Transfer portal - outbound

[Exit 4]

I think the P5 schools are crying because they want to recruit more players each year. One of the reasons the annual limit was placed at 25 was to make schools think twice before pushing players out which is what they used to do. This is year 2 of the portal and I think kids are going to understand the math of transferring works against many of them after this year. One trend that I am seeing in the portal is kids entering the portal and returning to their school. In some cases, it makes sense for both the player and the school.

They are crying because they have unused scholarships.

 

[Irishfan]

I disagree, because a seventh win means you go bowling. Kids and coaches will always want to go bowling. Plus, all we are talking about is more cap flexibility, not all programs will value it the same. If a roster is properly managed it’s of very little value, less than the win. This is a tool to help under performing schools catch up. You could also have a rule where two schools opposing each other in this scenario just automatically get 2 each regardless of the score.

you don’t need 7 wins to go to a bowl game. You don’t even need 6. There have been five teams to go to a bowl game with 5-7 records. Giving incentives to lose games is a horrible idea, because there are teams that might do it.

 

[ktuck911]

This is not worrisome at all. Happens at every University, more with coaching changes.

The University was somehow able to find 25 more committed student athletes.

The UConn football program is alive and thriving.

The interesting part is the leavers havent landed. That is worrisome.

Gotta remember guys, most of these kids that went to the portal were alotted schollies for the entire school year, IIRC... so, maybe, just maybe, for the most part, they're waiting to finish up the Spring semester before moving on...

 

[Exit 4]

you don’t need 7 wins to go to a bowl game. You don’t even need 6. There have been five teams to go to a bowl game with 5-7 records. Giving incentives to lose games is a horrible idea, because there are teams that might do it.

The proposal can be tailored. It could be a graduated scale; say 3 for 0-3 wins, 2 slots for 4-6 wins, one for 7. It could be a two season average number of wins.

As a long time fan of a team with no winning seasons since 2009, I am absolutely certain UConn would go for the 7th win (or 8th or any win) in any scenario. Wins are better for recruiting- far better - than having a modicum of recruiting flexibility. This is a modest consolation prize. A prize we could be using now since we are a school with 6 unused 2020 scholarships.

And because there is no draft it’s about the only competitive balance tool you can pull out of the drawer.

I originally wanted to give losers more scholarships, but that would be too powerful.

 

[Irishfan]

The proposal can be tailored. It could be a graduated scale; say 3 for 0-3 wins, 2 slots for 4-6 wins, one for 7. It could be a two season average number of wins.

As a long time fan of a team with no winning seasons since 2009, I am absolutely certain UConn would go for the 7th win (or 8th or any win) in any scenario. Wins are better for recruiting- far better - than having a modicum of recruiting flexibility. This is a modest consolation prize.

I can’t understand why anyone would want to incentivize losing games.

 

[Exit 4]

I can’t understand why anyone would want to incentivize losing games.

Well I can understand why someone used to winning doesn’t understand how someone recently accustomed to losing wants to find a way to tip the scale a weee bit. The incentive to lose is overstated. Wins are worth far more to the psyche of universities and than fans than my proposed modicum of roster flexibility.

You must hate pro sports. PS - college football is pseudo pro sports.

 

[CTMike]

I can’t understand why anyone would want to incentivize losing games.

You can’t understand that the incentive of bowl games is stronger. Always. Tweak the numbers however you need to sleep at night.

 

[Exit 4]

Numbers game: 85 scholarships getting more difficult to maintain

Numbers game: 85 scholarships getting more difficult to maintain

MORGANTOWN — The scholarship limit for NCAA FBS college football teams is a total of 85, but it is more and more difficult for programs to maintain that level.

www.wvnews.com

I forgot about Blueshirting. We might see some continued soft recruiting activity this spring to make for a couple blueshirts. I can think of a couple instate kids that might fit that box.

