ADVERTISEMENT

Riley just said more commits coming....

IMO you guys are looking at the RS thing from the wrong angle.

You're seeking to find reasons why redshirting is bad rather than to ask yourself how often a true freshman makes a meaningful, year-long contribution. Having a true freshman start is incredibly rare. The angle you need to take is why is it worth their while to spend that year rather than have that time to transform their body, wrap their brains around the football concepts they're being asked to learn.

Jackson is a great example. He likely projected best as a safety, we plugged him in at CB hoping he could push for a #1 job right away and be the next Ralph Brown. He struggled, regressed, and played less as the year wore on. Now there is a battle at Safety and where he could be a very talented RS-Fr with a year of work at safety battling for that job, he's a Soph trying to get his mind right playing (arguably) his 2nd-best position.

Tre Bryant played some, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that he was a make-or-break player last year. You look at how he ran in the spring, how he's figuring to be the #1 guy, what would it be like to get 3-4 years of him as a starter vs 2-3 years?

Yah but look at your base assumption. You are basically assuming that to have any value, a frosh would have to *start* if he's skipping a redshirt. Which I agree is incredibly rare. But that assumption is incredibly invalid, IMO.

But that's what the "I want it now" guys are looking at in terms of expectations of these kids because the cupboard has been so bare here for such a long period of time.

In a "normal" program with really good talent, you probably play most of your capable freshman in spot duties or on special teams (every group needs athletes right?) and the truly special ones become starters immediately.

Bama doesn't put 12 freshman in their starting 22 every year. And they get all the really good freshman.
 
It has nothing to do with ability of the freshmen to play right away or not play right away. It isn't about being an "I want it now" guy.

If I give you 25 lottery scratch off each day for four days, and I give your buddy only 20 a day for four days, you will have 20 more scratch offs than your buddy after 4 days. To him you have an extra full day of scratch offs. If 1 in every 4 is a $10 winner, the odds say you will have more $10 winners in 4 days than your buddy does.

That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky62
It has nothing to do with ability of the freshmen to play right away or not play right away. It isn't about being an "I want it now" guy.

If I give you 25 lottery scratch off each day for four days, and I give your buddy only 20 a day for four days, you will have 20 more scratch offs than your buddy after 4 days. To him you have an extra full day of scratch offs. If 1 in every 4 is a $10 winner, the odds say you will have more $10 winners in 4 days than your buddy does.

That's it.
That's not a proper comparison because it is based on odds on a ticket being the same. The odds of a 5th year guy making a true impact (on the current team...say starter) is much higher than a first year guy. Give me 10 5th year scratch offs at 50% and you'd need 50 or so first year tickets at 10% to match me.
 
That's not a proper comparison because it is based on odds on a ticket being the same. The odds of a 5th year guy making a true impact (on the current team...say starter) is much higher than a first year guy. Give me 10 5th year scratch offs at 50% and you'd need 50 or so first year tickets at 10% to match me.

I think you're just being a devil's advocate on this subject. I can look at your scholarship distribution on mgoblow. You have 10 projected starters in your sophomore class that never redshirted. Out of your junior class you have 5 projected starters (4 RS, 1 true), and 7 more RS's that aren't starters. You're down to 8 seniors, I'd guess your coach processed the crap out of the upper classmen. You have 4 senior projected starters (3 RS, 1 true) and 3 more RS nonstarters.

According to Rivals, you guys had 30 commits for '17, and 29 commits for '16. I don't know how many you actually signed or what your target numbers were.

From where I sit, you have no place in this discussion.
 
I think you're just being a devil's advocate on this subject. I can look at your scholarship distribution on mgoblow. You have 10 projected starters in your sophomore class that never redshirted. Out of your junior class you have 5 projected starters (4 RS, 1 true), and 7 more RS's that aren't starters. You're down to 8 seniors, I'd guess your coach processed the crap out of the upper classmen. You have 4 senior projected starters (3 RS, 1 true) and 3 more RS nonstarters.

According to Rivals, you guys had 30 commits for '17, and 29 commits for '16. I don't know how many you actually signed or what your target numbers were.

From where I sit, you have no place in this discussion.
Actually my place in this discussion IS because of what is going on at Michigan. Most people thought we had a veteran team last year. When it came to starters that was true. It was why Michigan was an overtime loss from the playoff (assuming we won the CCG)

However, we had/have little talent in the classes behind them because of the Hoke hot seat thing etc. Last year we had to play something like 24 or 25 true freshman. We had to because of lack of depth. And a big reason why we weren't good enough.

