We are in rebuild mode and need major help now. How does this all work this year? I know seniors can stay and not count towards the 85. But what about the 25 per year? Do covid transfers and grad transfers count towards the 25?

In normal years do grad transfers count towards the 25?

All transfers count towards the 25 though you usually have some flexibility to push them forward

NCAA hasn’t announced if they’ll modify the initial counter number but I think they’ll have to especially if they allow a one time transfer without sitting out

There’s already far more guys in the portal than spots available at schools

I hope they do allow more than 25 for this year. It could really help us.

Push forwards, grey shirts, leadership scholarships, but 25=25

People have argued that to build a strong program for the long-haul recruiting has to be heavy on high school recruits that spend four or five years in the program. At a time where a major upgrade in personnel is needed taking JCs and transfers is seen as a quick fix that cannot be sustained. I generally agree with that but decided to play devil's advocate for a minute.

With the transfer portal as it is now things have changed. With not having to sit out a year this year it has changed even more. I decided to be analytical and model out what the opposite recruiting strategy could be:

25 scholarship recruits each year

5 top notch freshmen. Take only the very best high school athletes we can get. They almost always redshirt. We get more tested players from this high school class later as transfers.

20 transfers and JC, of which 15 have to sit out a year (redshirt)

Plus recruit 20 preferred walk-ons with speed, athleticism and that have the intangible football “IT”, but ones that need possibly two to three years in the weight room to get up to strength and size needed to compete.


85 overall on scholarship, and 35 walk-ons (I think that is the max allowed)

Seniors on scholarship (27):
4 five-year players
3 former walk-ons
20 transfer/JC/grad transfer
Of this 7 are fifth year players, 15 are third year players and 5 are second year players.

Juniors on scholarship (42):
4 four-year players
3 former walk-ons
20 transfer/JC playing (15 that redshirted the year before)
15 transfer/JC redshirting
Of this 7 are fourth year players, 15 are second year players and 5 are first year players.

Sophomores (on scholarship 6):
5 redshirt sophomores
1 former walk-on
5 preferred walk-ons

Playing Freshmen (on scholarship 5):
5 redshirt freshmen
10 preferred walk-ons

Redshirting freshmen:
5 on scholarship
20 preferred walk-ons

So, we have 65 scholarship players playing and 20 redshirting each year. Plus, we have 35 preferred walk-ons to help fill out the practice squad and provide depth beyond the 65 playing scholarship players. The program is known as a great place for developmental walk-ons as 7 former walk-on players are on scholarship each year.

This would make for a very mature squad with 69 juniors and seniors, and there is some continuity with the amount of redshirting and development of the younger players. In the junior and senior classes of the 54 players that are playing:
7 are fifth year players,
7 are fourth year players
15 are third year players
20 are second year players
Only 5 are first year players.

Just a model, but could something like this work as a long-term strategy in the transfer portal era? Seems like it could.

Anderson should be hitting the portal and jucos hard this off-season

This is the year to recruit High School kids. There are fewer getting recruited and I think just stabilizing the ship is enough next season. Yes, no bowl game, but we start building for the future and play the underclassmen. I don’t want to see a bunch of JC kids and transfers. New Mexico is as bad as they are because they heavily recruited JC and very few High School kids for years.

Full wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 12:06 am

This is the year to recruit High School kids. There are fewer getting recruited and I think just stabilizing the ship is enough next season. Yes, no bowl game, but we start building for the future and play the underclassmen. I don’t want to see a bunch of JC kids and transfers. New Mexico is as bad as they are because they heavily recruited JC and very few High School kids for years.

I've been thinking about this as well. It seems like there would be an opportunity to get some great high school players this year. With lots of teams keeping more players than usual because of the Covid rules, there are likely to be some really good high school players available that we maybe normally wouldn't be able to get.

On the other hand, there might be more risk than usual with high school players. Many of them have had their seasons cut short, so coaches will probably have a more difficult time evaluating them this year. It seems the risk/reward is pretty high this year.

I'll be interested to see what Coach Anderson does with this.

usubobcat wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 8:01 am

Full wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 12:06 am

This is the year to recruit High School kids. There are fewer getting recruited and I think just stabilizing the ship is enough next season. Yes, no bowl game, but we start building for the future and play the underclassmen. I don’t want to see a bunch of JC kids and transfers. New Mexico is as bad as they are because they heavily recruited JC and very few High School kids for years.

I've been thinking about this as well. It seems like there would be an opportunity to get some great high school players this year. With lots of teams keeping more players than usual because of the Covid rules, there are likely to be some really good high school players available that we maybe normally wouldn't be able to get.

On the other hand, there might be more risk than usual with high school players. Many of them have had their seasons cut short, so coaches will probably have a more difficult time evaluating them this year. It seems the risk/reward is pretty high this year.

I'll be interested to see what Coach Anderson does with this.

I think it should be a combination. Get some good solid high achool prospects, but also like 5 transfers that have proven themselves to help be competitive next year.

Here is my personal take from experience. Any juco guy may have more playing time and be okay but rarely did I see a juco guy come in and was physically stronger than a high school kid coming in and developing in our strength program. So I would only go after at most 5 juco. Grad transfers are different I would only do 3 of those a year. But I would make sure I get 17 high school kids a year. Gary 2.0 relied too much on juco and transfers which those guys came in and disrupted the culture that is built.

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk

I think I would only give scholarships to blue chip high school players. I would be trying to get high quality immediately eligible transfers from all classes. We should be able to get some with two, three, and even four years of eligibility remaining (a lot of redshirt freshmen will still be freshmen next year (think Peasley who will be a freshman for the 4th time)). We have a great sales pitch this year; opportunity for immediate playing time with a new coach so no prejudice to returning players.

We could be able to get the same level of high school recruits to commit as preferred walk-ons that we typically give scholarships to since the number of scholarships countrywide for high school players will be down. Historically we give out quite a few scholarships to players where we were their only D1 offer. Don't do that this year.

I would like to see something more like 20 transfers, 5 HS blue chip scholarships, and 20 HS preferred walk-ons. We might be able to get some transfers as preferred walk-ons as well.

Bybs25 wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 9:21 am

Here is my personal take from experience. Any juco guy may have more playing time and be okay but rarely did I see a juco guy come in and was physically stronger than a high school kid coming in and developing in our strength program. So I would only go after at most 5 juco. Grad transfers are different I would only do 3 of those a year. But I would make sure I get 17 high school kids a year. Gary 2.0 relied too much on juco and transfers which those guys came in and disrupted the culture that is built.

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk

I agree about not wanting many JCs. I would go after D1 transfers from all classes, the more eligibility remaining the better.

Year 1 would be the only time for a big influx of transfers with a new coach since you are just establishing a culture but after need to stay under 1/4 of all new incoming in order to limit the conflict in the locker room we have been seeing the past 2 years especially this year

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk

Bybs25 wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 9:39 am

Year 1 would be the only time for a big influx of transfers with a new coach since you are just establishing a culture but after need to stay under 1/4 of all new incoming in order to limit the conflict in the locker room we have been seeing the past 2 years especially this year

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk

I think this is key. Use it as a start up while everything is being rebuild the first year anyways. But then get back to high school prospects and establishing cohesion and team pride with development.

USUaggie wrote:I hope they do allow more than 25 for this year. It could really help us.

Are you sure?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk