2021 transfer thread

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

2 minutes ago, Machinator said:

Roach

  Hide contents

— We received confirmation yesterday that Keilan Robinson was on campus and would likely choose Texas. There isn’t a lot of background as to how all of this came together. In talking to sources in Austin, they were very quiet when discussing Robinson and a potential match. Usually when that happens, it means something is very much in the works. I believe they will try to push for Tulsa corner Akayleb Evans and that will likely be the last transfer prospect they pursue.

 

Wonder how things with the Kansas guy impacts the Evans time line? Will it impact at all?

[Fud 9724]

59 minutes ago, Machinator said:

Roach

  Hide contents

— We received confirmation yesterday that Keilan Robinson was on campus and would likely choose Texas. There isn’t a lot of background as to how all of this came together. In talking to sources in Austin, they were very quiet when discussing Robinson and a potential match. Usually when that happens, it means something is very much in the works. I believe they will try to push for Tulsa corner Akayleb Evans and that will likely be the last transfer prospect they pursue.

 

He'll only be the last they pursue if they land him

[Elmer_Fudd 22993]

 

[Machinator 32103]

IT

Spoiler

Two Transfer Notes

The good news regarding Alabama transfer running back Keilan Robinson came out a bit earlier than expected, not that UT fans are crying about it. Now the question becomes, when will he arrive? It should be a pretty quick turnaround. Robinson will want to be back in Austin later in the week.

The news isn’t as rosy with Tulsa cornerback transfer Akayleb Evans. Our best intel has Missouri poised to beat out Texas and Notre Dame. This may come as a surprise, but it just goes to show you how important playing time is, especially later in a player’s career. Georgia just offered Evans so we’ll see if that changes things.

Originally from McKinney, Evans was slated to get a look at nickel at UT. We’re not saying Texas is completely out of it, but we’re not expecting him to be a Horn.

 

[Newy25 7916]

Well I guess that means they can go after the Kansas guy. 

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

https://247sports.com/Player/Karon-Prunty-46083839/high-school-234504/

 

should have 4 years, yes?

[Machinator 32103]

(Super K) Trying to win Right Away

Spoiler

It goes without saying that coach Sark and company want to win and they want to win right away. The likely reality is the past few recruiting rankings are not reflective of Texas’ actual talent and I don’t mean the players were underrated. The previous staff was very good at using their connections to help themselves in the recruit ranking world.

But for Sark, he’s come into a situation where he certainly has talent but likely not as much as he anticipated. Having less talent than he had at Alabama goes without saying but I surmise he still expected more, especially on the offensive side of the ball.

I’ve been told they were not pleased with the linebacker room and they’ve obviously continued to add players there. I’m told a lot of it was about the attitude in the linebacker room.

But another big area where they’ve needed to add talent is at the offensive skill position. Bijan is fantastic but he’s one player.

The most recent additions add what they’ve needed, some real twitch and speed. Keilan Robinson, the Alabama running back transfer and former Michigan signee, Xavier Worthy.

For what it’s worth, OU wanted to add Keilan Robinson to their running back room. I’m told they were very impressed with him. Folks out west tell me that Worthy will come in ready to work.

What the big-time recruits have been telling us is that they are waiting to see how Texas does this season. But with less talent than Sark expected and probably a tougher schedule than Texas has played in a while, the question will be whether these recruits will be measured within their own assessment of what Texas does this season.

If the recruits are telling us this, then the staff is certainly hearing it and they’re being extremely aggressive in their attempts to upgrade and squeeze as many wins out of this team as possible. At the same time, they’re doing a nice job of not lingering too long on prospects and holding up offers to other talented players. The Texas staff is full of good coaches but any guarantee that they are going to rattle off a double-digit win season just isn’t there.

But they’re doing what they need to do. Aggressively attempt to upgrade. Recruit the big-time players. Offer the talent that will be there for you and can help your future if you fall short this season.

 

[texifornia 59016]

Quote

But with less talent than Sark expected and probably a tougher schedule than Texas has played in a while, the question will be whether these recruits will be measured within their own assessment of what Texas does this season.

lol what

Edited June 7, 2021 by texifornia

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

2 minutes ago, Machinator said:

I’ve been told they were not pleased with the linebacker room and they’ve obviously continued to add players there. I’m told a lot of it was about the attitude in the linebacker room.