 

[Slick]

The scary part is that most of the kids probably understand these risks and still chose to be in the portal. They rather have no scholarship with an uncertain future than to play for Randy. Very worrisome.

They are dopes

 

[Irishfan]

Well I can understand why someone used to winning doesn’t understand how someone recently accustomed to losing wants to find a way to tip the scale a weee bit. The incentive to lose is overstated. Wins are worth far more to the psyche of universities and than fans than my proposed modicum of roster flexibility.

You must hate pro sports. PS - college football is pseudo pro sports.

I know that some teams would be willing to lose a game to get a top pick in the draft. and I think that they probably do. But wanting to lose will probably become a habit, and one I would never want my team to acquire.

As for college being pseudo pro sport, I would agree that the scholarship players receive payment equal to the room, board, and tuition at whatever school they play for, in addition to access to trainers and equipment that they otherwise would never see, and they get the opportunity to display their talents for prospective employers at the next level.

 

[Irishfan]

You can’t understand that the incentive of bowl games is stronger. Always. Tweak the numbers however you need to sleep at night.

what win level do you think precludes a team from making a bowl game.

 

[Exit 4]

I know that some teams would be willing to lose a game to get a top pick in the draft. and I think that they probably do. But wanting to lose will probably become a habit, and one I would never want my team to acquire.

As for college being pseudo pro sport, I would agree that the scholarship players receive payment equal to the room, board, and tuition at whatever school they play for, in addition to access to trainers and equipment that they otherwise would never see, and they get the opportunity to display their talents for prospective employers at the next level.

Not sure you are thinking about the true cash side of college football. I’m referring the coaches salaries, the staff salaries and the general revenues (ticket sales, media, licensing, donations) of the university. None of those go up (and the money is rather stratospheric) when a team loses. Every win is significant to growing revenue and every loss hurts revenue. Every freaking win matters. And consider that losing is contagious and difficult to reverse. Bad for revenues, not helpful for recruiting. A coach and it’s AD would be crazy to play with fire by encouraging a losing streak or even losing a single game in order to get a modicum of help with their next recruiting cycle. Losing is toxic. With a graduated scale there will be no perverse incentive to lose as a win will always have more value over the marginal benefit.

PS- when Edsall played mostly true freshman, rs freshman and sophomores in 2018, thereby forgoing perhaps his best chance to win under a youth movement, did this give Vegas fits? Opposing Coaches fits? SOS guru’s fits? I know it did one thing, it hurt revenue.

They would have much rather did some winning.

 

[AndOne]

The UConn football program is alive and thriving.

Define thriving. Subsisting may be more appropriate.

 

[Watchdog]

UConn is not sending kids to the pros after 3 years so the roster can be managed. You are able to offer 25 scholarships per year and over a 5 year time period that is 125 scholarships. And, any walk-on that has been on campus for 2 years can get a scholarship and not count against the 25, but it counts against the 85. In other words, there are plenty of ways to manage the roster to get to 85.

Unfortunately, Diaco didn't understand how to manage the roster as his recruiting classes were 2014: 15, 2015: 23, and 2016: 16. That is a total disaster and UConn is still dealing with it today.

Let's not pile on Bob. There just weren't enough big, slow, kids out there to recruit.

 

[ktuck911]

I forgot about Blueshirting. We might see some continued soft recruiting activity this spring to make for a couple blueshirts. I can think of a couple instate kids that might fit that box.

So, basically, is it safe to assume we may be adding kids during Fall camp via the transfer route?

 

[History Geek]

I forgot about Blueshirting. We might see some continued soft recruiting activity this spring to make for a couple blueshirts. I can think of a couple instate kids that might fit that box.

I hadn't heard the term blueshirt before, so I looked it up. Here is a helpful primer for those who are still unsure what all the colored shirts mean.

