forums

OU portal usage

Mr. Dynasty1

Mr. Dynasty1

Junior
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
16,269
They just picked up their 3rd Tennessee player. Only signed 16 in the class. I’m sure they didn’t expect a mass exodus like this but still seems strategic on their part.

People may not like the portal but schools will def start signing less High school kids and saving those schollys for transfer kids.

I think we start to do the same. And many other schools moving forward
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Ivins said in a recent podcast that the new normal will be 18-20 high schoolers and 5-7 spots for portal kids. They will treat group of five like a farm system and need to have a scouting department that is looking out for portal possibilities year round.
 
Ecush said:
Ivins said in a recent podcast that the new normal will be 18-20 high schoolers and 5-7 spots for portal kids. They will treat group of five like a farm system and need to have a scouting department that is looking out for portal possibilities year round.
Click to expand...

yup. makes sense tbh esp with kids transferring with more than 1 season left to play. LSU and OSU both solved their QB issues through the portal. OU did for years as well
 
Ecush said:
Ivins said in a recent podcast that the new normal will be 18-20 high schoolers and 5-7 spots for portal kids. They will treat group of five like a farm system and need to have a scouting department that is looking out for portal possibilities year round.
Click to expand...
I’m sure everyone besides Bama will be constantly scouting the portal and development a team just for that
 
Advertisement
Our need for the portal is driven more by our ineptitude in HS recruiting. I’m sure we’d rather fill our classes with 25 blue chip recruits than have to rely on the portal to subsidize poor recruiting. The top teams (Bama, Clemson, etc.) are net losers to the portal for a reason
 
Mr. Dynasty1 said:
They just picked up their 3rd Tennessee player. Only signed 16 in the class. I’m sure they didn’t expect a mass exodus like this but still seems strategic on their part.

People may not like the portal but schools will def start signing less High school kids and saving those schollys for transfer kids.

I think we start to do the same. And many other schools moving forward
Click to expand...
Purely on math, that makes no sense.
 
Ecush said:
Ivins said in a recent podcast that the new normal will be 18-20 high schoolers and 5-7 spots for portal kids. They will treat group of five like a farm system and need to have a scouting department that is looking out for portal possibilities year round.
Click to expand...


Ivins is dopey.

The math will not work out.

Let's say that you sign 20 HS kids per year for 5 years. Let's say you sign 5 transfers per year for 5 years.

Under the old system, you signed 25 over 5 years, that was 125 initial counters, and you could have 85 total counters, so that left you with a leeway of 40 guys, or 8 per year for 5 years, who could leave school, go to the NFL early, transfer, be kicked off the team, etc.

And, obviously, schools that would sign 125 per 5 years and stayed close to 85 counters were, effectively, losing 8 per year.

Now let's say that you sign 20 HS kids per year for 5 years. That puts you at 100. YOU ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE ATTRITION FOR KIDS WHO LEAVE SCHOOL, GO TO THE NFL EARLY, TRANSFER, KICKED OFF TEAM, ETC. Which would put you at 60 kids at the end of the 5-year cycle. Then you add in 25 transfers over 5 years, but they usually have 2 years to play, so that would give you 10 kids at the end of the 5-year cycle.

And that would put you at a roster of 70 recruited scholarship players (not counting walk-ons, so that we can make Midlo happy).

So, yeah, the math is not going to work out if they keep the ICs at 25 and you only take 20 HS kids per year. Also, over 120 Division I-A schools, which means 600 fewer HS kids get scholarships every year, because those ICs are going to transfer kids instead of HS kids. And, sure, someone will argue "but schools have always used some ICs for transfers". Yes. But not 600 ICs. Not every school has taken 5 transfers per year for 5 years in a row.

The NCAA needs to do something, and soon.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
Purely on math, that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Maybe to you and the older thinking of roster management. Of course it may not be an every year thing for schools. However, it would certainly be apart of how teams manuever to fill holes while waiting on younger players to develop
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Ivins is dopey.

The math will not work out.

Let's say that you sign 20 HS kids per year for 5 years. Let's say you sign 5 transfers per year for 5 years.

Under the old system, you signed 25 over 5 years, that was 125 initial counters, and you could have 85 total counters, so that left you with a leeway of 40 guys, or 8 per year for 5 years, who could leave school, go to the NFL early, transfer, be kicked off the team, etc.

And, obviously, schools that would sign 125 per 5 years and stayed close to 85 counters were, effectively, losing 8 per year.

Now let's say that you sign 20 HS kids per year for 5 years. That puts you at 100. YOU ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE ATTRITION FOR KIDS WHO LEAVE SCHOOL, GO TO THE NFL EARLY, TRANSFER, KICKED OFF TEAM, ETC. Which would put you at 60 kids at the end of the 5-year cycle. Then you add in 25 transfers over 5 years, but they usually have 2 years to play, so that would give you 10 kids at the end of the 5-year cycle.

