New 2019 UConn Football roster up | Page 3 | The Boneyard

New 2019 UConn Football roster up

I blame Scheme

Sure. The tackling notably sucked. And it wasn’t just Hahn. But too often, you had a talented playmaker just openly running in space. CBs & LBs looked silly chasing. And that DLine - all puppies - didn’t provide much resistance. And it seemed like we could do nothing. Nothing to heal our fragile structure in struggles.
 
BlueDogs said:
Hate to single him out, but the kid was just god awful at LB. I don’t think there is much you can do to improve a guy that just doesn’t have any instinct or feel for the position.
Expand ...
It was very difficult to watch.
 
whaler11 said:
Who is the 25 signee rule supposed to benefit?

Let’s create fewer opportunities for kids and also let a ton of kids langish in the transfer portal!

Brilliant stuff.
Expand ...

I think it’s the constraint

If you don’t have the 25 signee rule, the Alabama of the World will sign 45
 
whaler11 said:
Who is the 25 signee rule supposed to benefit?

Let’s create fewer opportunities for kids and also let a ton of kids langish in the transfer portal!

Brilliant stuff.
Expand ...
I fully expect the rule to be gutted in the next two years. A certain number of transfers and grads should be exempted per season.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
You can’t sign past 85 would seem to fix that.
Expand ...
Believe it or not, the 25 rule benefits the players. First, think about this. In a five year cycle, you can sign 125 players (assuming redshirts), but the roster can only be 85, so you can have 40 kids leave the program, or 8 per year (33% attrition) and still be at 85.

If teams were allowed to sign as many players as they wanted, you would see kids pushed out of programs on a large scale, especially when there is a coaching change. The rule forces coaches to try to keep and develop some kids that they could probably replace with either new recruits or transfers. Ole Miss signed 38 kids in 2009 (although not all made it to campus), but that meant kids on the roster had to be pushed off scholarship.

What the transfer portal has done is make the transfer process more transparent as previously transfers were negotiated through back channels. The problem with the portal is kids are denouncing their current scholarship without a landing spot. Kids think that since they were heavily recruited as high school athletes that they will be highly sought after as transfers and it has never worked that way as there are reasons why kids transfer.

One last point on the portal. Most of the kids in the football portal are walk ons looking for a school to offer a scholarship which makes sense.
 
UConnJim said:
Believe it or not, the 25 rule benefits the players. First, think about this. In a five year cycle, you can sign 125 players (assuming redshirts), but the roster can only be 85, so you can have 40 kids leave the program, or 8 per year (33% attrition) and still be at 85.

If teams were allowed to sign as many players as they wanted, you would see kids pushed out of programs on a large scale, especially when there is a coaching change. The rule forces coaches to try to keep and develop some kids that they could probably replace with either new recruits or transfers. Ole Miss signed 38 kids in 2009 (although not all made it to campus), but that meant kids on the roster had to be pushed off scholarship.

What the transfer portal has done is make the transfer process more transparent as previously transfers were negotiated through back channels. The problem with the portal is kids are denouncing their current scholarship without a landing spot. Kids think that since they were heavily recruited as high school athletes that they will be highly sought after as transfers and it has never worked that way as there are reasons why kids transfer.

One last point on the portal. Most of the kids in the football portal are walk ons looking for a school to offer a scholarship which makes sense.
Expand ...

who is saying to let them sign whatever they want?

it’s dumb to have teams 6 scholarships short because SEC teams screw kids.

if you give kids one free pass to transfer and only allow teams to have 85 kids signed the market will solve itself.
 
whaler11 said:
who is saying to let them sign whatever they want?

it’s dumb to have teams 6 scholarships short because SEC teams screw kids.

if you give kids one free pass to transfer and only allow teams to have 85 kids signed the market will solve itself.
Expand ...
It wasn’t just the SEC that signed large classes before the new rules set in. Schools from ACC, PAC 12, Big 12, Big East,... did it. Kids were aggressively pushed out in the past to make room.

And, there will be close to 85 kids on scholarship as walk ons that have been with the program for at least 2 years can be granted a scholarship that doesn’t count against the 25 rule and a scholarship can be for just one year.
 
UConnJim said:
It wasn’t just the SEC that signed large classes before the new rules set in. Schools from ACC, PAC 12, Big 12, Big East,... did it. Kids were aggressively pushed out in the past to make room.

And, there will be close to 85 kids on scholarship as walk ons that have been with the program for at least 2 years can be granted a scholarship that doesn’t count against the 25 rule and a scholarship can be for just one year.
Expand ...

god forbid there just be simple fair rules instead of this idiocy that has teams playing down 5-6 scholarships because kids are too dumb to count.

yeah giving temporary scholarships to unproductive walkons really helps make uconn competitive in the future.

as of today they are effectively down 8 scholarship players and no one has even gotten hurt yet in camp.

and some people are going to be surprised when they are life and death with Wagner
 
.-.
I’d argue you’ll yield a few Walk On productivity players per year. A solid Program effectively uses these kids. The dynamics of our state & New England tells me that we can produce stars and some solid roster plugs this way.
 
Da_Aisijimo_Gou said:
Alternatively, maybe the vast majority of I-AA schools losing money may prefer to avoid compounding their losses.
Expand ...

please stop, please. Schools are not losing money because they have an athletics program. My kid plays 1-AA football and gets aid. you know what the school does to offset it? They charge their "students" more. The tuition is not set absent the scholarships/expenses. They don't lose $$ giving aid. Bama doesn't, UConn doesn't, Podunk U doesn't. If they eliminated football (Bama aside), one might reasonably demand a reduction in tuition. We need to stop the craziness around how schools account for their athletic dept.
 
gioff2323 said:
please stop, please. Schools are not losing money because they have an athletics program. My kid plays 1-AA football ... blah, blah, blah
Expand ...
Please stop, even your message directly acknowledges additional athletic scholarship costs have a direct-resulting impact on university operations and potentially normal students’ tuition costs.
 
Last edited:
huskymedic said:
Took me a while to find where I had dumped this... Jeff Long agrees.
Expand ...
we'd probably benefit a little from something like this, BUT, we still need to get over a few hurdles so we can get a few more impact recruits (one of which most agree won't happen anytime soon - a campus stadium)
 
.-.
ktuck911 said:
we'd probably benefit a little from something like this, BUT, we still need to get over a few hurdles so we can get a few more impact recruits (one of which most agree won't happen anytime soon - a campus stadium)
Expand ...

having 85 scholarship players is better than 79 even if you play your home games on mars
 
whaler11 said:
who is saying to let them sign whatever they want?

it’s dumb to have teams 6 scholarships short because SEC teams screw kids.

if you give kids one free pass to transfer and only allow teams to have 85 kids signed the market will solve itself.
Expand ...
Completely agree here
 
whaler11 said:
having 85 scholarship players is better than 79 even if you play your home games on mars
Expand ...
I don't think the UConn football scholarship situation is an issue. Sure, 85 is better than 79, but the new rules on redshirting mean that you can play the freshmen in 4 games and still redshirt them which means you have more depth than you did in the past. In the past, if you had a roster of 85 and were redshirting 20, it meant that your active roster was 65.

UConn is not the only school with this issue and there will be many teams without 85 scholarship players this year. Kansas may have 68 scholarship players in 2019 and it may take until the 2022 season to get back to 85. The tis how bad the roster was managed with JUCOs, coaching turnover,... UConn will be back to 85 in 2020.

How did UConn get into this situation? It really goes back to 2014 to 2016 when UConn only signed 54 kids over a 3 year time frame. (I'm not counting some transfers in, but the point is the same.) That is way too few players to sign in a 3 year period as there is going to be roster attrition. Clearly, another one of Diaco's flaws was roster management. Some will argue there was too much roster turnover this year, but only one player was probably going to start this year.
 
UConnJim said:
I don't think the UConn football scholarship situation is an issue. Sure, 85 is better than 79, but the new rules on redshirting mean that you can play the freshmen in 4 games and still redshirt them which means you have more depth than you did in the past. In the past, if you had a roster of 85 and were redshirting 20, it meant that your active roster was 65.