Explaining grayshirting, blueshirting and more

There are a lot of 'shirts in college football. Here's what they mean.

www.sbnation.com

 

[Irishfan]

Not sure you are thinking about the true cash side of college football. I’m referring the coaches salaries, the staff salaries and the general revenues (ticket sales, media, licensing, donations) of the university. None of those go up (and the money is rather stratospheric) when a team loses. Every win is significant to growing revenue and every loss hurts revenue. Every freaking win matters. And consider that losing is contagious and difficult to reverse. Bad for revenues, not helpful for recruiting. A coach and it’s AD would be crazy to play with fire by encouraging a losing streak or even losing a single game in order to get a modicum of help with their next recruiting cycle. Losing is toxic. With a graduated scale there will be no perverse incentive to lose as a win will always have more value over the marginal benefit.

PS- when Edsall played mostly true freshman, rs freshman and sophomores in 2018, thereby forgoing perhaps his best chance to win under a youth movement, did this give Vegas fits? Opposing Coaches fits? SOS guru’s fits? I know it did one thing, it hurt revenue.

They would have much rather did some winning.

I agree with much of what you said. But under this rule any new coach could improve his situation by simply losing the number of games that would maximize the number of recruits he could sign. Then by placing the blame for the losses on the previous coach (Diaco) he could give himself the best opportunity to look good “once he gets his recruits”.

Giving a coach the opportunity to explain away his losses by stating that the more losses the better, would give any coach a four year pass to fail miserably by simply stating that it was helping the long term success of the program. I still can’t see how incentivizing losing would be a good thing for a team, or a school. But I can see how it would be a great thing for the bad head coaches in the country.

 

[Exit 4]

I agree with much of what you said. But under this rule any new coach could improve his situation by simply losing the number of games that would maximize the number of recruits he could sign. Then by placing the blame for the losses on the previous coach (Diaco) he could give himself the best opportunity to look good “once he gets his recruits”.

Giving a coach the opportunity to explain away his losses by stating that the more losses the better, would give any coach a four year pass to fail miserably by simply stating that it was helping the long term success of the program. I still can’t see how incentivizing losing would be a good thing for a team, or a school. But I can see how it would be a great thing for the bad head coaches in the country.

We can agree to disagree. The economics of winning in the short and long term for the staff (their reputation) and the school will always trump the ability to bring in a couple extra players the following season.

Guess you hated the way Houston ran their program in 2019.

Did you have the same feelings when the redshirt was born? Coaches sometimes have perverse incentives to not play certain kids to preserve their future odds. Sacrifice today to improve tomorrow...thats already a thing with the redshirt.

 

[huskymedic]

Daily Campus: UConn football among highest number of player transfers across collegiate programs

 

[BNich]

I forgot about Blueshirting. We might see some continued soft recruiting activity this spring to make for a couple blueshirts. I can think of a couple instate kids that might fit that box.

I thought it was grey shirting? I'm unfamiliar with blue shirting.

 

[UConnJim]

They are crying because they have unused scholarships.

Most of the schools that are not at the 85 scholarship limit did not manage their roster correctly. If you take Grad transfers, for instance, they count as 1 scholarship out of the 25 allowed per year, but only stay on campus for 1 year, instead of 4 or 5 for a HS recruit. If you take JUCOs, they only stay on campus for 2 years at most and some move on quicker as there is a reason they are in JUCO. And, the 25 scholarship limit encourages a school to develop an effective walk-on program as the kids can get added to the roster without counting against the 25 scholarship limit.

People cite the Kansas scholarship problem as the reason to add more scholarship flexibility, but Kansas' problem was self inflicted as they recruited way too many JUCOs. During David Beatty's last 2 classes as Kansas coach in 2017 and 2018, he recruited 24 JUCOs out of 46 recruits. And, they have turned over head coaches too much:

Turner Gill: 2 seasons
Charlie Weiss: 2.33 seasons
David Beatty: 4 seasons
Les Miles: 1 season so far

There is no way you constantly can turn over head coaches and recruit a ton of JUCOs and or transfers and maintain roster stability.