Your guess that players from the '13 and '14 classes are gone because of processing is flat out ridiculous because most left before Harbaugh came in (if you didn't know we were kind of a dumpster fire prior). The 2015 class was the transition year when Harbaugh had a month to recruit and we ended up with a 14 person class.

So no...it wasn't processing of players on campus. If you want to accuse Harbaugh of processing you should stick to him dropping verbals. He's done that but that has zero to do with the RS discussion. I assure you that Harbaugh would have preferred not to have taken so many kids or have been forced to play so many early. So from where I sit i think you not form such ignorant (that is the correct use of the word...not an insult) opinions.

 
It has nothing to do with ability of the freshmen to play right away or not play right away. It isn't about being an "I want it now" guy.

If I give you 25 lottery scratch off each day for four days, and I give your buddy only 20 a day for four days, you will have 20 more scratch offs than your buddy after 4 days. To him you have an extra full day of scratch offs. If 1 in every 4 is a $10 winner, the odds say you will have more $10 winners in 4 days than your buddy does.

That's it.

Correct. And I wasn't attempting to address roster numbers or turnover. I agree with your argument.

I was simply attempting to correct this notion that a frosh has to start to not redshirt to have any value. Which plays into your argument about scratch tickets and hit rates and whether individual kids should put on a shirt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuco Salamanca
There some crib notes of a Nate Clouse interview on 1620. In short, doesn't believe Riley is going to process the crap out of the team because he doesn't see a way to do it ethically. Right now top line number would be 17 or 18 with 2 or 3 kids who normally find their way out of the program. If they can get into that 20 number it would be "unbelievable".

Also believes the class QB will be Shough or Petras, and an offer will be made soon (if not already) and he expects a bite soon.

In other news....Michigan lost their #1 QB target and has 5 CB's for Shough.
 
It has nothing to do with ability of the freshmen to play right away or not play right away. It isn't about being an "I want it now" guy.

If I give you 25 lottery scratch off each day for four days, and I give your buddy only 20 a day for four days, you will have 20 more scratch offs than your buddy after 4 days. To him you have an extra full day of scratch offs. If 1 in every 4 is a $10 winner, the odds say you will have more $10 winners in 4 days than your buddy does.

That's it.
Just a couple thoughts on your 4-year model.

1. In your ticket example, shouldn’t you take into account the “redshirt” 5th day tickets? 25 for 4 days vs 20 tickets per day for 5 days. I understand that using your 4 year “no redshirt” model, you would be cycling more players through the program, but at any given snapshot or year, the 85 scholarship roster would be comprised of 4 classes of 22-25 in the 4 year model or 5 classes of 18-20 in a 5 year model.

2. Also in your ticket example, you make the assumption that each ticket has an equal potential return. Meaning each ticket you open has an equal chance to be a winner. In recruiting that is not always the case. Sure, for Alabama, all 25 of their recruits (or all 100 for a 4 year cycle) probably all have equal potential to be elite. For most teams, their top 5 recruits in a given year probably have more potential than their bottom 5. So if this is a true assumption (maybe it isn’t), than in a 5 year redshirt model taking 20 players per year, you would have 25 top 5 recruits on the roster vs 20 top 5 recruits in a 4 year model. Probably splitting hairs here, but the point is that adding a 21-25 recruit in a year might not be preferable to adding top recruits in a 5th year.

3. You mentioned that freshman contributions are ancillary to your theory, but to me they would seem critical. I get that you are basically trading in upperclassman marginal and non contributors for freshman unknowns, but I think you would also need to depend on a certain percentage of freshman to make some kind of contribution. If freshmen aren’t contributing, then you would be building your 2-deep depth chart from 3 classes (3/4 of 85) who have anywhere from 1-3 years experience in the program (assuming the scholarships are evenly distributed between classes). In a 5 year (redshirt) model, if the freshman aren’t contributing you would be building your 2-deep from 4 classes (4/5 of 85) with anywhere from 1-4 years experience in the program. Seems like if you aren’t redshirting players, they need to contribute in some fashion to make up for the lack of a 5th “redshirt” class. Although, I think your theory assumes that the difference between the 4/5 and the ¾ is just “dead weight” anyway.

