Recruiting Forum Football Talk LVIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#476
#476
If we win 7-9 games because we added the transfers then I won't care how many spots they took up. The impact of us winning that many games would have a bigger impact on recruiting than the extra spots. Means can take a smaller class with more elite talent
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#477
#477
Nashvegas31 said:
If we win 7-9 games because we added the transfers then I won't care how many spots they took up. The impact of us winning that many games would have a bigger impact on recruiting than the extra spots. Means can take a smaller class with more elite talent
Click to expand...

What's the impact of winning 7 as opposed to 8?
 
#480
#480
Nashvegas31 said:
If we win 7-9 games because we added the transfers then I won't care how many spots they took up. The impact of us winning that many games would have a bigger impact on recruiting than the extra spots. Means can take a smaller class with more elite talent
Click to expand...

This 👆🏼👆🏼
 
#481
#481
The debate about grad transfers is one I've been thinking about recently. I'm still not completely clear on the new rules, but I think the initial counter changes will eventually slow down the rate of schools taking transfers. Sorry for the long explanation below, but I'm interested to see if I'm wrong about this.

When some conferences went to a 25 per year limit a few years back, teams that fell below the 85 limit could still make up numbers by taking un-recruited transfers (grad or JUCO), because they didn't count against the annual 25 signing limit. And if a new signee didn't qualify, grad transfers could be used to fill that spot too, or you could sign an extra player next year and count back. There was little to no downside for taking a player who would only be around for one year, or maybe two in the case of a JUCO.

But now, if I have it right, you can only take an average of 25 initial counters over time, and that includes transfers and players who don't qualify academically, which means 100 total initial counters over 4 years. Any attrition beyond 15 total players from that 100 (over 4 years), will leave you below the 85 limit at some point. That attrition includes injuries, dropouts, non-qualifiers, transfers out, leaving early to the NFL, etc. It also includes transfers who come in with less than 4 years to play. Red shirting players would give you a longer availability, but doesn't really change the effective roster since a red shirt isn't an active participant.

Maybe somebody has a better understanding than I do, but this is my interpretation. It seems like using one of your 25 annual spots for players who can't stay at least 4 years is a liability. Honestly, I don't see how this is going to work over time without pushing some teams' scholarship rosters down to levels well below 85.
 
Last edited:
#482
#482
So how many games do we win last year, if Butch isn't either fired, or under threat to be?
 
#485
#485
HankHill said:
I still wonder how the season pans out if we don’t crap the bed against Florida.
Click to expand...

Let us be thankful that we did, for if we did beat them, maybe Butch is still here destroying the program and Haslam’s puppet Currie is still running the show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#488
#488
DawgInterloper said:
The debate about grad transfers is one I've been thinking about recently. I'm still not completely clear on the new rules, but I think the initial counter changes will eventually slow down the rate of schools taking transfers. Sorry for the long explanation below, but I'm interested to see if I'm wrong about this.

When some conferences went to a 25 per year limit a few years back, teams that fell below the 85 limit could still make up numbers by taking un-recruited transfers (grad or JUCO), because they didn't count against the annual 25 signing limit. And if a new signee didn't qualify, grad transfers could be used to fill that spot too, or you could sign an extra player next year and count back. There was little to no downside for taking a player who would only be around for one year, or maybe two in the case of a JUCO.

But now, if I have it right, you can only take an average of 25 initial counters over time, and that includes transfers and players who don't qualify academically, which means 100 total initial counters over 4 years. Any attrition beyond 15 total players from that 100 (over 4 years), will leave you below the 85 limit at some point. That attrition includes injuries, dropouts, non-qualifiers, transfers out, leaving early to the NFL, etc. It also includes transfers who come in with less than 4 years to play. Red shirting players would give you a longer availability, but doesn't really change the effective roster since a red shirt isn't an active participant.

Maybe somebody has a better understanding than I do, but this is my interpretation. It seems like using one of your 25 annual spots for players who can't stay at least 4 years is a liability. Honestly, I don't see how this is going to work over time without pushing some teams' scholarship rosters down to levels well below 85.
Click to expand...

"That was a lot of question right there."

-Jeremy Pruitt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#490
#490
highspeed said:
"That was a lot of question right there."

-Jeremy Pruitt.
Click to expand...


:) I figured most people would skip on by. That's okay, it's a long winded post and a complex topic. Just thinking I may have missed something because the new rules seem to make attrition very difficult to replace.
 
#493
#493
Am I hallucinating or did Vince Young just announce the Titans draft selection??

I think I need to catch some more sleep.
 
#499
#499
“One of the crazier droughts in football is over. Connor Williams becomes the first #Texas O-lineman drafted in 10 years.”

Wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top