Jump to content

Recruiting Update 1/31/22


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BillySee58 said:

The Murphy twins’ departure makes me feel far less confident in this. Those were huge losses. That being said, offensively we lose Torrey, Brammer, and Pirtle but get back Adaway, Shorter, and Bush. Our running game will be just fine and our passing game should be much improved. 

The main reason I feel like our passing game will be improved is that we are swapping two QBs who struggled to complete 50% of their passes with a QB who completed 65.8% of his passes as a freshman at the FCS level. Even if you concede that his completion percentage takes a dip with a move up in competition, it can take a dip and still be substantially better than what we had. Stone Earle had a higher completion percentage as a freshman last season than Zappe ever had at the FCS level. Obviously not saying he’s Zappe, but the point is he is on a really high trajectory and seemingly already playing at a step above what we had on the field last year.

Defense I am much more concerned with the loss of the Murphy twins. But you still have some really good players on that side of the ball and a second year in the system, I don’t think it’s that outrageous to imagine us holding teams to 27.5 points/game like we did last year. Definitely could benefit from adding some solid pass rusher between now and the season starting but Rod Brown looks like a young star.

I am expecting 7-5 next year at the moment. Which is not catastrophic in and of itself. My whole point is that the bigger concerns, IMO, are down the road beyond 2022. Which you could argue would be amplified by Littrell doing just good enough to hang onto his job as we head into the AAC.

If you are talking still about HS kids I would agree. As Lane Kiffin is showing the transfer signees can make a difference now instead of a kid we have to red shirt and develop. Lane was 10th ranking in early commits. He is ranked number 1 with the transfer class.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

If you are talking still about HS kids I would agree. As Lane Kiffin is showing the transfer signees can make a difference now instead of a kid we have to red shirt and develop. Lane was 10th ranking in early commits. He is ranked number 1 with the transfer class.

I’m talking about being a G5 school signing P5 transfers who haven’t actually played D1 football. P5 players who have never gotten off the bench have the same experience as High School recruits so I reject the idea that they are more of a sure thing. 

Now if you’re Ole Miss and you’re signing players in the portal who actually have FBS starting experience, I definitely agree those players are more of a sure thing than high school recruits. The players we are North Texas are signing from P5s (Ruder, Rucker, John Davis, Tommy Bush, etc.) are not exactly more of a sure thing than HS recruits because they haven’t proven it at the D1 level either.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, greenminer said:

I have this wild belief that Bennett Year 2 will tell a story of an even more cohesive unit.

But I also have no idea if it will be enough to offset the loss of the Murph twins.

...and Novil, & Tyreke, & Sanders, & Colvin.    Even though only a few guys are leaving, they were all impact guys.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BillySee58 said:

I’m talking about being a G5 school signing P5 transfers who haven’t actually played D1 football. P5 players who have never gotten off the bench have the same experience as High School recruits so I reject the idea that they are more of a sure thing. 

Now if you’re Ole Miss and you’re signing players in the portal who actually have FBS starting experience, I definitely agree those players are more of a sure thing than high school recruits. The players we are North Texas are signing from P5s (Ruder, Rucker, John Davis, Tommy Bush, etc.) are not exactly more of a sure thing than HS recruits because they haven’t proven it at the D1 level either.

You are living in the past which makes no sense. It is changing quickly. Head would be an example of what I hope for in the future. I would much rather have a 2 year P5 guy that has gone through the experience and is physically develop from P5 training than a HS kid. I would also look at FCS kids. GMG 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

You are living in the past which makes no sense. It is changing quickly. Head would be an example of what I hope for in the future. I would much rather have a 2 year P5 guy that has gone through the experience and is physically develop from P5 training than a HS kid. I would also look at FCS kids. GMG 

You're showing your ignorance here.   
There is no way this is a sustainable model.   You only get 25 scholarships to award each year.   If you give them all to guys who will only be here 1-2 years, you're going to run extremely low on roster spots after these rental players start graduating in a few short years.   You must build on high school recruits.

Also, I find it even more comical that you're telling one of the most knowledgeable recruiting guys posting here on gmg.com that he's "living in the past".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

You're showing your ignorance here.   
There is no way this is a sustainable model.   You only get 25 scholarships to award each year.   If you give them all to guys who will only be here 1-2 years, you're going to run extremely low on roster spots after these rental players start graduating in a few short years.   You must build on high school recruits.

Also, I find it even more comical that you're telling one of the most knowledgeable recruiting guys posting here on gmg.com that he's "living in the past".

Well thanks genius! I’m not saying the entire class but a larger portion than in the past! How many years did we have the twins? This will continue to be an issue for HS signees! The transfer portal has exploded this year and will continue to do so and as was posted there are 400 fewer HS signees this period. Why? I have always highly valued Billy, we just disagree on where to spend time and dollars on recruiting in the future.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

You're showing your ignorance here.   
There is no way this is a sustainable model.   You only get 25 scholarships to award each year.   If you give them all to guys who will only be here 1-2 years, you're going to run extremely low on roster spots after these rental players start graduating in a few short years.   You must build on high school recruits.

