forums

What are CIS thoughts?

2

2.0

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
1,355
Should schools be allowed to fill up classes until they reach a full 85?

My thought is these. You have 25 HS signees a year. Whatever the balance is, you can only fill with transfers(UG, JUCO, and GT) or NQs.

Transfers can sign early or in February but they are the Transfer signing class. Undergrads who transfer, can play right away ONLY if they leave the school in good academic standing by the institution and NCAA. Also, all of there credits will need to transfer at the new institution, he has to still be on pace to graduate. You can take in a kid who is not in good academic standing but he either has to sit a year as a NQ Undergrad Transfer or go to a JUCO.

Grad Transfers can only be considered a grad transfer, if they have already graduated. I dont think it is right for the institution to still pay for a kids education, if they are in the transfer portal.

JUCO signees have to be eligible before signing. No more JUCO kids signing in Dec but cant show up until June because they didnt graduate. You want to sign early, graduate early and be eligible. Bouncebacks can only resign with a D1 school if they have their associate or enough credits for an associate degree.

For the Late Qualifying HS kids. They will still count towards the HS number of 25.

School can also sign NQs under these rules.

1. The kids has to sit a year.
2. They count against your 85 their first year on campus. School can also provide aid.
3. The kid MUST be in Good academic standing after the Spring Semester had has achevied 26 credits and listed as a Sophomore
4. Once the kid completes steps 1-3, The kid counts against next year HS class.

thoughts?
 
Advertisement
This would bring utter chaos to recruiting. Incentivizing transfers by essentially making them unlimited (because coaches at top ranked schools will just push more under-performing kids out) and not counting any transfers as ICs is not a wise solution. The Bagas, Clem$ons, UGA($)s, Texa$es, Tenne$$ees, and other similarly situated $EC schools would just be able to poach top performing kids from G5 and middling P5 schools with impunity.

IMO, the better solution is to keep everything as is, but give schools a % of ICs back based on transfers up to a cap (I'd suggest 3 to minimize abuse). Something like, you get 1/3 of an IC the next season for every kid that enters the portal and actually transfers out the previous year (rounded to the nearest whole number). So if 5 guys hit the transfer portal last year, the school would get 3 additional ICs this year to use as they please (under the current rules, of course). If 8 guys hit the transfer portal last year, you still just get the 3 additional ICs (so it becomes harder to abuse).

This way attrition is still meaningful, but it somewhat lessens the harmful effects of the transfer portal. Providing a cap on the ICs gained limits potential abuse, as does the fractional nature of the ICs gained. Having it add to the upcoming season also prevents abuse, as coaches tend to focus on "winning now."
 
My thinking is this, This will force schools to focus on fully their HS class. This year we signed only 21 HS kids, Last year we only signed 19. Year before that we sign I think 23 HS kids That is 12 players missing from the Roster that can develop instead of being a mercenary

If a School can sign 25 HS kids a year, that essentially fills your roster anyway. The Top $chools already pushes out kids now. **** we do it. But atleast a kid can land back on his feet and not have to worry about finding a school.

And there is more examples of Tyre Bradys heading to G5 school and dominating than G5 kids moving up to P5 schools. Too many kids sitting in the portal because schools are limited in how many kids they can get in.
 
Look at Miami situation

I believe we are at 75 scholaship players including the recent signing class.

Thats 10 players missing. An influx of talent across the board would be nice for us.

Because of the lack of depth, im glad we didnt really go through Spring Practice.
 
Advertisement
2.0 said:
Look at Miami situation

I believe we are at 75 scholaship players including the recent signing class.

Thats 10 players missing. An influx of talent across the board would be nice for us.

Because of the lack of depth, im glad we didnt really go through Spring Practice.
Click to expand...

I am trying my best not to be disrespectful, but the highlighted section is about the most absurd (football-related) thing I have heard on CIS. We have a new offense being installed by our new offensive coordinator, new OL coach, and new WR coach, to be run by our new GT QB, and you are glad we didn't have Spring Practice because of depth?!?

Bonkers Bizarro-World Crazy-Time Logic.

You put a walk-on in with the 2nd/3rd team and you install your offense. Get the reps. Like the dozens upon dozens of other NCAA football teams whose scholarship numbers are in the 70s do.

C'mon, man.
 
Some responses in bold within the quote.