I think your model makes sense if you are recruiting at a high enough level that your 21st-25th recruits are capable of making a contribution at some point and if your upperclassman are capable of forming the bulk of your 2-deep without needing a redshirt year (maybe sprinkling in a few freshman as well). And if it helps cycle out borderline players than that is a bonus as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuskerNorm
Just a couple thoughts on your 4-year model.

1. In your ticket example, shouldn’t you take into account the “redshirt” 5th day tickets? 25 for 4 days vs 20 tickets per day for 5 days. I understand that using your 4 year “no redshirt” model, you would be cycling more players through the program, but at any given snapshot or year, the 85 scholarship roster would be comprised of 4 classes of 22-25 in the 4 year model or 5 classes of 18-20 in a 5 year model.



2. Also in your ticket example, you make the assumption that each ticket has an equal potential return. Meaning each ticket you open has an equal chance to be a winner. In recruiting that is not always the case. Sure, for Alabama, all 25 of their recruits (or all 100 for a 4 year cycle) probably all have equal potential to be elite. For most teams, their top 5 recruits in a given year probably have more potential than their bottom 5. So if this is a true assumption (maybe it isn’t), than in a 5 year redshirt model taking 20 players per year, you would have 25 top 5 recruits on the roster vs 20 top 5 recruits in a 4 year model. Probably splitting hairs here, but the point is that adding a 21-25 recruit in a year might not be preferable to adding top recruits in a 5th year.



3. You mentioned that freshman contributions are ancillary to your theory, but to me they would seem critical. I get that you are basically trading in upperclassman marginal and non contributors for freshman unknowns, but I think you would also need to depend on a certain percentage of freshman to make some kind of contribution. If freshmen aren’t contributing, then you would be building your 2-deep depth chart from 3 classes (3/4 of 85) who have anywhere from 1-3 years experience in the program (assuming the scholarships are evenly distributed between classes). In a 5 year (redshirt) model, if the freshman aren’t contributing you would be building your 2-deep from 4 classes (4/5 of 85) with anywhere from 1-4 years experience in the program. Seems like if you aren’t redshirting players, they need to contribute in some fashion to make up for the lack of a 5th “redshirt” class. Although, I think your theory assumes that the difference between the 4/5 and the ¾ is just “dead weight” anyway.



I think your model makes sense if you are recruiting at a high enough level that your 21st-25th recruits are capable of making a contribution at some point and if your upperclassman are capable of forming the bulk of your 2-deep without needing a redshirt year (maybe sprinkling in a few freshman as well). And if it helps cycle out borderline players than that is a bonus as well.

1 - My reply - no because in the 22-25 model you are still getting 22-25 players the 5th year. In a 5 year period its 125 players to 100 player difference.

2 - My reply - the assumption is based on about half the class working out. It isn't based on the value of each "ticket". When a coach signs a class, each scholarship is worth the same amount, theoreticall, a coach doesn't sign a player he doesn't think will at least contribute. He knows some won't and some will, but even 5 star players bust and unranked 2 stars are successful.

3 - My response - when you redshirt a class you are building your 2 deep on roughly the same number of players. 85 scholarships minus the 20 redshirting is 65 players. 85 scholarships minus a class of 25 freshmen is 60, getting any contribution from just 5 freshmen, even those numbers up.

4- My response - I am not saying the system is perfect nor am I saying that you never redshirt. I simply believe that based on a 50/50 success rate on recruiting, you will have 36 - 38 players that will contribute if you sign 25 players for 4 years and get no contribution from freshman. (12.5 x 3= 37.5). If you get 20 per class you get 40 (10 x 4 = 40) since 20 are redshirting.

Just a theory. Thanks for the civil discussion.
 
Last edited:
Just a couple thoughts on your 4-year model.

1. In your ticket example, shouldn’t you take into account the “redshirt” 5th day tickets? 25 for 4 days vs 20 tickets per day for 5 days. I understand that using your 4 year “no redshirt” model, you would be cycling more players through the program, but at any given snapshot or year, the 85 scholarship roster would be comprised of 4 classes of 22-25 in the 4 year model or 5 classes of 18-20 in a 5 year model.

