National Signing Day Coverage | Page 3 | The Boneyard

National Signing Day Coverage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because we are going "full cost of attendance" we had to limit the amount of scholarship players we bring in, at least until we get a P5 offer.:(
 
The extra scholarships are not relevant to this years walk-ons. They might get a scholly next year or the year after. I see no point in holding three open scholly's. Maybe one and that's before any attrition. Hopefully one or two prospects fall through the cracks. I'll just add that it's not terrible at this juncture but leaves us some options while I would have no issue with picking up a player or 2 late. I'd just rather have those guys around sooner getting acclimated to the the program.
 
Last edited:
Excalibur said:
There are enough schollies for a full class and to reward some of the walk-ons.
Expand ...

How do you figure? I don't get it, I really just want to understand.


Here's my reasoning:

We went into the spring according to Diaco with 60 scholarship athletes. (I'm not sure if Davis early signing is included in that 60 or not, but that's moot anyway.)

85 scholarships for fall. 85-60=25 (assuming 0% attrition from spring to fall)

22 of those 25 are accounted for as of today. That leaves 3 scholarships available as of right now for fall. Those 3 scholarships available, is a nice cushion to have. Late signees, awards for PWO players,etc. etc....nice motivational carrot to keep hanging.

Given the fact that players being awarded a PWO status, are actually players that have been studied, rated and recruited - we have 30 players that are joining the program that have been fit to a NLI recruiting cycle and hopefully match the profile of athlete that we want for Diaco's program.

(I honestly don't get the angst against the PWO status - all it means is that the 20 players on the 105 man roster that we go to bat with that aren't getting aid, are the same profile of players that the ones that are getting aid - meaning they were recruited over the same time periods with the same standards and they are expected to play and perform to the same standards - and the scholarships to award those that the coaches deem have earned are - there) How is this a bad thing?

I think having 20 players of the same kind of profile competing to fill 3 scholarships is a much better thing than finding 3 players to fill 3 scholarships with a profile, and then filling up the rest of the roster with tryout players. It's remarkable that Diaco has been able to create that kind of demand at the bottom of end of the roster so quickly. The guy can sell his program for sure.

He's got to win games in the fall, when the wins count though.

So seriously, if you don't mind trying to explain, I'd like to know what your reasoning is to why we failed to fill this class.
 
It looks like UConn only has 11 players on the roster who are scheduled to use up their eligibility next year. Plus, you have to figure 3 to 5 spots may open up, so you are not looking at a big class next year, especially if you use some for PWOs at the end of the season. Thus, I think Diaco wants some flexibility for next year with a couple of extra scholarships.

Also, maybe they are leaving a spot for a JUCO or transfer QB.
 
Jimdish255 said:
The extra scholarships are not relevant to this years walk-ons. They might get a scholly next year or the year after. I see no point in holding three open scholly's. Maybe one and that's before any attrition. Hopefully one or two prospects fall through the cracks. I'll just add that it's not terrible at this juncture but leaves us some options while I would have no issue with picking up a player or 2 late.
Expand ...

Some players may have stipulations as prefered walking that if they hit certain measurables over the next few months, then they will be awarded scholarships for this season. I'm not sure on the exact rules for this though. I know one player said that if he gains 25 more lbs over the next year that he will earn the scholarship.
 
Absolutely pumped about David Ruskin and William Richards from our Nation's capitol!
 
.-.
Carl Spackler said:
How do you figure? I don't get it, I really just want to understand.


Here's my reasoning:

We went into the spring according to Diaco with 60 scholarship athletes. (I'm not sure if Davis early signing is included in that 60 or not, but that's moot anyway.)

85 scholarships for fall. 85-60=25 (assuming 0% attrition from spring to fall)

22 of those 25 are accounted for as of today. That leaves 3 scholarships available as of right now for fall. Those 3 scholarships available, is a nice cushion to have. Late signees, awards for PWO players,etc. etc....nice motivational carrot to keep hanging.

Given the fact that players being awarded a PWO status, are actually players that have been studied, rated and recruited - we have 30 players that are joining the program that have been fit to a NLI recruiting cycle and hopefully match the profile of athlete that we want for Diaco's program.

(I honestly don't get the angst against the PWO status - all it means is that the 20 players on the 105 man roster that we go to bat with that aren't getting aid, are the same profile of players that the ones that are getting aid - meaning they were recruited over the same time periods with the same standards and they are expected to play and perform to the same standards - and the scholarships to award those that the coaches deem have earned are - there) How is this a bad thing?

I think having 20 players of the same kind of profile competing to fill 3 scholarships is a much better thing than finding 3 players to fill 3 scholarships with a profile, and then filling up the rest of the roster with tryout players. It's remarkable that Diaco has been able to create that kind of demand at the bottom of end of the roster so quickly. The guy can sell his program for sure.

He's got to win games in the fall, when the wins count though.

So seriously, if you don't mind trying to explain, I'd like to know what your reasoning is to why we failed to fill this class.
Expand ...

He told those 8 PWO's that they were not worthy of a scholarship on day 1, thus the designation. So, he either

1) Was not able to recruit enough players that were so worthy, or
2) is deliberately leaving 3 (likely more since an assumed attrition rate of zero is not realistic) scholarships unfilled.

It is what it is, a class with less than 25 players deemed worthy of a scholarship offer.
 
I know the rankings are subjective but its frustrating to see the Top 15 recruits in CT all committing to programs that aren't UConn (I'm going by the ESPN list of rankings: Wilkins, Clark, Palazzolo, Harris, Harris, Miller, Grice, Allen, Adams, Ginnetti, Giudice, Yerardi, Driscoll, Graves). Wilkins and Clark are understandable b/c they are nationally ranked but the others are committing to BCU, Cuse, even UMass. Would love to see the coaching staff make some in-roads here.
 
Sportsman5 said:
Some players may have stipulations as prefered walking that if they hit certain measurables over the next few months, then they will be awarded scholarships for this season. I'm not sure on the exact rules for this though. I know one player said that if he gains 25 more lbs over the next year that he will earn the scholarship.
Expand ...

I like the idea of giving them a clear path with attainable goals. This new group of PWO's has the potential to contribute down the road.
 
Looks like a nice class with a lot of potential. Only concern is we saw how well the kids were coached up last year. Lets hope things turn and Crazy Bobby has a plan other than a better diet, good vibes and motivational music.
 
.-.
Anyone trying to watch this video of the presser?? Its not loading for me... and I couldn't make it to the Burton.
 
Dynasty said:
B9A0VfMIQAAPd1M.jpg
Expand ...

Peddie school? I would thought he'd be a PSU signee.

[CL82 apologizes to everyone offended by this post. He is quite sure that his account was hacked..or something.]
 
.-.
I hope Nolan Ulizio, the OL from Ohio has a good time ridin' the pine at Michigan... And USF can have Livingstone, looks undersized anyway... I like this recruiting class. The big size factor is great, and def want we need, especially on offense!
 
Excalibur said:
He told those 8 PWO's that they were not worthy of a scholarship on day 1, thus the designation. So, he either

1) Was not able to recruit enough players that were so worthy, or
2) is deliberately leaving 3 (likely more since an assumed attrition rate of zero is not realistic) scholarships unfilled.

It is what it is, a class with less than 25 players deemed worthy of a scholarship offer.
Expand ...

Right. People leave all of the time. I would expect that a PWO would take a scholarship that "opens up", not one that was never filled. I don't think any of us are against PWOs, but I'd rather fill my scholarship allotment up. If we are holding 3 for potential transfers etc then fine. But I don't think we achieved the goal. I don't think it is a catastrophe either. But we had 2 kids walk late. Had they stayed we would have been at 24. So we can't say that we held 3 back on purpose.

It has been discussed that the PWOs are guaranteed to make the 105 man roster. So we don't need to allocate any scholarships to them, at least not in their first year - presumably they are willing and able to pay for year 1. In my mind, if we are going to give a PWO a scholarship (and I'm 100% in favor of doing so when the time is right), I wouldn't do it before their first game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THC
At the XL center. Press conference and diaco interview with joe D on big screen. Highly impressed.
 
tayjlaw said:
I know the rankings are subjective but its frustrating to see the Top 15 recruits in CT all committing to programs that aren't UConn (I'm going by the ESPN list of rankings: Wilkins, Clark, Palazzolo, Harris, Harris, Miller, Grice, Allen, Adams, Ginnetti, Giudice, Yerardi, Driscoll, Graves). Wilkins and Clark are understandable b/c they are nationally ranked but the others are committing to BCU, Cuse, even UMass. Would love to see the coaching staff make some in-roads here.
Expand ...
Top ranked CT talent and they committed to UMass. What's that tell you? They weren't good enough to play anywhere at a higher level?
 
Its too bad Warde didn't know when National signing day was when he was putting together the basketball and hockey schedules. If the NCAA didn't keep it a secret, he probalby wouldn't have scheduled both teams in HOME games today. Like last year when Louisville scheduled a game at UCONN for opening night for the basketball team. Too bad they didn't tell Warde they were doing that. He wouldn't have scheduled against himself. Do they need an Assistant AD at Hofstra do you think?
 
.-.
J187Money said:
Right. People leave all of the time. I would expect that a PWO would take a scholarship that "opens up", not one that was never filled. I don't think any of us are against PWOs, but I'd rather fill my scholarship allotment up. If we are holding 3 for potential transfers etc then fine. But I don't think we achieved the goal. I don't think it is a catastrophe either. But we had 2 kids walk late. Had they stayed we would have been at 24. So we can't say that we held 3 back on purpose.

It has been discussed that the PWOs are guaranteed to make the 105 man roster. So we don't need to allocate any scholarships to them, at least not in their first year - presumably they are willing and able to pay for year 1. In my mind, if we are going to give a PWO a scholarship (and I'm 100% in favor of doing so when the time is right), I wouldn't do it before their first game.
Expand ...

You're talking about one that got a Michigan offer. Any 17 yo in his shoes would do the same thing, especially when their current recruiting class was at 6-8 commits at the time. As medic mentioned earlier in another thread, Livingstone was a lucky grab. UAB closes down, he got along with the staff at UConn and made a quick decision to assure a scholarship. A school closer to home comes calling, and he flips. They didn't walk, and the staff surely didn't let them walk. They made the best decision for them at least in their mind and their families mind.
 
Good start didn't lose anyone we didn't already know was lost. I don't think this is a bad start recruiting wise. Time to grow...and win.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,366
Messages
4,568,069
Members
10,471
Latest member
EO2004


Top Bottom