@golfclap but I thought the linebacker room was fine?

[SydneyCarton 49504]

7 minutes ago, Machinator said:

(Super K) Trying to win Right Away

  Hide contents

It goes without saying that coach Sark and company want to win and they want to win right away. The likely reality is the past few recruiting rankings are not reflective of Texas’ actual talent and I don’t mean the players were underrated. The previous staff was very good at using their connections to help themselves in the recruit ranking world.

But for Sark, he’s come into a situation where he certainly has talent but likely not as much as he anticipated. Having less talent than he had at Alabama goes without saying but I surmise he still expected more, especially on the offensive side of the ball.

I’ve been told they were not pleased with the linebacker room and they’ve obviously continued to add players there. I’m told a lot of it was about the attitude in the linebacker room.

But another big area where they’ve needed to add talent is at the offensive skill position. Bijan is fantastic but he’s one player.

The most recent additions add what they’ve needed, some real twitch and speed. Keilan Robinson, the Alabama running back transfer and former Michigan signee, Xavier Worthy.

For what it’s worth, OU wanted to add Keilan Robinson to their running back room. I’m told they were very impressed with him. Folks out west tell me that Worthy will come in ready to work.

What the big-time recruits have been telling us is that they are waiting to see how Texas does this season. But with less talent than Sark expected and probably a tougher schedule than Texas has played in a while, the question will be whether these recruits will be measured within their own assessment of what Texas does this season.

If the recruits are telling us this, then the staff is certainly hearing it and they’re being extremely aggressive in their attempts to upgrade and squeeze as many wins out of this team as possible. At the same time, they’re doing a nice job of not lingering too long on prospects and holding up offers to other talented players. The Texas staff is full of good coaches but any guarantee that they are going to rattle off a double-digit win season just isn’t there.

But they’re doing what they need to do. Aggressively attempt to upgrade. Recruit the big-time players. Offer the talent that will be there for you and can help your future if you fall short this season.

 

@closetojumping Is going to be calling a lot of these guys worthless fuckfaces if this turns out to be the case. 

[Red Five 41738]

7 minutes ago, Machinator said:

I’ve been told they were not pleased with the linebacker room

Oh yeah? I wonder what gave him that idea. 

[Bevo14 8468]

43 minutes ago, Machinator said:

(Super K) Trying to win Right Away

  Reveal hidden contents

It goes without saying that coach Sark and company want to win and they want to win right away. The likely reality is the past few recruiting rankings are not reflective of Texas’ actual talent and I don’t mean the players were underrated. The previous staff was very good at using their connections to help themselves in the recruit ranking world.

But for Sark, he’s come into a situation where he certainly has talent but likely not as much as he anticipated. Having less talent than he had at Alabama goes without saying but I surmise he still expected more, especially on the offensive side of the ball.

I’ve been told they were not pleased with the linebacker room and they’ve obviously continued to add players there. I’m told a lot of it was about the attitude in the linebacker room.

But another big area where they’ve needed to add talent is at the offensive skill position. Bijan is fantastic but he’s one player.

The most recent additions add what they’ve needed, some real twitch and speed. Keilan Robinson, the Alabama running back transfer and former Michigan signee, Xavier Worthy.

For what it’s worth, OU wanted to add Keilan Robinson to their running back room. I’m told they were very impressed with him. Folks out west tell me that Worthy will come in ready to work.

What the big-time recruits have been telling us is that they are waiting to see how Texas does this season. But with less talent than Sark expected and probably a tougher schedule than Texas has played in a while, the question will be whether these recruits will be measured within their own assessment of what Texas does this season.

If the recruits are telling us this, then the staff is certainly hearing it and they’re being extremely aggressive in their attempts to upgrade and squeeze as many wins out of this team as possible. At the same time, they’re doing a nice job of not lingering too long on prospects and holding up offers to other talented players. The Texas staff is full of good coaches but any guarantee that they are going to rattle off a double-digit win season just isn’t there.

But they’re doing what they need to do. Aggressively attempt to upgrade. Recruit the big-time players. Offer the talent that will be there for you and can help your future if you fall short this season.

 

 

36 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

@closetojumping Is going to be calling a lot of these guys worthless fuckfaces if this turns out to be the case. 

I will be there with him. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Bevo14

[Foosters 18280]

I feel like I remember reading multiple "insider" articles over the spring detailing the new staff's pleasant surprise with the overall talent level they inherited.

[Thiefery 5108]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I feel like I remember reading multiple "insider" articles over the spring detailing the new staff's pleasant surprise with the overall talent level they inherited.

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

5 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I feel like I remember reading multiple "insider" articles over the spring detailing the new staff's pleasant surprise with the overall talent level they inherited.

I think they're pleased with the surface level talent. But talent of depth is thin at a few positions, those are obvious by portal targets.

 

I expect at least 2 WR's to transfer out this fall.

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

[UDontKnow 10572]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

I think they're pleased with the surface level talent. But talent of depth is thin at a few positions, those are obvious by portal targets.

 

I expect at least 2 WR's to transfer out this fall.

Which WRs? Dajon Harrison and Marcus Washington? I would say Montrell Estell but he is a senior.

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

1 minute ago, UDontKnow said:

Which WRs? Dajon Harrison and Marcus Washington? I would say Montrell Estell but he is a senior.

I don't think Estelle because he is a senior.

 

I think the two could come from this list:

 

Jake Smith

Al'Vonte Woodard

Marcus Washington

Dajon Harrison

 

 

I think once the reality of the fall depth chart sets in is when kids will make their decision. Especially in a room that has so many bodies but no skins on the wall.

 

 

 

[texifornia 59016]

Familiar name

 

[closetojumping 65424]

The ideas that "Sark anticipated more talent" and "this will be a tougher schedule" are plants from the AD spin machine to anyone who will listen and print it. That's it and nothing more. Reporters still have a responsibility to read and consider what they actually type out before posting, don't they? It's fucking obnoxious. 

People who actually know members of the staff and have spent time with them since the spring are all separately saying the same things - "they were surprised by the overall talent and depth, outside of WR and LB" across the board. They think they can be a top 10 team this season if one or both of the QBs continues to develop and can handle the pressures in an actual game. 

[Sgt. Slaughter 2900]

Just now, closetojumping said:

People who actually know members of the staff and have spent time with them since the spring are all separately saying the same things - "they were surprised by the overall talent and depth, outside of WR and LB" across the board. They think they can be a top 10 team this season if one or both of the QBs continues to develop and can handle the pressures in an actual game. 

How do I know this isn’t AD spin machine?

[Bevo 13892]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I thought he was from Mississippi.

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

I thought he was from Mississippi.

Went to Bama out of HS, then transferred to GA this spring.

[Bevo 13892]

11 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Went to Bama out of HS, then transferred to GA this spring.

Thanks. I guess the dude is collecting bags.

[closetojumping 65424]

36 minutes ago, Sgt. Slaughter said:

How do I know this isn’t AD spin machine?

In a serious reply, just ask yourself who benefits from that kind of spin out of the AD. It wouldn't be the new football staff. If the AD starts spinning that kind of info, they're trying to put someone on the hot seat. 

[WinningIsHard 4171]

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I don't think Estelle because he is a senior.

 

I think the two could come from this list:

 

Jake Smith

Al'Vonte Woodard

Marcus Washington

Dajon Harrison

 

 

I think once the reality of the fall depth chart sets in is when kids will make their decision. Especially in a room that has so many bodies but no skins on the wall.

 

 

 

Jake Smith should benefit from the new strength and conditioning program correct? I think if he plays at a lighter weight he can be a pretty decent threat underneath. 

[BurntOrange&White 41862]

1 minute ago, WinningIsHard said:

Jake Smith should benefit from the new strength and conditioning program correct? I think if he plays at a lighter weight he can be a pretty decent threat underneath. 

Does S&C make stone hands better or worse?

[Bevo 13892]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Does S&C make stone hands better or worse?

Jake Smith doesn't have stone hands. He was very reliable earlier in his career.

[WinningIsHard 4171]

5 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Does S&C make stone hands better or worse?

I think he had one drop last year but no I don't believe lifting weights and running cures stone hands man. It should allow him to play at a weight he's comfortable with though which could possibly result in some decent production. Are you pulling a reverse katfid here? 

[HtownHorn 15236]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Jake Smith doesn't have stone hands. He was very reliable earlier in his career.

Yeah no shit. I think everyone remembers the big drop against TCU that was likely a TD, and is wish casting. But he had some big time catches his 1st 2 seasons.

