forums

85 scholarship / recruiting class limit

Cane6

Cane6

GreenTree All-Star
Joined
Nov 6, 2015
Messages
6,453
Being that we are about 10 or so under the the 85 scholly limit, and with the 25 kid limit per recruiting class, what is the work around for Miami to get back to full strength? I’m assuming it has something to do with the early enrollee vs not, and which kids count for which class.

Curious as to how long it’ll be until we are at full strength
 
Advertisement
Cane6 said:
Being that we are about 10 or so under the the 85 scholly limit, and with the 25 kid limit per recruiting class, what is the work around for Miami to get back to full strength? I’m assuming it has something to do with the early enrollee vs not, and which kids count for which class.

Curious as to how long it’ll be until we are at full strength
Click to expand...


We will get back to 85 when we RETAIN signees.

Has nothing to do with "early enrollees". That isn't going to fix anything.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
We will get back to 85 when we RETAIN signees.

Has nothing to do with "early enrollees". That isn't going to fix anything.
Click to expand...

I thought if you didn’t sign 25 in a year you could use early enrollment to fill the remaining spots (back filling) and then have 25 remaining. I thought this was how one would see very large classes. Is this not true anymore?
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
We will get back to 85 when we RETAIN signees.

Has nothing to do with "early enrollees". That isn't going to fix anything.
Click to expand...
The part you mentioned is a given

I’m talking logistically, mathematically, how does any team, not just Miami, make up a deficit around the 25 kid per class limit
 
Cane6 said:
Being that we are about 10 or so under the the 85 scholly limit, and with the 25 kid limit per recruiting class, what is the work around for Miami to get back to full strength? I’m assuming it has something to do with the early enrollee vs not, and which kids count for which class.

Curious as to how long it’ll be until we are at full strength
Click to expand...
Not recruiting like dog **** for your basic 25 per year would be a start.
 
Early signees still count towards the 25. it only matters if you didn’t sign 25 the year before then you can backfill your class to 25 and gives you the opportunity to sign more than 25 in the current year.
 
Advertisement
JTKoval said:
I thought if you didn’t sign 25 in a year you could use early enrollment to fill the remaining spots (back filling) and then have 25 remaining. I thought this was how one would see very large classes. Is this not true anymore?
Click to expand...


Hasn't been true for years.

We have blown through our "early enrollment" numbers due to taking all the transfers. Transfers count as ICs too.
 
Cane6 said:
The part you mentioned is a given

I’m talking logistically, mathematically, how does any team, not just Miami, make up a deficit around the 25 kid per class limit
Click to expand...



Again, assuming you took 25 per year and EVERYONE stayed for 5 years, that would mean you would have 40 spots "extra", which would allow you to be able to accommodate 8 losses due to attrition every year.

However.

Not everyone redshirts. And lots of kids transfer out. And transfers in count as ICs too. Thus, ever transfer-out-replaced-by-a-transfer-in counts as 2 IC slots.

Once again, if you want 85 guys...you have to have a high success rate on signees...and a low attrition rate. And even if you have a high success rate, that may lead to guys transferring out due to lack of playing time.

We need changes to the rules, particularly on transfer ICs. For instance, if a kid stays at a school for 4 semesters (equivalent of an AA at a JuCo), he can transfer without counting as an IC. That rule change would still disincentivize a Bru McCoy situation, while allowing kids who make an honest effort for 2 years to transfer more easily.
 
sigmar said:
Early signees still count towards the 25. it only matters if you didn’t sign 25 the year before then you can backfill your class to 25 and gives you the opportunity to sign more than 25 in the current year.
Click to expand...
That's the point. We never sign full classes, so every year we've got room for early enrollment.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, assuming you took 25 per year and EVERYONE stayed for 5 years, that would mean you would have 40 spots "extra", which would allow you to be able to accommodate 8 losses due to attrition every year.

However.

Not everyone redshirts. And lots of kids transfer out. And transfers in count as ICs too. Thus, ever transfer-out-replaced-by-a-transfer-in counts as 2 IC slots.

Once again, if you want 85 guys...you have to have a high success rate on signees...and a low attrition rate. And even if you have a high success rate, that may lead to guys transferring out due to lack of playing time.

We need changes to the rules, particularly on transfer ICs. For instance, if a kid stays at a school for 4 semesters (equivalent of an AA at a JuCo), he can transfer without counting as an IC. That rule change would still disincentivize a Bru McCoy situation, while allowing kids who make an honest effort for 2 years to transfer more easily.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those rules worked when players stuck it out until their turn to play. These days guys leave as soon as they don't get the starting job as a FR. Times change, rules should too.
 
Advertisement
kryptonite said:
That's the point. We never sign full classes, so every year we've got room for early enrollment.
Click to expand...


No, you are wrong. You are confusing the announced signing classes with the total number of enrolled scholarship athletes under the IC rules. As has been mentioned previously, transfers count against the IC slots too.

When will people put down the crackpipe of the "early enrollee" and "countback" rules that they clearly do not understand? And I'm not even mad or trying to blame you, it's just that we have hundreds of posters who talk about this stuff and it ends up misleading us into thinking that our coaches are not trying everything in their power to get to 85 scholarship athletes.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
No, you are wrong. You are confusing the announced signing classes with the total number of enrolled scholarship athletes under the IC rules. As has been mentioned previously, transfers count against the IC slots too.

When will people put down the crackpipe of the "early enrollee" and "countback" rules that they clearly do not understand? And I'm not even mad or trying to blame you, it's just that we have hundreds of posters who talk about this stuff and it ends up misleading us into thinking that our coaches are not trying everything in their power to get to 85 scholarship athletes.
Click to expand...
So you can't back fill a previous class that was under 25 with EEs anymore? What if you had a small senior class and couldn't use all 25 but now have room?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
No, you are wrong. You are confusing the announced signing classes with the total number of enrolled scholarship athletes under the IC rules. As has been mentioned previously, transfers count against the IC slots too.

When will people put down the crackpipe of the "early enrollee" and "countback" rules that they clearly do not understand? And I'm not even mad or trying to blame you, it's just that we have hundreds of posters who talk about this stuff and it ends up misleading us into thinking that our coaches are not trying everything in their power to get to 85 scholarship athletes.
Click to expand...
We do this every year at least once. So how am I wrong?

Say we were starting from scratch and signed 22 in this class. Would that not mean we had 3 slots open for transfers/early enrollees the following year? My understanding was that EEs can be counted in the previous class if you didn't sign a full class (which is usually the case).

As for what the coaches are trying, I've never bought that line. It's retarded that people think they just aren't trying. Maybe it doesn't always work out, but they're playing the guys the legit think give them the best shot, and they're legit trying to carry a full complement of athletes (minus a few spots you might purposely leave open for transfers).
 
Advertisement
We the Boss said:
Not recruiting like dog **** for your basic 25 per year would be a start.
Click to expand...
We have done that 1 time ( the 2019 class ) and even that wasn't a horrible class. Richt brought in the 2 best classes of the last 12 years in 2017 and 18 and our class this year will as good as either of those classes so this just doesn't have anything to do with anything and is not based in much reality . We have 22 commits and all of them are **** good players just about. Our class is basically done minus a few .
 
Advertisement
Back
Top