• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

The loss of competitiveness among players.

5280Griz

5280Griz

Well-known member
College football seems to now be about if you aren’t playing enough just quit on your team and go on to the next school a la Fife. This is the worst lesson we can be teaching young men.
 
5280Griz said:
College football seems to now be about if you aren’t playing enough just quit on your team and go on to the next school a la Fife. This is the worst lesson we can be teaching young men.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. If you're not playing after 3 years in the program, you're probably taking up space. You should go where you can actually play football. Of course, there are guys who are happy to ride the bench so they can say they "play" for X team, but I don't think they are the majority. I think most guys want to play until they can't play anymore.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Totally disagree. If you're not playing after 3 years in the program, you're probably taking up space. You should go where you can actually play football. Of course, there are guys who are happy to ride the bench so they can say they "play" for X team, but I don't think they are the majority. I think most guys want to play until they can't play anymore.
Click to expand...
This is the correct answer, especially now that the roster size limits are changing. If you haven't cracked the two deep by year three, time to make room for a better player on the roster. Not all roster turnover is bad.
 
GrizRealist said:
This is the correct answer, especially now that the roster size limits are changing. If you haven't cracked the two deep by year three, time to make room for a better player on the roster. Not all roster turnover is bad.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree that redshirt sophomores not on 2-deep should move on. Another example of you not understanding football.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Totally disagree. If you're not playing after 3 years in the program, you're probably taking up space. You should go where you can actually play football. Of course, there are guys who are happy to ride the bench so they can say they "play" for X team, but I don't think they are the majority. I think most guys want to play until they can't play anymore.
Click to expand...
I know we've gone back and forth on this, but this seems like a self-correcting problem that we almost never have. For the most part, our staff isn't gonna let a guy that can't even get in on special teams after a redshirt and 2 years in the program stick around. The exceptions are mostly guys that bust their asses and contribute to the scout teams, but we see the shelf life of non-contributors be capped at about what you're suggesting.

But the big question that I always go back to is "who are you replacing these guys with?" They almost certainly aren't receiving hardly any scholarship money, if anything at all, and the guys who would be replacing them are probably similarly skilled walk-on type players. You aren't going to be replacing walk on guys with scholarship guys because the money is already allocated elsewhere (which I think is probably a bigger issue for us, personally: our contributors aren't as good as we need them to be).

I do think that where you may be right and this has shown up the most recently is in our poor performance with in-state recruits. These guys are more likely to take partial or no scholarships than someone from out of state. I bet if you checked impact stats for guys with little or no scholarship money between us and the cats, it's probably not even close. That's something I think we can and should do better on, but focusing on the bottom of our roster seems like missing the point a little, to me.
 
mthoopsfan said:
I don’t agree that redshirt sophomores not on 2-deep should move on. Another example of you not understanding football.
Click to expand...
I understand modern roster management in TODAYS era of college football. When a player has been in the program for 3 full cycles and still has not cracked the two deep the likelihood they, on a reliable and consistent basis, become a significant contributor becomes far less likely. The player can move on to a place that suits them better and the team can find a portal transfer to fill his spot while they wait on the continued development of prep recruits.
 
uofmman1122 said:
I know we've gone back and forth on this, but this seems like a self-correcting problem that we almost never have. For the most part, our staff isn't gonna let a guy that can't even get in on special teams after a redshirt and 2 years in the program stick around. The exceptions are mostly guys that bust their asses and contribute to the scout teams, but we see the shelf life of non-contributors be capped at about what you're suggesting.

But the big question that I always go back to is "who are you replacing these guys with?" They almost certainly aren't receiving hardly any scholarship money, if anything at all, and the guys who would be replacing them are probably similarly skilled walk-on type players. You aren't going to be replacing walk on guys with scholarship guys because the money is already allocated elsewhere (which I think is probably a bigger issue for us, personally: our contributors aren't as good as we need them to be).

I do think that where you may be right and this has shown up the most recently is in our poor performance with in-state recruits. These guys are more likely to take partial or no scholarships than someone from out of state. I bet if you checked impact stats for guys with little or no scholarship money between us and the cats, it's probably not even close. That's something I think we can and should do better on, but focusing on the bottom of our roster seems like missing the point a little, to me.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I think it was HHB who mentioned that once in a while, you strike gold with a PWO who develops physically later in life. They don't really cost much, so take some fliers, sure. I'm just trying to say we likely aren't really "losing" players to NAIA teams. The probability they would become impact players at our level is probably pretty low. In some cases, I think it could be more of a "Well, odds are you weren't going to do much here anyway, so better now than in three years." situation.

Totally agree that it's missing the point to focus on the bottom of the roster. Overall point I was attempting to make is: I don't think the staff loses much sleep over guys who decommit and commit to NAIA schools so they have a better chance of seeing the field and/or playing the position(s) they want.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
I don't disagree. I think it was HHB who mentioned that once in a while, you strike gold with a PWO who develops physically later in life. They don't really cost much, so take some fliers, sure. I'm just trying to say we likely aren't really "losing" players to NAIA teams. The probability they would become impact players at our level is probably pretty low. In some cases, I think it could be more of a "Well, odds are you weren't going to do much here anyway, so better now than in three years." situation.

Totally agree that it's missing the point to focus on the bottom of the roster. Overall point I was attempting to make is: I don't think the staff loses much sleep over guys who decommit and commit to NAIA schools so they have a better chance of seeing the field and/or playing the position(s) they want.
Click to expand...
Okay gotcha, yeah that makes total sense. I saw you post something about it in another thread about Mihelish, and I completely agree. IIRC, we have three 3-star safeties coming in on this recruiting class, so Merek choosing to go play QB at Tech doesn't exactly doom us at safety.
 
GrizRealist said:
I understand modern roster management in TODAYS era of college football. When a player has been in the program for 3 full cycles and still has not cracked the two deep the likelihood they, on a reliable and consistent basis, become a significant contributor becomes far less likely. The player can move on to a place that suits them better and the team can find a portal transfer to fill his spot while they wait on the continued development of prep recruits.
Click to expand...
Colt would disagree
 
GrizRealist said:
I understand modern roster management in TODAYS era of college football. When a player has been in the program for 3 full cycles and still has not cracked the two deep the likelihood they, on a reliable and consistent basis, become a significant contributor becomes far less likely. The player can move on to a place that suits them better and the team can find a portal transfer to fill his spot while they wait on the continued development of prep recruits.
Click to expand...
Colt would disagree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top