[SquishMitten 10497]

Does S&C make stone hands better or worse?

He doesn’t have stone hands

[SA-KC_Horn 1298]

25 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

He doesn’t have stone hands

Ok....he has

[texifornia 59016]

 

[Ricky's one-hitter 9622]

[Napoleon 8832]

1 hour ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

 

Lick my balls ⚽️ ⚽️ 👈

[Machinator 32103]

 

[Machinator 32103]

Here's the article.

Spoiler

Mack Brown huddled up with his recruiting coordinator this offseason, trying to do the math. But the math is hard, and not just for the head coach at North Carolina. Every FBS program is dealing with the same numbers crunch.

Roster management is the main topic on a lot of coaches’ minds this summer, the first offseason of what has been touted as a new era of college football free agency. The NCAA changed its rules in April, permitting all athletes to transfer once and play right away, but it hasn’t made it any easier for coaches to replace those departures.

“If you have three running backs leave this time of year who all get mad or if you have two quarterbacks leave, it’s too late to replace them,” Brown said.

There’s no limit to how many players a program could lose to the transfer portal in one offseason. There remains a strict limit on how many signees these programs can add to make up for what they’ve lost: 25 scholarship players. It’s a basic problem with no obvious, mutually agreeable solution. Brown and his peers in the coaching profession say it’s time for change, but no legislation is imminent and it’s possible the NCAA will go an entire legislative cycle without addressing the issue.

Coaches see a clear problem, but they do not have the power to fix it.

“There’s no question the most challenging thing right now in college football for head coaches is roster management,” Louisville coach Scott Satterfield said. “I mean, it’s insane what’s happening right now.”

It’s a perfect storm, with multiple factors overlapping to cause a very particular type of chaos. The hard cap of 25 initial counters (signees) schools can add each year, established in 2012, already made it difficult to effectively replace not just those who graduate but all players who exit the program via the portal, the NFL Draft or medical retirement. The increasing ease and popularity of transferring is only exacerbating the problem. And the extra year of eligibility all football players were granted due to the pandemic, as welcome as it may be, is making the roster accounting trickier. The grumbling has grown quite loud in coaching circles this offseason.

Power 5 programs have lost an average of 12 players to the portal since the current cycle started last October. This level of attrition is becoming standard. It’s no longer reserved for those in the middle of coaching transitions. It’s not even necessarily an indictment of issues within a program.

“Maybe it’s just because they’re the second-team guy, and they want to be the starter,” Kansas State coach Klieman said. “Maybe it’s because they’re the fourth-team guy and they thought they could be the backup. It is what it is. But unless we are able to replace some of those guys, everybody’s rosters are gonna just keep turning over all the time, and you can only get so many walk-ons to come in and try to earn those scholarships.”

As these programs work to finalize their rosters over the summer, there are still more than 1,000 FBS scholarship players listed as active in the portal. That problematic imbalance of supply and demand has existed since the portal’s inception, and nothing is being done to improve it. Coaches wish they could.

“They’ve opened the output valve and made it easier for kids to leave. But they haven’t opened the input valve,” Wake Forest coach Dave Clawson said. “If you’re going to lose nine, 10, 11 kids per year, how are you possibly going to have a full roster ever again once we get back to 85?”

Last February, three NCAA legislative proposals to change signing limits had made enough progress that they were ready to be voted on. All three were put on the back-burner two months later, officially tabled as pandemic-related problems took priority.

West Virginia athletic director Shane Lyons, the chair of the Division I Football Oversight Committee, senses there’s not much momentum right now to revisit and potentially resolve this issue.

No consensus exists among coaches on how ideally to make this fix, so the three proposals tabled last spring tried to attack this topic in different ways. The Big 12 and MAC teamed up and put forward a basic solution: Let schools sign up to 30 players in a single year while still obeying a limit of 50 signees in a rolling two-year period. Former Kansas athletic director Jeff Long led the charge on this within his conference in an effort to help bail out the struggling Jayhawks, who have been well under the 85-man limit ever since Charlie Weis’ tenure.

The ACC’s proposal would have allowed programs to replace every player who enters the draft or medically retires. Clawson and his fellow ACC coaches felt that focusing on those two groups of outgoing players — and not outgoing transfers — would hopefully prevent coaches from running off players just to dip into the portal to upgrade at their positions.

