»
Topic: Did oversigning backfire on the chickens??
Replies: 26   Last Post: Feb 18, 2015 5:02 PM by: Tiger Woods
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 26  

Did oversigning backfire on the chickens??

[14]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 8:43 AM
 

I'm sure this'll ruffle all the visiting chicken feathers.

According to what I read yesterday, the latest usuck football player to exit Cola brought to a total 10 scholarship players gone who were eligible to play for the chickens and were supposedly in good academic standing, but were "encouraged" by the chicken staff to "seek playing time elsewhere". This was coupled with three walk-ons who lost their schollies as well. And all this was done to accomodate the 30 player signing class. And I understand the kid who left yesterday actually got the number of scholarship players on their team to the NCAA limit of 85.

The kicker is the 10 recruits who de-committed from dirtpeckerU....several of whom were amongst their most highly ranked. So, despite a high national recruiting ranking bolstered, undoubtedly, by what looked to be one of the largest classes signed in the country, did the chickens bring in sufficient talent to replace what they lost due to "graduation" (chuckle) and running off 13 players still eligible to play.

Juco's?? 2 years of playing time max and they're done. Its barely time to learn the poultry system in place that garnered them a 6-6 regular season record. And redshirting any of these Juco's would sort of defeat the purpose of bringing them in in the first place. And lets be honest, if ANY of these kids off to juco land truly had the talent to jump into Div1 football, SOMEBODY would've figured out a way to get them in. Signing a top juco position player sounds terrific---but really, is it???

And now, one of the highest ranked signees remaining in the chicken camp gets busted for housebreaking and larceny.....they have almost no option other than to get him into school.....There'll be season ending injuries and, those familiar with usuck history know all too well, probably other issues that require suspension.

The despicable practices that brought SOS success in Columbia, may have backfired on him.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Re: Did oversigning backfire on the chickens??


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 9:26 AM
 

On paper, it certainly appears that most of the marginal 2015 signees that SCAR settled for after the recent spate of de-commitments are no more highly regarded than the 10 scholarship players who have been run off were back when they were signed.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

we redshirt and develop our players

[1]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 9:33 AM
 

Not sure what they're doing


Re: Did oversigning backfire on the chickens??


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 9:35 AM
 

I don't see them letting Blackshear in. Kid is trouble.


Re: Did oversigning backfire on the chickens??


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 9:43 AM
 

He is a 4*. The coots will get him in. They are hurting right now.

2020 purple level member


Are we talking about USuCk?


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 10:15 AM
 

They'd let Charles Manson in if he could run a 4.5 40 and put his X on the mark.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

They're deep into a vicious cycle right now that's only

[4]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 10:13 AM
 

going to perpetuate itself until there's a coaching change.

Between players quitting, transferring, and leaving early for a shot at the NFL, on top of several years of excessively large classes where 25% of the players never qualify and step on campus, their top to bottom talent has ebbed away right before our eyes and it's not being replenished.

Though they signed, what, 31 in this recent class, they'll be lucky to get 25 of them on campus. With defections continuing to mount and JUCO's staying a shorter term, they'll have to go big on numbers again the next cycle, and that will be on the heels of two very mediocre seasons behind an even more lame duck SOS.

With a resurgent TN, an always packed GA squad, new blood in FL, KY on the rise, and MO smoking the SEC East Big XII style, plus an annual bout with a highly competitive TAMU, and of course a Clemson team that is a rising national power - it's pretty easy to see that SCar's days as a football threat are done for the foreseeable future.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Did oversigning backfire on the chickens??


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 10:37 AM
 

Did the ncaa pass the 4 year scholarship rule and if so when does it go into effect?


Re: Did oversigning backfire on the chickens??


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:26 AM
 

They did but it means nothing. If your head coach tells you you aren't gonna play you should transfer, you probably will.


I still can't believe SOS came back knowing he had no QB***


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 10:48 AM
 



"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


Re: I still can't believe SOS came back knowing he had no QB***


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:06 AM
 

It is still baffling to me why Spurrier has never been able to land that top notch QB. With his background, you would think that would not be a problem. Maybe he is just as much a jerk in person as he is when a camera is in his face.

2020 purple level member


So, none of you supportive points actually supports your main idea.


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:05 AM
 

None of it seems to be due to oversigning.
And yes, jucos can be good enough to play. It is less common in the South, but lots of kids out west go to jucos, play ball, then get scholly offers once their grades are up and they've had time to show what they can do.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

null


But SCAR recruits and plays in the South and JUCO success


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:30 AM
 

stories at SCAR (and at Clemson) are probably around 10% ...

For every JUCO that has been great at either school, one can cite 4-5 that haven't produced.

Heck, looking at the West Coast ... OJ Simpson was a JUCO player who went on the win the Heisman and was All-Pro/HOF in the NFL (among a few other less admirable later accomplishments ... ) but neither SCAR, nor Clemson has ever brought in a JUCO of that caliber.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Actually, ALL the points support the original question.....


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:35 AM
 

The chickens oversigned by a considerable number---so much that, as usual, they had to run players off who were on scholarship but whom the staff figured could be replaced with "better" recruits. 10 scholarship players and 3 walk-ons most of whom had seen playing time and all of whom had been in their system for a while. The linebacker who announced his departure yesterday was (I believe I read) fifth in total tackles and, although injured a couple of times, had been in the chicken program for 3 years.

Signing 30 folks meant that players had to go to make room. BUT, the de-commitments depleted the original recruit talent base including several of their highest ranked recruits who were supposed to be better than the players being run-off.....regardless, the chickens HAD to make room for these new signees...somebody had to go. The question is: did they replace even the talent they ran off and that which was graduated?? Much less improve on it?? I disagree that juco's are necessarily ready to jump into Div1 football (much less the vaunted SEC) and would argue that ANY player needs time to adjust to a system.....Again, juco's often have 3 years to play 2...but redshirting a juco sorta defeats the entire purpose of bringing them in for immediate help. I agree that the juco route was some time ago a better alternative than it is now---and you're also right that West Coast programs have a history of developing QB's to bring in...but even that's not as effective nor as popular as it used to be. This day and age, a kid who is ready for Div1 football can usually find a program to get him into school and redshirt him....juco's aren't going up against the kind of talent they'll normally face on the next level and at the very least there's some adjustment time for the speed and strength of of opposing players. There are exceptions, of course, but they're becoming fewer and fewer.

And don't forget there are always injuries and suspensions to thin the ranks of experienced chicken players too


And now, arguably the chickens best remaining recruit breaks into and robs a house. Because of the issues I raised earlier, they have almost no option except to bring this troublemaker into the program with all those accompanying risks...

Sacrifices had to be made to accomodate the large, oversigned recruit class.....did they replace or improve the talent that was run-off or was graduated??

I hope that explains things, although I felt as if I'd only repeated myself

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Fair enough.. Truth is,


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 4:07 PM
 

I worked 12 hours in the hospital yesterday and was in the middle of a red-eye trip across the country with little sleep. I think my comprehension and thinking ability were a little hampered. ;)

And yes, i think jucos can make a difference, but i agree less so here in the south than out west.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

null


Re: So, none of you supportive points actually supports your main idea.

[1]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:41 AM
 

Out west it is more common because there are less schools willing to take a chance on a player. In the south you have 5-10 schools that will work hard to get anyone in if possible. That means the talent going to JUCO is diminished. Sure some succeed but if you are passed over it is more likely that you were not talented enough or struggled so much academically that it is unlikely you will ever make the grades necessary to be accepted.

null


Re: So, none of you supportive points actually supports your main idea.


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 12:25 PM
 

It's more common out west because Cali has junior colleges that play football. Our primary recruiting areas do not have juco football.

And I know for sure one of our juco signees has four years to play three. Another I believe is 3 to play 3. So jucos can be more than just two years.

Maybe they will contribute, maybe they won't. It just seems too early to evaluate the performance of kids who haven't even played a game yet.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: So, none of you supportive points actually supports your main idea.


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:39 PM
 

> It's more common out west because Cali has junior
> colleges that play football. Our primary recruiting
> areas do not have juco football.
>
> And I know for sure one of our juco signees has four
> years to play three. Another I believe is 3 to play
> 3. So jucos can be more than just two years.
>
> Maybe they will contribute, maybe they won't. It just
> seems too early to evaluate the performance of kids
> who haven't even played a game yet.

The odds are much, much lower. They're behind, and they generally did not have the greatest work ethics to begin with. There are exceptions, of course, but if it's a coin-flip with your typical 5-year recruit if he turns out or not, it seems to be much less than half that with a JUCO.

Schools that do the best with them - like K-State - are generally geographically very close to the junior colleges, can physically scout and keep tabs on these guys, and know how to manage these kids because they're a lot more familiar with them. You still see a lot of year-to-year yo-yo'ing even with K-State...one year they have a 10-win team nobody saw coming, the next year they're back to 5-7. Roster management when you're going heavy on JUCO guys is tough and some years you wind up very lean.

Might work...but I'd be nervous. This is not a good road to go down for the vast majority of schools that try it.


Re: So, none of you supportive points actually supports your main idea.


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:05 PM
 

Obviously it is a road I wish we didn't have to go down. But, we weren't good last year so it was a move we had to make.