And that would put you at a roster of 70 recruited scholarship players (not counting walk-ons, so that we can make Midlo happy).

So, yeah, the math is not going to work out if they keep the ICs at 25 and you only take 20 HS kids per year. Also, over 120 Division I-A schools, which means 600 fewer HS kids get scholarships every year, because those ICs are going to transfer kids instead of HS kids. And, sure, someone will argue "but schools have always used some ICs for transfers". Yes. But not 600 ICs. Not every school has taken 5 transfers per year for 5 years in a row.

The NCAA needs to do something, and soon.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt it’ll be a yearly thing.
 
Mr. Dynasty1 said:
Maybe to you and the older thinking of roster management. Of course it may not be an every year thing for schools. However, it would certainly be apart of how teams manuever to fill holes while waiting on younger players to develop
Click to expand...
Your comment was: "schools will def start signing less High school kids and saving those schollys for transfer kids."

So your theory is that there will be overall fewer D1 scholarships given to HS kids each year going forward?

Why don't you run that through your magical thinking Millennial simulator and see how it plays out.
 
Advertisement
Mr. Dynasty1 said:
They just picked up their 3rd Tennessee player. Only signed 16 in the class. I’m sure they didn’t expect a mass exodus like this but still seems strategic on their part.

People may not like the portal but schools will def start signing less High school kids and saving those schollys for transfer kids.

I think we start to do the same. And many other schools moving forward
Click to expand...
Ou closed out the early 2021 recruiting cycle with a whimper... went after the cream of the crop and just about came up empty outside of the olm Byrd..thus ships were available
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
Ivins is dopey.

The math will not work out.

Let's say that you sign 20 HS kids per year for 5 years. Let's say you sign 5 transfers per year for 5 years.

Under the old system, you signed 25 over 5 years, that was 125 initial counters, and you could have 85 total counters, so that left you with a leeway of 40 guys, or 8 per year for 5 years, who could leave school, go to the NFL early, transfer, be kicked off the team, etc.

And, obviously, schools that would sign 125 per 5 years and stayed close to 85 counters were, effectively, losing 8 per year.

Now let's say that you sign 20 HS kids per year for 5 years. That puts you at 100. YOU ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE ATTRITION FOR KIDS WHO LEAVE SCHOOL, GO TO THE NFL EARLY, TRANSFER, KICKED OFF TEAM, ETC. Which would put you at 60 kids at the end of the 5-year cycle. Then you add in 25 transfers over 5 years, but they usually have 2 years to play, so that would give you 10 kids at the end of the 5-year cycle.

And that would put you at a roster of 70 recruited scholarship players (not counting walk-ons, so that we can make Midlo happy).

So, yeah, the math is not going to work out if they keep the ICs at 25 and you only take 20 HS kids per year. Also, over 120 Division I-A schools, which means 600 fewer HS kids get scholarships every year, because those ICs are going to transfer kids instead of HS kids. And, sure, someone will argue "but schools have always used some ICs for transfers". Yes. But not 600 ICs. Not every school has taken 5 transfers per year for 5 years in a row.

The NCAA needs to do something, and soon.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's like no one here has ever thought about game theory.

If all schools save scholarships for transfer kids, then there will be fewer overall kids playing CFB and most schools will not be getting useful transfer kids. Meanwhile, the return on HS kids would go up, because the average quality of HS recruits would go up, because you'd have culled the bottom 600 kids from the pool. So the winning strategy in the hypothetical world where all programs lost their mind and started chasing the same handful of transfers would be to focus even harder on HS recruits. Meanwhile, the supply of useful transfer kids will deplete in this hypothetical universe, because there would be fewer HS recruits on a roster, meaning fewer kids who are likely to want to transfer.

And your roster point is right also - the key to any recruiting class, which is never really discussed or focused on, is how many useful starter seasons it generates (or 2-deep seasons, or snaps, or whatever metric you want to pick). Transfers don't tend to give you what a 3 year starter does. So you end up chasing your tail in a vicious cycle - fewer HS kids means more roster needs, and transfers won't fill them well enough, so you wind up needing more transfers to plug the holes your transfer strategy generated.

Transfers is a clever strategy when you're desperate to fill the roster (as Manny was) and when you can pluck some good kids, which we've been lucky to do. Maybe Miami is a better destination for reclamation projects than most places, so maybe it's a more viable strategy for UM than most other schools, but if so, the argument isn't 'everyone's going to chase the portal,' it's UM has a new source of advantage to go with local kids.
 
My general theory is that the Portal will work best for programs in fertile recruiting grounds that may not win the battles for HS players who commit. A lot of transfers are simply due to being homesick. Obviously thats Miami. So while it might not make sense for Nebraska to keep 7 spots for transfers it does for Miami. I think GT will do well in the portal going forward.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top