The AAC’s proposal called for letting programs gain additional initial counters to replace any signee who doesn’t make it in, whether they get released from their national letter of intent, choose not to attend the school or have their scholarship pulled. It’s no dramatic change, but it would help ensure schools end up with full recruiting classes.

As coaches wait for reform of any kind so they can start signing more players, some are finding they must change their approach to recruiting now. At Kansas State, Klieman has talked about signing eight to 10 transfers a year going forward. He argues that’s necessary until they’re granted more initial counters, because he needs to plan ahead in case key players depart in the summer and he cannot replace them. Multiple coaches said they’re planning to do the same as part of their roster-building philosophy. Overreliance on transfers can create a self-propelling cycle, too, because bringing in an impact player at a certain position can lead to departures behind him. Then in response, that staff might need to find another plug-and-play guy.

“We’re gonna do what we have to do to build our football team,” said Michigan State coach Mel Tucker, who added 12 Power 5 transfers this offseason and doesn’t hesitate to compare the one-time transfer rule to its counterpart systems in the pros. “The purpose of recruiting is to improve your team, just like the purpose of the draft and free agency is to improve your team.”

The timing of these player exits matters a great deal. The spike of transfer activity in December and January is never unexpected, and coaches have plenty of time to search for high school, junior college and transfer players who can fill the void. But it’s the second round of departures — almost 300 scholarship players have entered the portal since the start of April — that leave them with much less room for solutions.

Even Stanford coach David Shaw, whose program has no scholarship players available in the portal right now, is concerned about the damage these late departures can do to a team’s chances of success.

“We’re in a position where any school, any team, after spring football can get dismantled,” Shaw said. “Anybody can have 10 guys walk off your team after spring football, and now you can’t recruit those. To me, the bigger issue is you can’t replace those 10 guys unless you pull 10 guys out (of the portal) over the summer, and somehow get them ready without spring football. That puts us in a really, really tough spot.”

Added Pitt coach Pat Narduzzi, “You don’t want anyone going into a season with 70. I don’t think that’s fair.”

This is not just theoretical. It happened at LSU just last season. The Tigers were down to 71 scholarship players at the start of the 2020 season after all the players they lost to the NFL (14 draft picks), transfer portal (six) and opt-outs (three). Add in injuries and a few more departures, and they ended up with fewer than 50 going into their final games of the season. Factor in how many young players they had to play to make up for those departures, and it’s pretty clear why the defending national champs ended up 5-5.

And then there’s Tennessee. Since this current portal cycle began in October, the Vols have had 25 scholarship players put their names in the portal. No Power 5 program has lost more scholarship players to the portal, but Michigan State, Kansas, Mississippi State and Missouri have all lost 20 or more, and two more SEC programs — Auburn and Vanderbilt — are at 19 as they go through coaching transitions.

Bryan Harsin, Auburn’s new coach, would like to see this issue solved in a simple and straightforward way. “Allow the schools the chance to manage their 85,” he argues. “Take the initials out of it. If you lose five, you sign five. If you lose 10, you can sign 10.” If you understand why the 25-man limit was created in the first place, though, it’s clear why others are much more reluctant to embrace that logic.

“You don’t want to have a rule in place that would encourage coaches to run off the average players in their spring training to bring in better ones,” Brown said. “That’s the trouble with adding more initials. Would people be fair, or would they just try to improve their roster by trading up with a better player in the transfer portal?”

Purdue’s Jeff Brohm is actually fine with staying at 25 signees. He believes giving players more freedom to transfer is the right thing to do, and coaches need to focus their attention on treating their players well and with honesty in the hopes that their respect is rewarded with loyalty.

But Brohm admits he also doesn’t want to open up “another big can of worms.” That’s a significant concern that comes with reform.

The NCAA’s annual limit of 25 signees was the result of years of scrutiny around the trend of oversigning in recruiting. The SEC, the most infamous oversigning culprit, was also the conference that led the charge for reform — starting with its “Houston Nutt rule” of 28 signees per year, a strict response to Ole Miss’ head coach signing 37 players in 2009 and joking afterward, “There’s no rule that says we can’t sign 80.” In that context, this limit exists with good reason.

“I never thought that I would say that we should go back and look at the hard cap again, because I think what places were doing before turned my stomach, honestly,” Shaw said. “It was seedy and dishonest, in my opinion.”

