Patterson is back in the fold.
- Thread starter Oldman.sixpack
- Start date
Dude, you gotta supply more info than that...
Source? Nature of info? SOMETHING!! Wait....it's Miss Platinum, isn't it?
Source? Nature of info? SOMETHING!! Wait....it's Miss Platinum, isn't it?
Johnquarise?
I know I'm out of turn here but what the F is wrong with naming your child something remotely normal and phonetically reasonable.
I know I'm out of turn here but what the F is wrong with naming your child something remotely normal and phonetically reasonable.
Unique? I know her. She helped Poppy and Rose pick out the flowers at Daisy's wedding. She used to date Cash, but dumped him for Hunter. I think she was really into Drake, but he kept ducking her calls. Word is she she tried to get Diesel to take off with her, but that turned out to be a lot of smoke. Hawk found out because he has an eye for that sort of thing. Last I heard, she was with Bear, they live out in the woods in a tiny house. Archer was the last one to see them, he went hunting with Bo, but couldn't confirm what Bear was doing in the woods.
My understanding is that a non-qualifier would only cost you a scholarship if you were signing a full class of 25 players.....the new rules wouldn't allow you to oversign or count back in the next class to make up for the non-qualifier and so you would only be bringing in 24 new players in that class. If you aren't signing 25, then there is no downside to signing and placing a kid.
It will count against the 25, but not against the 85. He would then count against the 25 again when he signed out of JUCO.
I'd lay pretty good odds that we do not sign him -- just place him.
It's closing the counting back signees loophole mainly. Teams with a bunch of midyear guys(read the elites) were getting around the 25 limit that way. Also ends greyshirting.
Was that really a loop hole? I may not understand it, but I thought the only real impact is that whereas in the past, you could sign a grade risk in February and essentially get that signing spot back in december if they don't qualify, and under the new rule, if a signee doesn't make it to campus (for whatever reason), it's basically a lost spot.
I'm not sure that's an improvement. I can see the argument that it provides HS students an incentive to take care of their grades, but that incentive already seems large enough to me, and the only reason they don't take care of their grades is because they are really incapable (which is probably the rare exception) and they are really immature and come from a not great background, at least as far as valuing and pushing education whether because of ignorance or lack of resources (which is probably the vast majority of the cases). Seems like getting the guys that are going to be hurt are the ones that could benefit the most from getting into a 4 year program (i.e., fringe prospects that are not good enough to be worth the risk).
I just don't get what problem this is addressing and it looks like it's potentially harming prospects that are not likely pro material but could use a scholarship to a 4 year school to get them into a superior environment (both compared to their home and the likely environment at JUCO).
I think I remember seeing one of the recruiting reporters for MSU- I can't remember which one- saying the rule was made because people were oversigning. I don't believe MSU was at fault and I don't know if schools were signing risks that they didn't think would qualify and they did so they had to drop people that signed or what the issue was.
We'll see who it favors, but I actually think in some ways it may favor MSU because since teams in theory will be less likely to put borderline guys in the class for fear of them not qualifying it may end up being a situation where someone like MSU could actually end up placing more guys that they maybe want to get an extended look at moreso than they could in the past because they may not feel as obligated to take back a player that was on the signing list two years prior.
The big winner here is JUCO football for sure though. Because in theory if teams are worried about signing guys that won't qualify you're going to see some of the marginal guys that might have ended up in D-I football going to the JUCO's. I think if the formal signing and placing goes by the wayside or if it even causes more JUCO's to have agreements with schools like MSU the whole league is going to benefit instead of just mostly Co-Lin.
We'll see how it all turns out.
17 no MSU was not at fault. Here's our classes the last 5 years
2013 - 22 - 20 made it to campus
2014 - 24 - 20 made it to campus
2015 - 27 - 26 enrolled (the outlier)
2016 - 20 - 19 made it to campus and 2 were late summer additions. So we could have had only 17 17ing enrollees that year.
2017 - 25 - 21 made it to campus
Mullen has grossly mismanaged our roster. That puts our 5 year average right at the 85 limit, but that's not taking attrition or just non-sec level guys into account. All your signees aren't going to pan out and not everyone is going to want to stay. Mullen did a terrible job at roster management. You need to sign 25 every year and cut the fat if need be. The only excuse not to sing 25 every year is this year when you have a new coach coming in. He's not going to start cutting people without knowing what he was. So this rule wouldn't have effected Mullen whatsoever.
Mullen hasn't been over 80 originally counting scholarship players since at least 2013 by my quick run through and counting.
Look on the bright side -- if we ever get busted for something -- we've already self-imposed 40 scholarships over the past 6 seasons...
Look on the bright side -- if we ever get busted for something -- we've already self-imposed 40 scholarships over the past 6 seasons...
Yes. Especially with greyshirting and blueshirting, which was becoming more and more prevalent.
Ultimately the NCAA is consistently raising standards for student athletes. It's jumped a couple of times in the last decade. I agree that this doesn't help us. But it also hasn't hurt us like I was afraid it might when it was all going into play.
Ultimately the NCAA is consistently raising standards for student athletes. It's jumped a couple of times in the last decade. I agree that this doesn't help us. But it also hasn't hurt us like I was afraid it might when it was all going into play.
Pretty sure you can't sign 27 to a class anymore. I know the SEC made a rule that you can't oversign and I thought the NCAA adopted one a year or two after. So if you sign 25, I think you are stuck with those 25, unless and until one of them doesn't make it to campus. If they don't make it to campus, that opens up a scholarship that can be counted back, provided it's signed in December, meaning it's an early enrollee or JUCO december qualifier.
If you're talking about making it more likely that schools will bump up against the 85 scholarship by making it easier to ensure they get 25 kids in school, each year, then that is true. So maybe schools will sign some grade risks if the talent is significant, and to the extent that causes them to sign less than 25, they'll have to force less attrition. Still doesn't seem worth it to me.