2.0 said:
My thinking is this, This will force schools to focus on fully their HS class. Schools don't need any incentive to focus on their HS class. All schools focus on HS recruiting. Based on the current rules, if you are too focused on transfers with limited eligibility beyond just filling needs here and there, your program won't have long-term success. Sure, your proposed rule would somewhat incentivize signing 25, but then it doubles down on the transfer market and incentivizing pushing those same signed kids out the door. Only the big dogs win in that scenario (even more so that currently). This year we signed only 21 HS kids, Last year we only signed 19. Year before that we sign I think 23 HS kids That is 12 players missing from the Roster that can develop instead of being a mercenary. You're saying last year we "only" signed 21 HS kids out of 25. Last year was 19 with a transition year because our HC retired out of the blue after our bowl game and it was the first year of the transfer portal (total anomaly). And the year before that was 23/25 HS kids. It feels like you are making my point for me. In non-transition years, that's 88% HS kids... overwhelming majority. I also don't know why you felt the need to label every transfer a "mercenary," especially considering your system gives the so-called mercenaries more maneuverability.

If a School can sign 25 HS kids a year, that essentially fills your roster anyway. Kids get hurt, sometimes permanently. Kids get homesick/salty/wild and transfer. Kids don't pan out. Kids get suspended. Kids become academically ineligible. Look around and tell me how many NCAA football teams are actually at 85. It's a small fraction of schools, mostly in the $ec. Also, please recognize that this position cuts against your entire argument. If 25 HS kids a year could actually fill up all these rosters, why would advocate changing the rule? The Top $chools already pushes out kids now. **** we do it. But at least a kid can land back on his feet and not have to worry about finding a school. Why would you incentive more of that? How does that help any of these kids?

And there is more examples of Tyre Bradys heading to G5 school and dominating than G5 kids moving up to P5 schools. Right, because of the ways the rules are currently set up. Too many kids sitting in the portal because schools are limited in how many kids they can get in. Right. But recognize that part is working as intended by the NCAA. It is so that kids can't just run to the portal every year and create a free-for-all. But they're also sitting there because, you know, it's kids making the types of decisions kids make. Immaturity + ego can be a motherfvcker when the talent on the field doesn't match the talent in your head. Also, I would point out my solution would help alleviate some of the portal clog going on right now.
Click to expand...
 
Y'all are overthinking this. We are 10 short now with gross mismanagement for a number of years

Just keep the current rules to minimize abuse, and increase from 25 to 28 ICs.

Hypothetically the three extra over a four year recruits eligibility we'd have 12, more than covering the 10 scholarships short now with a little leeway each year. Of course not everyone will keep an 85 because you might have a ton of attrition one year, but that's what makes the game fun and what coaches are paid for. Roster management still plays a role in a program success.
 
Advertisement
mirvin88 said:
Y'all are overthinking this. We are 10 short now with gross mismanagement for a number of years

Just keep the current rules to minimize abuse, and increase from 25 to 28 ICs.

Hypothetically the three extra over a four year recruits eligibility we'd have 12, more than covering the 10 scholarships short now with a little leeway each year. Of course not everyone will keep an 85 because you might have a ton of attrition one year, but that's what makes the game fun and what coaches are paid for. Roster management still plays a role in a program success.
Click to expand...

Of course UM is 10 short because we've mismanaged the roster. That's why we're never a good model to use.
Bumping up the ICs by 3 is not a bad idea either. That's basically what I proposed, only I tied into transfers lost. If the problem is too many transfers, then I think tying the solution to transfers makes sense.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
The Bagas, Clem$ons, UGA($)s, Texa$es, Tenne$$ees, and other similarly situated $EC schools would just be able to poach top performing kids from G5 and middling P5 schools with impunity.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....I've always thought the NFL method of giving to lowest performing teams' fans some hope via the draft is odd, but inspired. It gives fans of losing teams hope that they can turn things around ala The Chiefs and 49ers last year compared to three or so years ago.

Maybe our approach to the portal (or other recruiting numbers) could not only prevent the poaching potential problem$, but also tilt the scale to those trying to claw up (or claw back up).

There is some potentially interesting things which could be tried to stop the college version of the sport from being so **** predictable.

How many years has the "final four" been comprised of 3 out of 6 obvious teams, with 1 out of the next ten obvious teams to fill it out the final spot. BORING!!
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
Of course UM is 10 short because we've mismanaged the roster. That's why we're never a good model to use.
Bumping up the ICs by 3 is not a bad idea either. That's basically what I proposed, only I tied into transfers lost. If the problem is too many transfers, then I think tying the solution to transfers makes sense.
Click to expand...

I was just using us as a quick example, but there are many teams well under 85. It's not just us. Clemson, BAMA, etc they all toss a few scholarships every year to walk-ons because they're under 85. Maybe not even 3, 2 ICs might be fine. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be so complicated. With the portal now, 25 doesn't quite cut it. Just bumping up the ICs ties with the transfers already IMO because you're accounting for that attrition upfront now evenly across the board.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top