2. Also in your ticket example, you make the assumption that each ticket has an equal potential return. Meaning each ticket you open has an equal chance to be a winner. In recruiting that is not always the case. Sure, for Alabama, all 25 of their recruits (or all 100 for a 4 year cycle) probably all have equal potential to be elite. For most teams, their top 5 recruits in a given year probably have more potential than their bottom 5. So if this is a true assumption (maybe it isn’t), than in a 5 year redshirt model taking 20 players per year, you would have 25 top 5 recruits on the roster vs 20 top 5 recruits in a 4 year model. Probably splitting hairs here, but the point is that adding a 21-25 recruit in a year might not be preferable to adding top recruits in a 5th year.

3. You mentioned that freshman contributions are ancillary to your theory, but to me they would seem critical. I get that you are basically trading in upperclassman marginal and non contributors for freshman unknowns, but I think you would also need to depend on a certain percentage of freshman to make some kind of contribution. If freshmen aren’t contributing, then you would be building your 2-deep depth chart from 3 classes (3/4 of 85) who have anywhere from 1-3 years experience in the program (assuming the scholarships are evenly distributed between classes). In a 5 year (redshirt) model, if the freshman aren’t contributing you would be building your 2-deep from 4 classes (4/5 of 85) with anywhere from 1-4 years experience in the program. Seems like if you aren’t redshirting players, they need to contribute in some fashion to make up for the lack of a 5th “redshirt” class. Although, I think your theory assumes that the difference between the 4/5 and the ¾ is just “dead weight” anyway.

I think your model makes sense if you are recruiting at a high enough level that your 21st-25th recruits are capable of making a contribution at some point and if your upperclassman are capable of forming the bulk of your 2-deep without needing a redshirt year (maybe sprinkling in a few freshman as well). And if it helps cycle out borderline players than that is a bonus as well.

Just add a comment to Tuco's replies....

Tuco isn't really out in left field here. Even the great TO said that you are lucky to have half a class turn out for you. And we all know the kind of talent he had to work with.

Nit picking over the particulars of what someone thinks a particular 2* or 5* is going to do is sort of irrelevant to the way that Tuco and TO framed the basic discussion.

This is basically mining. If you want more diamonds, you need to dig more dirt. Some shovels will have a bunch of diamonds, others none at all.
 
this may have been mentioned in the myriad of posts above but as your recruiting improves a larger number of the former players that were deemed large contributors ..ie starters now become expendible

At Alabama there are a number of players 4* etc that don't contribute whereas had they gone to Vanderbilt they could have very well been multi year starters

the 50% hit rate may still hold ... it is just the non contributors at Alabama and Ohio State happen to be much more talented than the non contributors at places like Nebraska and Iowa
 
this may have been mentioned in the myriad of posts above but as your recruiting improves a larger number of the former players that were deemed large contributors ..ie starters now become expendible

At Alabama there are a number of players 4* etc that don't contribute whereas had they gone to Vanderbilt they could have very well been multi year starters

the 50% hit rate may still hold ... it is just the non contributors at Alabama and Ohio State happen to be much more talented than the non contributors at places like Nebraska and Iowa

Right and it kind of has to. 50% hit rate at Bama needs to keep Saban in contention or he'll lose his job. Same here.

50% hit rate at ISU needs to get about 6-7 wins on occasion.
 
Just add a comment to Tuco's replies....

Tuco isn't really out in left field here. Even the great TO said that you are lucky to have half a class turn out for you. And we all know the kind of talent he had to work with.

Nit picking over the particulars of what someone thinks a particular 2* or 5* is going to do is sort of irrelevant to the way that Tuco and TO framed the basic discussion.

This is basically mining. If you want more diamonds, you need to dig more dirt. Some shovels will have a bunch of diamonds, others none at all.
My reply - no because in the 22-25 model you are still getting 22-25 players the 5th year. In a 5 year period its 125 players to 100 player difference.

I’m probably not explaining what I meant properly. I’m simply saying that at any given point in time you can comprise your scholarship roster from 4 classes (no redshirting) or from 5 classes. So I think the number of recruits would be the same for that snapshot. I get that in the 4 year model an additional class of 25 is recruited, but not all 5 classes of 25 would be available to make a scholarship roster. In this example, to simplify things, I’m assuming a 100 scholarship roster limit.

