So are close on schollies?
- Thread starter Tommaker
- Start date
The 25 scholarship limit is going away.
Being only at 85 at campus at one time is the only challenge now
Being only at 85 at campus at one time is the only challenge now
So.. now is a time for a lot of questions and I’ve felt all over the place..
that is one thought, so it’s natural to think we are over signing and not leaving room for more talented prospects who will decide late.
however, remember that the 25 limit is gone now. So if brohm, knowing he will start with 85, thinks 32 will leave of their own volition and 3 more are likely to get the talk if they don’t improve substantially over the year.. he could sign 28 and still have 7 left for transfers and cut more if he wants to bring more.
for us it’s 6 of one half dozen of another with the programs above us in stature …
If the 30 to 40 or so programs who outdo us Bring in 25 each, that’s less transfers they can take OR more guys like brevard that they will release..
Just be smart and you can thrive.
5.5 guys who want to be here for the right reasons are probably more of an asset. You just can’t take developmental guys like sean sester anymore cause you don’t have time. You probably also see less schollies awarded to walk ons and less good citizen takes like Brandt.
No they are either lifting the 25 altogether or go with the same 32 with bonus 7 transfers this year. The 85 will be a lot more fluid moving forward as the guys getting passed up will be free to transfer without sitting a year. We don’t have stupid NIL money where we will get super stars from transfers, just plugging several holes with solid starters like we have done in the past.
Don’t let ratings get in the way of a good offer. We’d take 4 Sean sesters this year he had a pretty decent offer sheet and started as a red short freshman, wouldn’t call him a development guy. But I agree probably less Clyde washingtons and brandts.
Didn’t sester need to put on 80 lbs? Or am I thinking of OT Garrett Miller?
is sulaiman kpaka a “take” now? Probably not
One of the dumbest rules the NCAA came out with. Why would a player get a free year of eligibility when that player/team wasn't impacted by COVID?
Makes sense for the Ivy League which shut down sports completely, but Oprah'ing another year of eligibility was... well on par with the NCAA's ineptitude.
One of the many decisions that were not thought through.
Why does a freshman who more than likely wouldn't have played in 2020 yet still had the opportunity to play in 6 to 12 games, get eligibility through 2024? I get that missing out on some games had a major impact on seniors and to a lesser extend juniors, but after that give me a break. It is screwing up rosters, recruiting, and with smaller classes some guys will miss out on a D1 scholarship because of it.
Last edited:
