2010 -- Number of Scholarships

#26
#26
Bassmanbruno said:
I don't care what the rankings are. No team would be able to haul in that many quality players though - and even if they did - so what? There's still an 85 scholarship limit and they'll be screwed after those graduate.

As good as UF/Texas/USC/etc are at recruiting - they would not be able to convince 50 studs to come to their school and have most of them sit on the bench when they could be day 1 starters at places like USCjr and Texas A&M, UNC, etc.
Click to expand...

Okay nevermind. I read that wrong. The situation you are describing is exactly what went on back in the day and Bear Bryant, Johnny Majors and co. never had any trouble getting players every year. It's not fair to the schools that don't have the ability to recruit 50 players every year. The big name schools would trounce all the lesser name schools. And winning is more important to a good player than playing time. Most of these guys come out of high school thinking they can beat anyone in a competition for playing time.

Hence Bama's title claims.
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
Sabanocchio said:
Okay nevermind. I read that wrong. The situation you are describing is exactly what went on back in the day and Bear Bryant, Johnny Majors and co. never had any trouble getting players every year. It's not fair to the schools that don't have the ability to recruit 50 players every year. The big name schools would trounce all the lesser name schools. And winning is more important to a good player than playing time. Most of these guys come out of high school thinking they can beat anyone in a competition for playing time.

Hence Bama's title claims.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I understand that. But I don't think those schools would be able to be that dominant in this day and age recruiting wise. It's all speculation of course. People are pumping money into these schools that aren't traditional powerhouses are able to get top notch coaching as well and expect the best.
 
#28
#28
Bassmanbruno said:
Yeah - I understand that. But I don't think those schools would be able to be that dominant in this day and age recruiting wise. It's all speculation of course. People are pumping money into these schools that aren't traditional powerhouses are able to get top notch coaching as well and expect the best.
Click to expand...

You may be right. I suspect we will never know because that rule isn't going away anytime soon. Regardless of what money is spent on coaching, this game is and has always been about recruiting.
 
#29
#29
Bassmanbruno said:
Yeah - I understand that. But I don't think those schools would be able to be that dominant in this day and age recruiting wise. It's all speculation of course. People are pumping money into these schools that aren't traditional powerhouses are able to get top notch coaching as well and expect the best.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Parity in college has really never existed. The SEC is really the exception...and that's just because there are so many schools in the SEC that have been traditionally good.

If Texas or USC could still give out 100 scholly's, they'd still fill them with the same caliber players.
 
#30
#30
I never said change the overall scholarship limit - only the yearly one otherwise you would have problems. There's plenty of parody. SEC/ACC/Big East/Big 10 all have parody. The Big 12 (Texas/OU) and Pac 10 (USC) usually have the same 1 or 2 winners, yes.

If UCLA and Cal can steal USC's recruit (which they have been able to quite a bit) then there's no way USC could stack their team like Bear Bryant did at Bama. There's just too many relevant programs these days compared to back then that are a lot more serious about their athletics.
 
#31
#31
Bassmanbruno said:
I never said change the overall scholarship limit - only the yearly one otherwise you would have problems. There's plenty of parody. SEC/ACC/Big East/Big 10 all have parody. The Big 12 (Texas/OU) and Pac 10 (USC) usually have the same 1 or 2 winners, yes.

If UCLA and Cal can steal USC's recruit (which they have been able to quite a bit) then there's no way USC could stack their team like Bear Bryant did at Bama. There's just too many relevant programs these days compared to back then that are a lot more serious about their athletics.
Click to expand...

Lulz. Weird Al Yankovic style.

It's most certainly different than it was back then, but not as much as you surmise. If you take the scholarship limit off, you would see many schools unable to compete with the big schools. Even schools like Kentucky, MSU, and Vandy would suffer considerably and be forever doomed to the basement of the SEC. They just wouldn't be able to compete.
 
#32
#32
I just think the biggest difference is the attitude of the players. Freshman are beginning to take over the game. I mean a sophomore won the Heisman for the first time ever. I think that's the biggest difference and that's why they all wouldn't flock to those major schools only.
 
#33
#33
Bassmanbruno said:
I never said change the overall scholarship limit - only the yearly one otherwise you would have problems. There's plenty of parody. SEC/ACC/Big East/Big 10 all have parody. The Big 12 (Texas/OU) and Pac 10 (USC) usually have the same 1 or 2 winners, yes.