Also, I find it even more comical that you're telling one of the most knowledgeable recruiting guys posting here on gmg.com that he's "living in the past".

I'm not recruiting expert, but if you reload every year with 1-2 year players how do you run out of roster spots?  It seems we are already in the era of having players for only a portion of their total eligibility, be it 1, 2 or 3 years before they try to peddle their skills elsewhere.  Red-shirting a high school player just to have them leave through the portal after 1 or 2 good years on the field is going to get expensive isn't it?  Personally, I think we should be looking at high school players that can play right away and do away with red-shirting.  Make a commitment to the parents that their kids will play and graduate with a degree in 4-years.  Being a development league for the P5 is not very appealing to me.

  • Upvote 3
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, keith said:

I'm not recruiting expert, but if you reload every year with 1-2 year players how do you run out of roster spots?  It seems we are already in the era of having players for only a portion of their total eligibility, be it 1, 2 or 3 years before they try to peddle their skills elsewhere.  Red-shirting a high school player just to have them leave through the portal after 1 or 2 good years on the field is going to get expensive isn't it?  Personally, I think we should be looking at high school players that can play right away and do away with red-shirting.  Make a commitment to the parents that their kids will play and graduate with a degree in 4-years.  Being a development league for the P5 is not very appealing to me.

giphy.gif
Someone should alert Luke about this.

  • Haha 2
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, keith said:

I'm not recruiting expert, but if you reload every year with 1-2 year players how do you run out of roster spots?  It seems we are already in the era of having players for only a portion of their total eligibility, be it 1, 2 or 3 years before they try to peddle their skills elsewhere.  Red-shirting a high school player just to have them leave through the portal after 1 or 2 good years on the field is going to get expensive isn't it?  Personally, I think we should be looking at high school players that can play right away and do away with red-shirting.  Make a commitment to the parents that their kids will play and graduate with a degree in 4-years.  Being a development league for the P5 is not very appealing to me.

Here’s an example. We currently have 27 players who will have Sophomore eligibility next year. Let’s say next class we go transfer heavy and sign 10 more players with the same eligibility, then 5 more with the same eligibility the year after that. Now that’s 42 scholarship players set to leave at once. Say 10 or so transfer out so by the time they are all actually seniors there are 32 left.

You go into the 2024 season with 85 scholarship players, with 32 scholarship seniors. After the season ends you lose those 32 players to graduation, plus another 12 scholarship players to the portal or quitting college football (pretty standard). Now you only have 41 returning scholarship players, and your signing class is capped at 25 spots to fill the rest of your roster. Now, even with a full class, you’re sitting at 66 scholarship players for the next season. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

You're showing your ignorance here.   
There is no way this is a sustainable model.  

 

Bring in 25 P5 transfers with 2 years eligiblity

or

Bring in 25 hs kids. half dont play then hit the portal.

 

The latter isn't a sustainable model either

  • Upvote 4
  • Ray 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheReal_jayD said:

Bring in 25 P5 transfers with 2 years eligiblity

or

Bring in 25 hs kids. half dont play then hit the portal.

 

The latter isn't a sustainable model either

One GUARANTEES a scholarship shortage.
The other depends on if the players believe in the coaches.

  • Upvote 3
  • RV 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

Here’s an example. We currently have 27 players who will have Sophomore eligibility next year. Let’s say next class we go transfer heavy and sign 10 more players with the same eligibility, then 5 more with the same eligibility the year after that. Now that’s 42 scholarship players set to leave at once. Say 10 or so transfer out so by the time they are all actually seniors there are 32 left.

You go into the 2024 season with 85 scholarship players, with 32 scholarship seniors. After the season ends you lose those 32 players to graduation, plus another 12 scholarship players to the portal or quitting college football (pretty standard). Now you only have 41 returning scholarship players, and your signing class is capped at 25 spots to fill the rest of your roster. Now, even with a full class, you’re sitting at 66 scholarship players for the next season. 

I think one thing that makes a little difference in your assumptions is I Believe by next year there will be more than 25 scholarships allowed per year to make up for transfers

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I think one thing that makes a little difference in your assumptions is I Believe by next year there will be more than 25 scholarships allowed per year to make up for transfers

Definitely, if/once that actually is voted on and passes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If memory serves we have ranked high in CUSA recruiting rankings for the past few years. However we have not been able to turn our recruiting success into wins on the field. Perhaps the best way for G 5's to go is follow SMU down the transfer portal as it certainly has worked for them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Puking Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 2:28 AM, MeanGreenTexan said:

One GUARANTEES a scholarship shortage.
The other depends on if the players believe in the coaches.

Neither are 100% true and we aren’t talking about absolutes either. “Believing” in the coach isn’t going to stop a kid from taking an offer from USC or Penn St and the accompanying NIL and draft potential. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.