Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
On3 Football:
The SEC was always headed for nine conference games, but the reasons kept changing
On3 Football:
Tracking college football’s highest-paid quarterbacks
On3 Football:
Could Week 0 become college football’s new Week 1?
On3 NIL:
Brian Kelly sets LSU roster cost at 'just about $18 million'
On3 Football:
Greg Byrne reacts to SEC nine-game schedule decision, reveals what it means for Alabama
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
I hear claims talent and depth are improving, but
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Samuel S" data-source="post: 129388908" data-attributes="member: 1754664"><p>Damn, I already had these when I read your warning. Ah, what the heck.</p><p></p><p>From this site, comparing current roster with LOI signees:</p><p></p><p>13 of 29 from 2012 gone without using up eligibility; 3 transfers used it up. 13 players left</p><p></p><p>7 of 26 from 2013 gone without using up eligibility; 3 transfers used it up. 16 players left</p><p></p><p>7 of 21 from 2014 gone without using up eligibility; 1 transfer used it up; 13 players left.</p><p></p><p>Now there are probably a few scholarship players who are on the roster now who didn't show up on the LOI list (I know Sims and Riddick didn't, but they are gone. ) but how do those numbers translate to increased depth?</p><p></p><p>The good news is Cole is only the 2nd from this year's class that I can think of, which would mean we have 19 left.</p><p></p><p> That's a total of 61 scholarship players over the 4 year period still on the roster (again, there may be a few more due to the omission of late signees or whatever).</p><p></p><p> As we can give 25 scholarships a year and I believe we are losing somewhere around 18 senior scholarship players how does the math work to allow for the argument we are building depth for the future?</p><p></p><p> Just for discussion's sake let's say we have don't have 61 but 65 players from those recruiting years on this year's team. I believe we have 11 5th year players. That would total up to 76 scholarship players on the roster right now. Now, I don't think having a few vacancies is any big deal myself (no team wins or loses because it has a few more or less players on the bench; it's the people who actually play when it matters that, well, matter.)</p><p></p><p> I do see people here though trying to claim that we used to have such issues due to incompetence but that we don't anymore. A question arises. Were you wrong about it being a big deal then?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>18 will be using up eligibility. 76-18= 58? so, next year's coach will only have 58 returning scholarship players (assuming no one leaves with eligibility left, unlikely but possible) and about 43 with game experience. another question arises. Does that buy only a new coach, if we have one, 7 years to prove himself, or should Dana get 7 more too because it's going to be hard to compete in a big boy conference with those numbers?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Samuel S, post: 129388908, member: 1754664"] Damn, I already had these when I read your warning. Ah, what the heck. From this site, comparing current roster with LOI signees: 13 of 29 from 2012 gone without using up eligibility; 3 transfers used it up. 13 players left 7 of 26 from 2013 gone without using up eligibility; 3 transfers used it up. 16 players left 7 of 21 from 2014 gone without using up eligibility; 1 transfer used it up; 13 players left. Now there are probably a few scholarship players who are on the roster now who didn't show up on the LOI list (I know Sims and Riddick didn't, but they are gone. ) but how do those numbers translate to increased depth? The good news is Cole is only the 2nd from this year's class that I can think of, which would mean we have 19 left. That's a total of 61 scholarship players over the 4 year period still on the roster (again, there may be a few more due to the omission of late signees or whatever). As we can give 25 scholarships a year and I believe we are losing somewhere around 18 senior scholarship players how does the math work to allow for the argument we are building depth for the future? Just for discussion's sake let's say we have don't have 61 but 65 players from those recruiting years on this year's team. I believe we have 11 5th year players. That would total up to 76 scholarship players on the roster right now. Now, I don't think having a few vacancies is any big deal myself (no team wins or loses because it has a few more or less players on the bench; it's the people who actually play when it matters that, well, matter.) I do see people here though trying to claim that we used to have such issues due to incompetence but that we don't anymore. A question arises. Were you wrong about it being a big deal then? 18 will be using up eligibility. 76-18= 58? so, next year's coach will only have 58 returning scholarship players (assuming no one leaves with eligibility left, unlikely but possible) and about 43 with game experience. another question arises. Does that buy only a new coach, if we have one, 7 years to prove himself, or should Dana get 7 more too because it's going to be hard to compete in a big boy conference with those numbers? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
I hear claims talent and depth are improving, but
Top
Bottom