UConn is not the only school with this issue and there will be many teams without 85 scholarship players this year. Kansas may have 68 scholarship players in 2019 and it may take until the 2022 season to get back to 85. The tis how bad the roster was managed with JUCOs, coaching turnover,... UConn will be back to 85 in 2020.

How did UConn get into this situation? It really goes back to 2014 to 2016 when UConn only signed 54 kids over a 3 year time frame. (I'm not counting some transfers in, but the point is the same.) That is way too few players to sign in a 3 year period as there is going to be roster attrition. Clearly, another one of Diaco's flaws was roster management. Some will argue there was too much roster turnover this year, but only one player was probably going to start this year.
Expand ...

it’s the worst team in the country and you don’t think playing down 8 scholarships on day 1 of camp is an issue?

thats some galaxy brain stuff right there
 
Da_Aisijimo_Gou said:
Please stop, even your message directly acknowledges additional athletic scholarship costs have a direct-resulting impact on university operations and potentially normal students’ tuition costs.
Expand ...

Here we go - my argument failed, so let me change it. Yes, ANY freaking cost, athletic or otherwise, has an impact on operations/costs. My 9 y.o. knows that. That's not what you said - what you did say say was many were losing money by supporting football - which is patently false.
 
gioff2323 said:
Here we go - my argument failed, so let me change it. Yes, ANY freaking cost, athletic or otherwise, has an impact on operations/costs.
Expand ...
Semantics, you keep thinking there’s no resulting losses and we’ll agree to disagree.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
Who is the 25 signee rule supposed to benefit?

Let’s create fewer opportunities for kids and also let a ton of kids langish in the transfer portal!

Brilliant stuff.
Expand ...

The reason is to protect players already in the program from being pushed out. There is fear -- not ridiculous -- that if you allow a coach to bring in as many players as they can each year, as long as they keep under 85 in total, every player not a star will be recruited over and have their schollies pulled.

If schools couldn't pull schollies except where there is cause, then the limit would be dumb.
 
businesslawyer said:
The reason is to protect players already in the program from being pushed out. There is fear -- not ridiculous -- that if you allow a coach to bring in as many players as they can each year, as long as they keep under 85 in total, every player not a star will be recruited over and have their schollies pulled.

If schools couldn't pull schollies except where there is cause, then the limit would be dumb.
Expand ...

and coaches that pull scholarships will get buried in recruiting. like i said the market solves it, all the ncaa does is make things worse with their lame efforts to legislate behavior.
 
whaler11 said:
and coaches that pull scholarships will get buried in recruiting. like i said the market solves it, all the ncaa does is make things worse with their lame efforts to legislate behavior.
Expand ...

The market may solve it long term (although we can argue about how efficient or inefficient that market is). But it doesn't solve it for players who get pushed out just because it is easy for a coach to do so.
 
businesslawyer said:
The market may solve it long term (although we can argue about how efficient or inefficient that market is). But it doesn't solve it for players who get pushed out just because it is easy for a coach to do so.
Expand ...

i dont see how it makes it easier? you think they keep kids they don’t want because of the cap? so maybe the upside is it forces coaches to keep kids they dont want - who does that benefit?
 
whaler11 said:
i dont see how it makes it easier? you think they keep kids they don’t want because of the cap? so maybe the upside is it forces coaches to keep kids they dont want - who does that benefit?
Expand ...

Seriously? It benefits kids who are keeping their nose clean and want to stay at one school for their career but turn out to not be as good as their coaches hoped.

Why the struggle? This isn't a difficult concept?
 
businesslawyer said:
Seriously? It benefits kids who are keeping their nose clean and want to stay at one school for their career but turn out to not be as good as their coaches hoped.

Why the struggle? This isn't a difficult concept?
Expand ...

It doesn’t seem to work like that in practice. They still run kids off it just costs other kids opportunities.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,259
Messages
4,560,173
Members
10,448
Latest member
MillerLitEd


Top Bottom