 

[Exit 4]

Most of the schools that are not at the 85 scholarship limit did not manage their roster correctly. If you take Grad transfers, for instance, they count as 1 scholarship out of the 25 allowed per year, but only stay on campus for 1 year, instead of 4 or 5 for a HS recruit. If you take JUCOs, they only stay on campus for 2 years at most and some move on quicker as there is a reason they are in JUCO. And, the 25 scholarship limit encourages a school to develop an effective walk-on program as the kids can get added to the roster without counting against the 25 scholarship limit.

People cite the Kansas scholarship problem as the reason to add more scholarship flexibility, but Kansas' problem was self inflicted as they recruited way too many JUCOs. During David Beatty's last 2 classes as Kansas coach in 2017 and 2018, he recruited 24 JUCOs out of 46 recruits. And, they have turned over head coaches too much:

Turner Gill: 2 seasons
Charlie Weiss: 2.33 seasons
David Beatty: 4 seasons
Les Miles: 1 season so far

There is no way you constantly can turn over head coaches and recruit a ton of JUCOs and or transfers and maintain roster stability.

There is no way you can turn on the portal spigot which has no cap on the number of kids that can leave (nor should it), but have a cap on the number that can enter a school. Its becoming a one way door for many and they don't realize it. The numbers aren't going to work in this structure. D1 level kids will have to drop to FBS or lower. System needs adjustment.

 

[UConnJim]

There is no way you can turn on the portal spigot which has no cap on the number of kids that can leave (nor should it), but have a cap on the number that can enter a school. Its becoming a one way door for many and they don't realize it. The numbers aren't going to work in this structure. D1 level kids will have to drop to FBS or lower. System needs adjustment.

We can agree to disagree.

Something to think about: Of the 18 P5 programs in the final top 25, they took 36 transfers in 2019, or ~2 per team. The top P5 schools are looking for a couple of pieces in the portal like QB, K, P, or LS as that is what 10 of the 36 transfers were. Kids need to understand that there is not a great demand for transfers to P5 schools as they would prefer to recruit HS kids and develop them.

 

[Exit 4]

We can agree to disagree.

Something to think about: Of the 18 P5 programs in the final top 25, they took 36 transfers in 2019, or ~2 per team. The top P5 schools are looking for a couple of pieces in the portal like QB, K, P, or LS as that is what 10 of the 36 transfers were. Kids need to understand that there is not a great demand for transfers to P5 schools as they would prefer to recruit HS kids and develop them.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. No idea what the recruiting facts of top 25 programs has to do with this discussion. What's relevant is that the current structure creates an environment where scholarships go unused which is a shame. Kids are left behind, opportunities squandered. This year UConn will have six slots go unused. Six kids that could be getting a free education.

The system needs a little re-balancing.

 

[Irishfan]

We can agree to disagree. The economics of winning in the short and long term for the staff (their reputation) and the school will always trump the ability to bring in a couple extra players the following season.

Guess you hated the way Houston ran their program in 2019.

Did you have the same feelings when the redshirt was born? Coaches sometimes have perverse incentives to not play certain kids to preserve their future odds. Sacrifice today to improve tomorrow...thats already a thing with the redshirt.

no, I liked the redshirt rule, because I think it helped players prepare for what would hopefully be the next step for them Whether it be pro football, or just getting their degree. Increasing the number of scholarships given annually would just make it more likely to have to pull the scholarships from players that turned out to not be as good as was suspected when they were initially recruited. If you can offer 30 scholarships in a year, with a total limit of 85, it probably means several will be losing their scholarships. Thirty offers a year would be 120 scholarships given out (150 if you look at five years of eligibility). The 85 limit means that 35 of those scholarships must be rescinded, either by transfer or just dropped. That could be a disaster for some kid that had offers from other schools who chose to go to the school that ended up with the 20 (4x5) extra scholarships.