Looking at the numbers now, we'll have to lose 4 additional scholarship players along with our seniors to sign 25 for 2017. Probably not unrealistic.
But in 2018, and assuming that the additional 4 leave for 2017 would have been 2017 seniors, we only have 9 slots for the 2018 class. I can't remember having that small of a senior class or a recruiting class that small. Even if we have an additional 5 leave after 2017, our class will only be at 14 max.
Is it possible that we might keep our number in 2017 down to the 21 range so we don't miss out on a lot of great prospects in 2018?
It also raises an interesting issue regarding the Rivals recruiting rankings. You get ranked lower in part if you sign less players, but the fact that you sign less players might be an indication that you have been more successful with the players you recruited previously, and thus the health of your program is better than if you needed to bring in 25 every year. On the other hand, it might be an indication that you have a team that won't cut players that are non-producing.
But in 2018, and assuming that the additional 4 leave for 2017 would have been 2017 seniors, we only have 9 slots for the 2018 class. I can't remember having that small of a senior class or a recruiting class that small. Even if we have an additional 5 leave after 2017, our class will only be at 14 max.
Is it possible that we might keep our number in 2017 down to the 21 range so we don't miss out on a lot of great prospects in 2018?
It also raises an interesting issue regarding the Rivals recruiting rankings. You get ranked lower in part if you sign less players, but the fact that you sign less players might be an indication that you have been more successful with the players you recruited previously, and thus the health of your program is better than if you needed to bring in 25 every year. On the other hand, it might be an indication that you have a team that won't cut players that are non-producing.