Deregulation of the hard cap would undoubtedly make it easier for coaches to embrace full-on roster purges, running off as many underperforming players as they want and restocking with recruits and transfers to get back to 85.

“I don’t want it to be a situation where, OK, every kid you lose, you get a counter back,” Klieman said. “Because everybody will just keep running kids off. That won’t work either.”

Although it makes sense to oppose that from an ethical standpoint, there’s also the competitive consideration. The real threat here in the eyes of coaches isn’t the rebuilding program trying to turn over its roster. It’s the possibility that powerhouses like Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and LSU would start signing 30-40 players a year.

If Nick Saban gets to replace every player he loses to the draft or the portal, for example, his teams just get more loaded. As benevolent as it might be to give struggling programs a better chance of getting back to 85 scholarships, too much roster flexibility threatens to only worsen the gap between the haves and have-nots. A hard cap at 25 assures that Group of 5 programs can get good players who will see the field instead of being buried on the depth chart in, say, Tuscaloosa.

Lyons weighs all of these factors in his reluctance to embrace needing more initial counters. He recalls that, while at the AFCA convention two years ago, the oversight committee specifically raised this issue in a meeting with FBS head coaches. “There may have been three people in the room that supported going to more than 25 at the time,” he said. So when the three proposals reached his committee, he felt there simply “wasn’t a whole lot of support” in the room, and they agreed to take no formal position on supporting or not supporting any of them.

“Do I think the membership is at a point where they’re saying, ‘Hey, we can get 30 a year,’ or stay with the 25 but those who transfer, turn professional or have to (medically retire), you get to replace them?” Lyons said. “I don’t think the membership is there yet.”

Even if that momentum did emerge, the NCAA’s deadline for rules proposals in the upcoming cycle is Nov. 1, and the earliest a proposal could be enacted is January 2022, which falls right in between two signing periods. What is Lyons’ personal preference as an AD? He’d be more comfortable with a minor adjustment, such as allowing 105 signees over a four-year period instead of 100.

No, it’s not much. But he’s not yet sold on the need for big changes. And if his committee isn’t either, change will be hard to come by.

“The membership, from what I’m gathering, they don’t want to be Chicken Little here and say the sky is falling, we’ve got to change something immediately,” Lyons said. “The NCAA has always been criticized for the lack of flexibility and movement and all that, but when do you make a move? Is this really an issue or is it just perceptions that these are issues?”

The arrival of the one-time transfer rule and the continued difficulty of addressing attrition aren’t the only challenges that head coaches are up against in this recruiting cycle. They’re also having to confront the fallout of the NCAA’s decision to ensure the 2020 season would not count against any player’s eligibility clock.

The policy was almost universally praised when it passed last August. There were no guarantees at the time that any program would successfully play out its full season in the midst of a pandemic, and it was clear that whatever the players’ experience would be, it would not be close to what they originally signed up for. Although 16 FBS programs managed to play 12 or more games, just as many played five or fewer.

The initial implications of the eligibility freeze were made clear from the start: Seniors who opted to take advantage of their extra season wouldn’t count towards their team’s 85-man scholarship total for the 2021 season. But the extra year was extended to all players, not just seniors. So what about next year?

Lyons confirmed that all players who wish to take advantage of their extra season in the future will have to count towards their team’s 85-man limit. For some programs, this will probably be manageable with typical attrition. For others, it’s going to make for even more of a roster crunch.

At Louisville, Satterfield said he’s currently planning to sign as few as 10 players in his 2021 class to make sure current rostered players can return if they want to, on scholarship. But signing a class that small presents problems. The Cardinals have to be extremely careful and selective with such a small class — they only have two verbal commits right now — because each miss is going to hurt.

“As coaches, we’ve got to decide: Do we bring a guy back for a sixth year? Or do we go recruit and bring in freshmen?” Boston College coach Jeff Hafley said. “Look, there are going to be some hard decisions that have to be made. We’re going to have to make those.”

Because college football ultimately needs to get back to a true 85-man roster, extending the super-senior roster exception another year just delays the inevitable reset, Lyons said. This is the negative fallout from an eligibility freeze that seemed both necessary to attempt a season and intentionally athlete-friendly at the time it was approved last summer.