If UCLA and Cal can steal USC's recruit (which they have been able to quite a bit) then there's no way USC could stack their team like Bear Bryant did at Bama. There's just too many relevant programs these days compared to back then that are a lot more serious about their athletics.
Click to expand...


if schools can sign 50 kids every year and have to maintain the 85 cap that would mean dropping scholarship athletes every year as well to maintain the 85 cap. No organization is going to allow that and very soon, any coach/school doing it would have trouble recruiting. Kids are not going to sign with a school if they could end up dropped in the next year or two.

Caveat, I may be totally misunderstanding what you are saying.
 
#34
#34
LWSVOL said:
if schools can sign 50 kids every year and have to maintain the 85 cap that would mean dropping scholarship athletes every year as well to maintain the 85 cap. No organization is going to allow that and very soon, any coach/school doing it would have trouble recruiting. Kids are not going to sign with a school if they could end up dropped in the next year or two.

Caveat, I may be totally misunderstanding what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah - that is definitely a downside if something like that happened. But being able to sign a solid 35 (for us) next year would be beneficial and not over the top.

There probably would be a school that attempted to load up on the top prospects every year signing anywhere from 40-50... and then they'd just drop some of the guys that didn't pan out from the years before.

But - I wouldn't have a problem with a team signing 45 or so and sticking with that class and just be screwed after they graduate and have to sign another big bunch. That first scenario would be problematic though.

I just think the 25 rule is hampering us in our current situation where we could help the rebuilding process a lot faster with our staff and their recruiting abilities.
 
#35
#35
Bassmanbruno said:
Oh yeah - that is definitely a downside if something like that happened. But being able to sign a solid 35 (for us) next year would be beneficial and not over the top.

There probably would be a school that attempted to load up on the top prospects every year signing anywhere from 40-50... and then they'd just drop some of the guys that didn't pan out from the years before.

But - I wouldn't have a problem with a team signing 45 or so and sticking with that class and just be screwed after they graduate and have to sign another big bunch. That first scenario would be problematic though.

I just think the 25 rule is hampering us in our current situation where we could help the rebuilding process a lot faster with our staff and their recruiting abilities.
Click to expand...


I don't think the number matters. generally, a school will lose 30-40% of a class through various attrition before they complete eligibility. IMO, doesn't matter if it is 30-40% of 50 or 25. you still have to rebuild each year.

Here are 2002-2009 signing classes for SEC which shows the attrition (no calculations, just what happened to players). Also, check those signing BIG numbers. They tend to lose more of them from those classes than smaller classes. Each link has a different SEC school

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document
 
#36
#36
LWSVOL said:
I don't think the number matters. generally, a school will lose 30-40% of a class through various attrition before they complete eligibility. IMO, doesn't matter if it is 30-40% of 50 or 25. you still have to rebuild each year.

Here are 2002-2009 signing classes for SEC which shows the attrition (no calculations, just what happened to players). Also, check those signing BIG numbers. They tend to lose more of them from those classes than smaller classes. Each link has a different SEC school
Click to expand...

Those look nice, Larry.
 
#39
#39
LWSVOL said:
I don't think the number matters. generally, a school will lose 30-40% of a class through various attrition before they complete eligibility. IMO, doesn't matter if it is 30-40% of 50 or 25. you still have to rebuild each year.

Here are 2002-2009 signing classes for SEC which shows the attrition (no calculations, just what happened to players). Also, check those signing BIG numbers. They tend to lose more of them from those classes than smaller classes. Each link has a different SEC school

Alabama

Arkansas

Auburn

Florida

Kentucky

LSU

Ole Miss

Mississippi State

South Carolina

Tennessee

Vandy
Click to expand...

Great stuff! Larry. I played with your link titles a little... hope you don't mind.

I'm not a VQ guy, so I'm glad to see you posting on VN. You have an excellent reputation for insight on all things Vols, so I'm glad you are contributing that here.

I hope Freak can talk you into writing a periodic blog here as well.
 
#40
#40
utmba93 said:
Great stuff! Larry. I played with your link titles a little... hope you don't mind.

I'm not a VQ guy, so I'm glad to see you posting on VN. You have an excellent reputation for insight on all things Vols, so I'm glad you are contributing that here.

I hope Freak can talk you into writing a periodic blog here as well.
Click to expand...

That would be awesome. Don't just forget about us when you go back over to Rivals, Larry. We're people too!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top