We will see if it becomes a long term strategy or if it's a one year fix.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Please don't play dumb when coming on here.

[1]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:15 PM
 

Of course it's hoping to a quick fix. Spurrier does not have time to develop players. He wanted to quit this year.

Next year you'll unload a ton of players again and sign 30 again.

You guys don't even have a QB when Googer is going to be given a shot.

"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


Re: Please don't play dumb when coming on here.


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:18 PM
 

I don't really see the signing 30 players being an issue.

The more bodies that flow through a program the more kids you have that may be able to make a contribution.

It isn't like we are seeing our best players transferring to other schools. The transfers are all kids who aren't needed.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: Please don't play dumb when coming on here.

[4]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:30 PM
 

Other than it shows your coaches suck at evaluating talent, acquiring talent and developing talent. I see nothing wrong with it either.

I'm sure you'll be in the playoffs and winning conference championships soon while UT, UF and UGA begin to fall.

"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


Re: Please don't play dumb when coming on here.

[4]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 4:53 PM
 

> I don't really see the signing 30 players being an
> issue.
>
> The more bodies that flow through a program the more
> kids you have that may be able to make a
> contribution.
>
> It isn't like we are seeing our best players
> transferring to other schools. The transfers are all
> kids who aren't needed.

Whoa. Here's where stuff gets a little sinister.

Oversigning is unethical, because it affects two things:
1) Your school's graduation rate
2) Your school's credibility with future recruits

A lot of people have this, "hey, the horse didn't pass the hurdle, so just shoot the horse...and get another" mentality.

I hate it. And I really don't like the coaches who think like this.

The problem with this is twofold. Number one, there aren't an infinite supply of horses. Two, you aren't talking horses...you're talking kids. Kids your coach, staff, and more importantly, your school and program made a commitment to. What we're seeing here is kids getting the boot and having their scholarship yanked - after just one year in the program. When you're talking 10+ kids getting the boot in one year, that's 1/8 of your roster. Not only is that turnover extremely unhealthy and means you missed on a bunch of guys in evaluation, it means a lot of kids are getting burned.

This affects a bunch of things besides graduation rate and your school's potential reception at a high school the next time South Carolina comes calling. It also affects team morale and the trust level towards the staff...and it ALSO affects knowledgeable parents who do their homework on potential college destinations. I personally wouldn't let a school near my own kid that had the attitude that cutting a kid like it's the NFL is acceptable - especially when South Carolina made a big public production about guaranteeing 4-year academic scholarships even if the player in question didn't remain on the team. Is that guarantee valid or just so much hot air?

Over the long term, tactics like this get you a reputation - and get you frozen out. Truthfully, there seems to be a lot of long-term Spurrier fallout in play already. Spurrier has a rep for being brutal towards his QB's, refusing to protect them - his idea of max-protect has always been five in the pattern, and he could care less if his QB gets his ribs staved in as long as he delivers the ball first - and his Madden-joystick style of playcalling, wherein the QB is basically an extension of Spurrier himself, and is going through the reads and progressions that Spurrier himself is making - doesn't really prepare QB's for the NFL. So while he's gotten a lot out of production out of the guys he's had there at Carolina, he's always had to make do with headcases like Stephen Garcia, marginal talents like Dylan Thompson, and even really good QB's like Connor Shaw haven't really gotten their due when it comes to NFL scouts or national recognition because so many other Spurrier QB's have failed in the pro's. He certainly isn't landing guys like Marcus Mariota...or Deshaun Watson. Elite QB's won't play for Spurrier anymore. A lot of rival recruiters also play the race card because he's never had a starting black QB...and at age 70, with 30+ years coaching experience, that looks...bad. Nunez will be his first.

Running 30+ bodies a year through your program isn't "healthy". It's an unethical, short-term practice that does not speak well, at all, of the health of a program...or its regard for the players that play in it.


This was more eloquent than the #### deserved.***


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 5:02 PM
 



"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


How can a JUCO have 4 years to play 3?

[2]
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:52 PM
 

Seriously.

How?

That would be 6 years.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


Re: How can a JUCO have 4 years to play 3?


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:07 PM
 

One of our recruits enrolled in the spring semester. So he only played one football season but was able to graduate in 18 months.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


5 to play 4 for everyone and the eligibility clock starts ..


Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:01 PM
 

... the moment you begin college no matter where it is.

Now, I believe Clemson and many other D-1 schools require that you graduate from JUCO with a 2.0 to qualify for a scholarship, so if that applies, then moving on to a D-1 scholarship would require more than one year in JUCO unless you were a cracker jack student ... in which case you wouldn't be in JUCO to begin with.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Replies: 26  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: 2 lower level season tickets in the North stands, section UM, row Q, $1250 each.

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
3514 people have read this post