Portal inflow

[jpfalcon09]

NCAA has been discussing about giving teams who have a negative net loss of transfer players additional scholarships to use to fill those spots. I think it would be a wise decision, and would eliminate coaches from having to make these decisions.

[roguewarrior]

NCAA has been discussing about giving teams who have a negative net loss of transfer players additional scholarships to use to fill those spots. I think it would be a wise decision, and would eliminate coaches from having to make these decisions.

Until they change the rules, Lower tier HS players are in harms way for receiving scholarships from the beginning.

A ruling like that would help the incoming development guys. I could also see Bozo coaches driving out more players, to clear for a transfer. It’s an ugly business.

[jpfalcon09]

NCAA has been discussing about giving teams who have a negative net loss of transfer players additional scholarships to use to fill those spots. I think it would be a wise decision, and would eliminate coaches from having to make these decisions.

Until they change the rules, Lower tier HS players are in harms way for receiving scholarships from the beginning.

A ruling like that would help the incoming development guys. I could also see Bozo coaches driving out more players, to clear for a transfer. It’s an ugly business.

All about winning. G5 coaches want to move up. P5 coaches want to keep their place. Basically college football's version of free agency. Recruiting will eventually take a back seat for some programs who will simply supplement from the portal.

[BGSU33]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampab ... utType=amp

Maybe this will help your math? Google the subject and you can read 50 other articles confirming what I said. It even quotes BG coach Warner saying same.

“ If the 130 schools at the Division I-A level each reserved five scholarships for transfers, that would mean 650 fewer scholarships for high school athletes”

And more recent:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mlive. ... utType=amp

The authors of some of these articles are looking at this from the same standpoint you are, with blinders on, and I'm really not trying to a smartass by saying that. The narrative of articles like these are missing a key and extremely valid point. Eligible transfers are eligible student athletes. Focus on that for a second and read on. Their eligibility is still ticking. Whether they stayed at a school or left for another, they can only hold one scholarship from one school based on the parameters we're talking about. So no matter how many times they transfer, they aren't eating up additional scholarships (thus, they're not taking away anything from anyone). For example, if a guy signs at Kansas, then transfers to BG, then transfers to Penn State, then transfers to Alabama, he's not sitting on 4 combined scholarships from 4 different schools over 4 full years. It doesn't work that way at all. He'd be linked to 1 scholarship from 4 schools over 4 separate years, which equates to 1, 4-year. full-ride in the end. This is where the misnomer of transfers taking away high schooler opportunities begins. The only way that logic would apply is if kids who exhausted their eligibility were allowed to come back to school to play. Then that point would be true. But it's not happening here. Further, for all the guys log-jammed in the transfer portal right now, schools that lost these kids to the portal have zero obligation to commit scholarships to any of theses kids. Meaning, they can redirect their resources to someone else. The portal could have 10 times the number of kids it has in it now, it doesn't matter, it doesn't impact what we're discussing. The problem with the portal isn't with the guys finding new homes out of it, it's all the kids who go into it who don't have anywhere else to go. But that's an entirely different topic all together. Do I think the transfer portal is a mess and is causing a lot of heartache and headache? Yes, yes I do. But is the transfer portal taking away opportunities from high school kids? No, no it's not. Because the scholarship numbers are still the same every year for all 130 FBS teams from year to year per the NCAA's 85/25 rules. The numbers are capped. Period. No matter who writes what or expresses their thoughts or opinions on it, those are the rules and legislation when dealing with scholarships. So a guy sitting in Tampa, Florida can write all he wants about how the system sucks, but it doesn't change the cap numbers one bit. There are a number of FBS schools who can't even offer close to a full 25 scholarships every year because they are on the right side of the 85 and sign small classes in the teens and are selective. They are in great shape, this is where BG is trying to be. Then you have cases like BG is in right now where it signs the full 25, and still adds other kids tied to other classes, and is still on the wrong side of 85. Either scenario, it's all inclusive and falls under the same cap and guidelines.

[roguewarrior]

Ok. We will have to agree to disagree, along with all the published reports.

If BG has 25 scholarships to give in 2022, and they give 5 to transfers, and 20 to High School players…… somehow the 5 high schoolers left off the table will still have scholarships…..

[TalonsUpPuckDown]

Is this more of a problem right now with the extra year of Covid eligibility materially expanding the pool of portal available kids? Won't all this settle down in 3-4 years to more of a zero sum when the number of HS kids being recruited is back in line with the number of kids aging out on eligibility with the transfer portal stuff swirling about in between?

I'm a hockey guy so I'm way over my skis on football recruiting/eligibility so go easy on me.

[jpfalcon09]

Is this more of a problem right now with the extra year of Covid eligibility materially expanding the pool of portal available kids? Won't all this settle down in 3-4 years to more of a zero sum when the number of HS kids being recruited is back in line with the number of kids aging out on eligibility with the transfer portal stuff swirling about in between?

I'm a hockey guy so I'm way over my skis on football recruiting/eligibility so go easy on me.

The free covid year is definitely making things worse, but there exists the potential for even in a regular year if a program undergoes a coaching change or a mass exodus of players that it could become an issue. Coaches and administrators want to be given extra scholarships to use in a given year where they have a negative net number of transfers so they can replenish their rosters quicker.

As it stands now, if you say lose ten guys to the portal and replace those ten with guys from the portal and put them on scholarship, you'll only have 15 scholarships left for normal recruiting efforts. The result is a sag in numbers within your recruiting classes that could severely hamper a program a couple years down the road. As rogue mentioned, the more scholarships being chewed up by transfers under the current rules, the less likely a high school kid who is borderline scholarship material gets offered one. It's overall not a good scenario for the long-term viability of college football, especially if you undergo severe attrition.

[TalonsUpPuckDown]

Is this more of a problem right now with the extra year of Covid eligibility materially expanding the pool of portal available kids? Won't all this settle down in 3-4 years to more of a zero sum when the number of HS kids being recruited is back in line with the number of kids aging out on eligibility with the transfer portal stuff swirling about in between?

I'm a hockey guy so I'm way over my skis on football recruiting/eligibility so go easy on me.

The free covid year is definitely making things worse, but there exists the potential for even in a regular year if a program undergoes a coaching change or a mass exodus of players that it could become an issue. Coaches and administrators want to be given extra scholarships to use in a given year where they have a negative net number of transfers so they can replenish their rosters quicker.

As it stands now, if you say lose ten guys to the portal and replace those ten with guys from the portal and put them on scholarship, you'll only have 15 scholarships left for normal recruiting efforts. The result is a sag in numbers within your recruiting classes that could severely hamper a program a couple years down the road. As rogue mentioned, the more scholarships being chewed up by transfers under the current rules, the less likely a high school kid who is borderline scholarship material gets offered one. It's overall not a good scenario for the long-term viability of college football, especially if you undergo severe attrition.

I get it now, it's not zero sum as long as the NCAA doesn't address the "chewed up" scholarships problem. Thanks.

[Flipper]

You're never two young to learn that there are in fact two sets of rules and that your ability often determines which set you'll follow

[BGSU33]

Is this more of a problem right now with the extra year of Covid eligibility materially expanding the pool of portal available kids? Won't all this settle down in 3-4 years to more of a zero sum when the number of HS kids being recruited is back in line with the number of kids aging out on eligibility with the transfer portal stuff swirling about in between?

I'm a hockey guy so I'm way over my skis on football recruiting/eligibility so go easy on me.

The free covid year is definitely making things worse, but there exists the potential for even in a regular year if a program undergoes a coaching change or a mass exodus of players that it could become an issue. Coaches and administrators want to be given extra scholarships to use in a given year where they have a negative net number of transfers so they can replenish their rosters quicker.

As it stands now, if you say lose ten guys to the portal and replace those ten with guys from the portal and put them on scholarship, you'll only have 15 scholarships left for normal recruiting efforts. The result is a sag in numbers within your recruiting classes that could severely hamper a program a couple years down the road. As rogue mentioned, the more scholarships being chewed up by transfers under the current rules, the less likely a high school kid who is borderline scholarship material gets offered one. It's overall not a good scenario for the long-term viability of college football, especially if you undergo severe attrition.

I get it now, it's not zero sum as long as the NCAA doesn't address the "chewed up" scholarships problem. Thanks.

Scholarships aren’t being chewed up because of transfers. Any scholarship transfer who enters the portal becomes non binding to the scholarship at the school he is leaving per that institution. He is released from his former scholarship. He essentially becomes a free agent who can be re-recruited and resigned by another school. Meaning, he is now without a scholarship until he is resigns - AND - MANY OF THESE GUYS NEVER END UP GOING ELSEWHERE. Many of them do not have a scholarship at another school. Not only are these transfers freeing scholarships up in records numbers because they left theirs on the table, many more aren’t taking ones at other schools either. This is the thing these articles fail to cover or focus on. The number of transfers into the portal and the ones signed out of the portal are majorly skewed. Transfers who don’t resign at new schools are actually creating added scholarships to the scholarship pool that otherwise weren’t even there to offer in the first place. They were the ones who had them and now no longer do. These guys are the majority right now and more guys are left unsigned in the portal than signed out of the portal. THIS is the major issue with the high numbers of guys entering the portal right now. Many of them gave up their scholarship and didn’t get one again after that. But still, whether they end up at a new school or not, it still frees up a new open scholarship at their former school. The kicker is, does that school have any scholarships left to offer under the 25 yearly cap to offset the departure in the current year’s respective class? That is the rub. Some do, some do not. Does the Covid year and super seniors add another wrinkle to all this? Absolutely. But this notion of transfers taking away opportunities from highschoolers as some narratives try and state as fact is far from the truth.

[Schadenfreude]

The kicker is, does that school have any scholarships left to offer under the 25 yearly cap to offset the departure in the current year’s respective class? That is the rub. Some do, some do not.

I would think programs are often not at this cap, right? Assuming 85 scholarships, and half of incoming players redshirt, that's only about 19 scholarships per year, on average.

[BGSU33]

The kicker is, does that school have any scholarships left to offer under the 25 yearly cap to offset the departure in the current year’s respective class? That is the rub. Some do, some do not.

I would think programs are often not at this cap, right? Assuming 85 scholarships, and half of incoming players redshirt, that's only about 19 scholarships per year, on average.

I don’t know the exact number of teams that hover at or near 85 this year. And it obviously varies from year to year as well. But one of the ways to gauge how close teams are is look at their combined recruiting total from both the early and late signing period combined. Schools that were at 25 (like BG has been for several years), you can pretty much assume they’re under. Schools that sign say 15-20, you can assume they’re at or near the number. Schools that add a small class like 12-15, those are usually right up against the number. But those schools who are in good shape are the ones who can also hold several scholarships in their pocket and can selectively add grad transfers or quality unsigned guys late before the windows closes too. Now sometimes you see schools list over 25, like say 30-32, and they’re all signees (or going to be signees). That’s when schools starts connecting recruiting to other year’s recruiting classes. That’s when there are several scholarships that aren’t tied to the current year’s class but to a different year’s class, but those numbers still count towards what each year’s respective counters are. It’s a way to gain a little wiggle room with the capped 25, but it does put a dent into the 25 for another year. A number of schools do or have done it (such as BG has). And some schools may list like 40 guys as part of their class, but not all of those are signees. It’s essentially their way of nicely including walk-ons with their signees and saying all of them are part of their recruiting class.

[mbenecke]

Looks like the debate from last week has reached a "conclusion" of sorts: teams will be able to replace transfers outside of the traditional 25 count limit.

https://www.si.com/college/2021/08/20/n ... fer-portal

[Flipper]

Which creates an even greater incentive for coaches to run kids off.

[roguewarrior]

What is clear, is that there is no debate under the current rules, that HS players get screwed by the portal:

“Officials are hoping the additional spots result in coaches steering their recruiting back to the high school level. Some coaches have stated publicly that they’re holding as many as half of their classes for transfers, adversely impacting high school and junior college recruiting.”

What has not been nailed down is how many transfers can be replaced? I think 5 is a good number. If you have 10+ leaving, you have deeper problems with the coaching either in poor recruiting or bad leadership.