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y5 Scholarships on roster​

4 yr model 25* 25 25 25 25 100

5 yr model 20 20 20 20 20 100

*Y1 players no longer on Y5 roster

So in this case, in Y5 the depth chart would be made from Y3 through Y5 (75) players and a few Y2 freshman under the 4 yr model and Y2 through Y5 (80) players with a few Y1 freshman under the 5 yr model. Like you said the 5 player difference probably could be made up from freshman, especially if you consider that the 5 are probably extra weight.

As far as the value of each “ticket”, I guess I was thinking more about finding the elite players. The true difference makers (all-conference, all-american, high draft pick types). I assume the 50% success rate is fairly accurate and that by “success” you are talking about players making some kind of meaningful contribution to the team. But I guess my contention was that the elite players are more often than not coming from the top of your recruiting board and not the bottom. Maybe this assumption is off, and there are certainly exceptions. But assuming that it is somewhat accurate, than using the data above, you would have 5 classes of top 5-10 players vs 4 classes of top 5-10 players available during Y5. So I guess, looking at the example above, it kind of depends on whether the extra 5 players a year for the 4 yr model equal the extra 20 players taken the 5th year. So to use jflores example, you could take 25 scoops from 4 holes to fill your bucket or you could take 20 scoops from 5 holes to fill your bucket. Your bucket is going to get filled either way. The point is, the more scoops you take from a hole, the more depleted the diamond/scoop ratio gets. At some point it makes sense to move to another hole where the diamond to scoop ratio is better.

Who knows, it’s all kind of a crapshoot. The bottom line is Riley is stepping up NU’s recruiting game in both identifying and landing talent and that is what is going to improve this team.
 
My reply - no because in the 22-25 model you are still getting 22-25 players the 5th year. In a 5 year period its 125 players to 100 player difference.

I’m probably not explaining what I meant properly. I’m simply saying that at any given point in time you can comprise your scholarship roster from 4 classes (no redshirting) or from 5 classes. So I think the number of recruits would be the same for that snapshot. I get that in the 4 year model an additional class of 25 is recruited, but not all 5 classes of 25 would be available to make a scholarship roster. In this example, to simplify things, I’m assuming a 100 scholarship roster limit.

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y5 Scholarships on roster​

4 yr model 25* 25 25 25 25 100

5 yr model 20 20 20 20 20 100

*Y1 players no longer on Y5 roster

So in this case, in Y5 the depth chart would be made from Y3 through Y5 (75) players and a few Y2 freshman under the 4 yr model and Y2 through Y5 (80) players with a few Y1 freshman under the 5 yr model. Like you said the 5 player difference probably could be made up from freshman, especially if you consider that the 5 are probably extra weight.

As far as the value of each “ticket”, I guess I was thinking more about finding the elite players. The true difference makers (all-conference, all-american, high draft pick types). I assume the 50% success rate is fairly accurate and that by “success” you are talking about players making some kind of meaningful contribution to the team. But I guess my contention was that the elite players are more often than not coming from the top of your recruiting board and not the bottom. Maybe this assumption is off, and there are certainly exceptions. But assuming that it is somewhat accurate, than using the data above, you would have 5 classes of top 5-10 players vs 4 classes of top 5-10 players available during Y5. So I guess, looking at the example above, it kind of depends on whether the extra 5 players a year for the 4 yr model equal the extra 20 players taken the 5th year. So to use jflores example, you could take 25 scoops from 4 holes to fill your bucket or you could take 20 scoops from 5 holes to fill your bucket. Your bucket is going to get filled either way. The point is, the more scoops you take from a hole, the more depleted the diamond/scoop ratio gets. At some point it makes sense to move to another hole where the diamond to scoop ratio is better.

Who knows, it’s all kind of a crapshoot. The bottom line is Riley is stepping up NU’s recruiting game in both identifying and landing talent and that is what is going to improve this team.
I apologize, I couldn't get the tabs and indents to work correctly for the table above
 
"So to use jflores example, you could take 25 scoops from 4 holes to fill your bucket or you could take 20 scoops from 5 holes to fill your bucket. Your bucket is going to get filled either way."

Point 1: Except that going on a four year cycle nets you more recruits faster. In a high level game where you are evaluated after 2-3 years, having those 5-10-15 extra guys up front would help.

Point 2: TO made his comment irrespective of star rating. A large section of your post is predicated on probabilities of certain types of recruits working out better than others. TO was blanket saying, no matter what I bring in, about half work at their expected talent level, basically.
 
