moment possibly leaving a big hole in a recruiting class. I used to hate when the airlines overbooked also. When a verbal is binding I'll change my mind on greyshirting. I don't like the practice but it's been shown to be effective.

[badger]

For the record, during that same time period (2006-2012) that I outlined, OU had two classes over (27 each I think), but had multiple classes significantly lower than 25 to make up the difference (which is allowed by the NCAA, as some are transfers or early enrollers that count toward previous/next class).

In Bammer's case, the numbers do not add up -- they either had to grayshirt them, cut them loose before they could sign, or ask them to walk on sans scholarship.

ESPN, for all of their love of the SEC, did an OTL on how grayshirting and oversigning were primarily SEC issues up until the presidents decision to have a hard limit on classes. So, I promise I'm not picking on everyone's least-favorite conference here, this is well documented college football smut.

Guess which coach howled the most publicly at the president's decision. Spoiler: It was Nick Saban. (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/sec-presidents-vote-to-reduce-signing-limit-to-25-nick-saban-blows-a-gasket/)

[Jason White's Third Knee]

No outcry? I can find countless articles on Grey-Shirting and Oversigning. Hey, guess who is usually referenced in the articles?

Toss me in the pile of the uninformed and ignorant.

[cherokeebrewer]

this is well documented college football smut.

must remember this phrase...