- Sep 18, 2011
I think any school would have taken the QB Buechelle, especially when you have a glaring hole at QB, but I have a different view of what Sykes is doing. I think he is trying to win fast and move on to his next gig so he is bringing in lots of transfers and JUCOs and he is not really focused on the condition of the roster 4 years down the road as he is not planning on being there. SMU did not used to recuit transfer/JUCOs and it is a risky strategy.LT - Dykes doesn’t plan on bringing in as many as he did shortly after taking over from Chad Morris. Morris left him some gaping holes in the roster (QB, OL, DB) that he absolutely had to fill fast. Had Shane not started at QB, Dykes would have had to choose from a true sophomore, a true freshman coming off an ACL tear, and two walks on RS freshmen. As things normalize, he plans to use transfers to gap fill (injuries, transfers out, recruits don’t work out) on a more limited basis.
I would think you guys could have some success grabbing guys from the Northeast leaving ACC and B10 programs to look for PT.
If the roster rules change, which they might, SMU will be fine, but the 25/85 roster restrictions make taking so many transfers and JUCOs a LT roster problem, especially if there is a coaching change. Here's the simple math:
Year 1: 15 transfers, 10 HS kids
Year 2: 10 transfers, 15 HS kids
Year 3: 10 transfers, 15 HS kids
Year 4: 10 transfers, 15 HS kids
Year 5: 10 transfers, 15 HS kids
Assume the transfers have 1.5 years of eligibilty and half the HS kids redshirt and you lose some HS kids to transfer/injury/academics per year.
Year 5 roster:
HS kids = 5 from year 1 (half RS) + 15 from year 2 + 15 from year 3, + 15 from year 4 + 15 from year 5 minus 12 kids lost over time (probably conservative) = 52
Total roster size at end of year 5 = 67. And, that number is probably a best case scenario and it could be much lower, especially if there is a coaching change.