“I guess the question is, when does it end?” Lyons said. “It’s four or five years of classes. The oversight committee has had thorough discussions and said we get it, but we made it clear up front it was one year and one year only. We’ve got to rip the Band-Aid off at some point.”

And that comes with consequences. Harsin predicts fewer high school players are going to get opportunities because coaches will likely use their few available spots on transfers who have college experience and tape. Talented high school players who would typically land somewhere in the FBS likely end up at FCS schools or junior colleges. Or nowhere at all.

Roster construction has never seemed as complicated as it is today. As frustrating as it’s becoming for these coaches, Satterfield recognizes they’re ultimately not the ones who will suffer.

“Who it’s really going to hurt and affect is the high school player,” he said. “Because if we can’t sign very many players, then obviously for that 2022 class of high school seniors, there’s not going to be very many scholarships to go around. Now, the ones that will benefit will be the lower levels. They’ll benefit because they’re gonna get a better player. But then what’s going to happen? Those guys will go there to play and then go in the portal and transfer to a Power 5.

“We’re creating a bad cycle right now in college football.”

 

[Red Five 41738]

14 in the last eight months seems high, even if it's just the names in the portal and not "losses". Anyone bored enough to list them?

[texifornia 59016]

Lol this kid was supposed to be a lock to follow his recruiter to Michigan, what a shitshow Ann Arbor is

https://247sports.com/player/jay-toia-46055340/

Edited June 9, 2021 by texifornia

[Machinator 32103]

6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

14 in the last eight months seems high, even if it's just the names in the portal and not "losses". Anyone bored enough to list them?

Kennedy Lewis

Epps

Mitchell

Bimage

Reese Moore

Willie Tyler

Jalen Green

Ingram

Alford

JQJ

Daniel Carson

Byron Vaughns

Kenyatta Watson

Adeoye (not a loss, but I can't find a 14th player)

[Red Five 41738]

I had already forgotten about half of those dudes. 

[Blotto 24019]

On 6/7/2021 at 1:50 PM, closetojumping said:

The ideas that "Sark anticipated more talent" and "this will be a tougher schedule" are plants from the AD spin machine to anyone who will listen and print it. That's it and nothing more. Reporters still have a responsibility to read and consider what they actually type out before posting, don't they? It's fucking obnoxious. 

People who actually know members of the staff and have spent time with them since the spring are all separately saying the same things - "they were surprised by the overall talent and depth, outside of WR and LB" across the board. They think they can be a top 10 team this season if one or both of the QBs continues to develop and can handle the pressures in an actual game. 

Not to mention the fact that nobody on our schedule other than OU has what we have in terms of talent. We may have poorly coached talent, but everyone keeps telling me Sark assembled the greatest staff of all time. 

Louisiana
Arkansas
Rice 
Texas Tech 
TCU 
Oklahoma 
Oklahoma State 
Baylor 
Iowa State  
Kansas 
West Virginia 
Kansas State 

10-2 seems reasonable, 9-3 possibly acceptable based on new coaching/schemes etc... Worse than that and we have another shitty coach on our hands. That ain't a tough schedule. Not even close to tough. 

[Ricky's one-hitter 9622]

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Ricky's one-hitter

[Fud 9724]

1 minute ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

 

 

 

I guess that means Jaylon Jones is at outside corner after all 

[Ricky's one-hitter 9622]

3 minutes ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

 

 

 

 

 

[Elmer_Fudd 22993]

19 minutes ago, Fud said:

I guess that means Jaylon Jones is at outside corner after all 

Who's starting at NB?  Young?  They are pretty bleak after Jaylon Jones and Myles Jones.  George didn't look good last year and after that it's Freshmen.

[Fud 9724]

2 minutes ago, Elmer_Fudd said:

Who's starting at NB?  Young?  They are pretty bleak after Jaylon Jones and Myles Jones.  George didn't look good last year and after that it's Freshmen.

Antonio Johnson

And yeah, while this doesn't hurt their first team, it makes them thin at outside corner 

[texifornia 59016]

https://247sports.com/player/tairiq-stewart-46085135/

[Elmer_Fudd 22993]

On 6/1/2021 at 3:09 PM, Machinator said:

 

Ended up at Kentucky.

[texifornia 59016]

31 minutes ago, Elmer_Fudd said:

Ended up at Kentucky.

LOL at the big SEC tattoo. That's some tacky shit.