Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Samuel S" data-source="post: 129394166" data-attributes="member: 1754664">A walk-on is different. As I have shown,, not counting walk-ons there were more than scholarship players on the 2011 roster inherited by Dana. Even jock-sniffing Keaton wouldn't venture below 65 and as I replied his count was low (scholarship players who transferred out were still on the 2011 roster and he missed a number of scholarship players)&nbsp; so his count actually put it over 70. Also, no one has challenged the math I used to show the current team is also in the 70s so the difference is negligible&nbsp; now.&nbsp; It kind of goes without saying that the whole premise for the argument is stupid in any event. Teams don't win or lose because of who sits on the bench holding scholarships 55-85. Games are won or lost by,&nbsp; surpsingly enough, those who play when the game is in doubt.Holgorsen&nbsp; has had 4 full recruiting classes ( a potential 100 players) to address any things that could actually be an problem, which is not the raw numbers but,&nbsp; whether the players are better either in terms of raw talent or suitability for the systems we now employ.&nbsp;&nbsp; If any of his defenders had a clue and thought there was a winning argument to be made in that regard, they should have made it rather then brainlessly repeating things that weren't true and wouldn't be relevant to 2015 if they were.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Samuel S, post: 129394166, member: 1754664"] A walk-on is different. As I have shown,, not counting walk-ons there were more than scholarship players on the 2011 roster inherited by Dana. Even jock-sniffing Keaton wouldn't venture below 65 and as I replied his count was low (scholarship players who transferred out were still on the 2011 roster and he missed a number of scholarship players) so his count actually put it over 70. Also, no one has challenged the math I used to show the current team is also in the 70s so the difference is negligible now. It kind of goes without saying that the whole premise for the argument is stupid in any event. Teams don't win or lose because of who sits on the bench holding scholarships 55-85. Games are won or lost by, surpsingly enough, those who play when the game is in doubt. Holgorsen has had 4 full recruiting classes ( a potential 100 players) to address any things that could actually be an problem, which is not the raw numbers but, whether the players are better either in terms of raw talent or suitability for the systems we now employ. If any of his defenders had a clue and thought there was a winning argument to be made in that regard, they should have made it rather then brainlessly repeating things that weren't true and wouldn't be relevant to 2015 if they were. [/QUOTE]

Name