Also note that TO made those comments in an era where it was less common to leave early, particularly from this program.

When you get a guy like a Joseph Lewis, who was very obvious about his desire to be on a three year plan, Tuco's interpretation of TO's argument actually becomes stronger because your back end positives never end up materializing.
 
"So to use jflores example, you could take 25 scoops from 4 holes to fill your bucket or you could take 20 scoops from 5 holes to fill your bucket. Your bucket is going to get filled either way."

Point 1: Except that going on a four year cycle nets you more recruits faster. In a high level game where you are evaluated after 2-3 years, having those 5-10-15 extra guys up front would help.

Point 2: TO made his comment irrespective of star rating. A large section of your post is predicated on probabilities of certain types of recruits working out better than others. TO was blanket saying, no matter what I bring in, about half work at their expected talent level, basically.
Point 1: Yes, if you assume all recruits are equal than a 4 year cycle brings them through the program quicker. But what is the point of recruiting stars and rankings? Are you saying they are meaningless?

Point 2: If I remember correctly, TO was talking about 50% recruits making an impact on the team. That is perfectly reasonable, but is probably applicable to most teams in the country. I mean, someone has to play right. So it is kind of a self fulfilling statistic. I'm talking about finding the difference makers. In that case, it could make sense to draw from a 5 year pool of potential recruits rather than a 4 year pool. Again, if you assume all recruits are equal, and the pool within a given year never dilutes, then sure, get them while you can, and cycle out the dead weight.

I'm not really arguing with the theory, I think it has some merit, just saying that you would need to be careful with your recruiting to be sure that you aren't reaching just to fill out a 25 recruit class.
 
Point 1: Yes, if you assume all recruits are equal than a 4 year cycle brings them through the program quicker. But what is the point of recruiting stars and rankings? Are you saying they are meaningless?

Point 2: If I remember correctly, TO was talking about 50% recruits making an impact on the team. That is perfectly reasonable, but is probably applicable to most teams in the country. I mean, someone has to play right. So it is kind of a self fulfilling statistic. I'm talking about finding the difference makers. In that case, it could make sense to draw from a 5 year pool of potential recruits rather than a 4 year pool. Again, if you assume all recruits are equal, and the pool within a given year never dilutes, then sure, get them while you can, and cycle out the dead weight.

I'm not really arguing with the theory, I think it has some merit, just saying that you would need to be careful with your recruiting to be sure that you aren't reaching just to fill out a 25 recruit class.

Yah you are trying to figure a micro argument into a macro debate. The reason I pointed out the fact that TO said it, was because TO wasn't working with no vanilla talent.

He made the statement sitting on quite a bit of NCAA FB luxury players. So it has to mean something, even for the highly touted kids.

The basic bottom line is you have to go after high rated kids at the micro level (matching positions to recruits, stars matter) and cycle through a fair number because you will have busts at all appropriate skill levels (~50%).
 
Yah you are trying to figure a micro argument into a macro debate. The reason I pointed out the fact that TO said it, was because TO wasn't working with no vanilla talent.

He made the statement sitting on quite a bit of NCAA FB luxury players. So it has to mean something, even for the highly touted kids.

The basic bottom line is you have to go after high rated kids at the micro level (matching positions to recruits, stars matter) and cycle through a fair number because you will have busts at all appropriate skill levels (~50%).
Again, the 50% is a self fulfilling stat. A crappy team with crappy players is still going to need about 50% of their crappy recruits to play. A great team with great players will have about 50% of their recruits play. So they both had about 50% of their recruits that didn't pan out, regardless of their recruiting rankings. You are saying that they should cycle in players more often (25 per year) to help offset these 50% busts, and to cycle them out sooner. I'm saying that that is fine, but you are drawing the recruits from a smaller pool (4 year instead of 5 year).
 
You lost me on the smaller pool. the pool gets filled every year doesn't it?
Sorry, what I mean is you are pulling recruits from 4 years of individual recruiting pools, instead of 5 years of recruiting pools. So in a given year if there are x amount of recruits nationwide, in the 4 year model your total pool you drew from is 4x, in 5 years it is 5x. So using jflores example of digging for diamonds, it might be better to dig from 5 holes rather than 4 holes (assuming there are a finite number of diamonds in these holes and there are multiple people digging each hole. If what jflores says is correct, that all recruits are equal, then the size of the pool doesn't matter. If your goal is to pull in as many top 100 recruits as possible, the 5x100 is a larger pool than 4x100. I think were we are seeing things different is that you and jflores are talking about rolling players through the system every 4 years and maximizing your 50% contributors, and in turn cycling out the other 50% as soon as possible. I'm talking about a snapshot in time to see how a 4 year recruiting cycle impacts the composition of a team verses a 5 year recruiting cycle.
 
I think you are not taking into account the 85 scholarship limit and the fact that 20, or at least a large chunk of that 20, is not available to you because they are redshirting.

In that scenario, if every class had 20, through attrition you are down to 85. You don't know what classes contributed to the attrition, but let's just say for arguments sake that 4 from the Sr Jr and Soph classes and 3 from the RS freshmen class.

You have 16 - 16- 16 -17 in those classes making up the composition of your team. Still 65 players.

In the other scenario you have 25 true freshmen, that can play if needed. That leaves you 60 players. 20 seniors 20 juniors 20 Soph and potential 5 true freshmen, if you want to even it up to 65 players.

If your bone of contention is roster composition, The roster with 60 players who have been eligible to play for 1-3 years (in my scenario) has potentially more experience than your roster with only 48 who have played in games, because the RS and true freshmen will have no game experience.

Just a thought.
 
I think you are not taking into account the 85 scholarship limit and the fact that 20, or at least a large chunk of that 20, is not available to you because they are redshirting.

In that scenario, if every class had 20, through attrition you are down to 85. You don't know what classes contributed to the attrition, but let's just say for arguments sake that 4 from the Sr Jr and Soph classes and 3 from the RS freshmen class.

You have 16 - 16- 16 -17 in those classes making up the composition of your team. Still 65 players.

In the other scenario you have 25 true freshmen, that can play if needed. That leaves you 60 players. 20 seniors 20 juniors 20 Soph and potential 5 true freshmen, if you want to even it up to 65 players.

If your bone of contention is roster composition, The roster with 60 players who have been eligible to play for 1-3 years (in my scenario) has potentially more experience than your roster with only 48 who have played in games, because the RS and true freshmen will have no game experience.

Just a thought.
No I agree, one of the benefits of the 4 year model is all scholarship players are available to play in a given year. Again, I don't have a bone of contention, because in a lot of ways it makes sense. I just saw when you posted comparing 4 x 25 = 100 vs 4 x 20 = 80, and while on the surface that seems like a no brainer, but after thinking about it I feel like the true comparison needs to be made between 4 year cycle and a 5 year cycle, because that is what an individual team is comprised of. 85 scholarships from 4 years, vs 85 scholarships from 5 years. The more I thought about it, the more I could see why a 5 year cycle has its uses also. In reality there is some combination that is used due to transfers, injuries, lack of depth, etc. Anyway, it has been a good discussion. I wouldn't want to be in charge of roster management based on the whims of 18-22 year olds. It has to be a lot like herding cats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOHusker11
There some crib notes of a Nate Clouse interview on 1620. In short, doesn't believe Riley is going to process the crap out of the team because he doesn't see a way to do it ethically. Right now top line number would be 17 or 18 with 2 or 3 kids who normally find their way out of the program. If they can get into that 20 number it would be "unbelievable".

Also believes the class QB will be Shough or Petras, and an offer will be made soon (if not already) and he expects a bite soon.

In other news....Michigan lost their #1 QB target and has 5 CB's for Shough.
Fwiw...DTR was our 1B target. He was our 1A until our passing coordinator left to take the OC job at UCLA where the kid committed. Our new guy in the role (Pep Hamilton) likes Joe Milton better. The interesting thing is they had them both in for our spring game and kept them separated. The result was DTR commiting to UCLA and the expected soon commitment of Milton.

The reason I bring this up is because of Shough (not to deflect DTR choosing UCLA which seemed to be heading that way ever since his Michigan recruiter went to UCLA). Rather it is because Michigan has told Shough they would be taking two QBs. The kid has said all the right things including he is not worried about being in a two QB class. However, you have to wonder if push comes to shove (decision time) what effect landing Milton has on Shough...especially since he is the guy our new passing coordinator is pushing. So keep an eye on that one...landing DTR might have given Michigan a better chance with Shough
 
ADVERTISEMENT