Explaining The Numbers Game In The Shadow of Sanctions

[btcane]

FreePawn; You have repeatedly been posting that, “The EE numbers doesn’t matter, it’s the 85 TOTAL numbers that matter.”
Respectfully, I gotta point out that that is only PARTIALLY TRUE. When facing posible schollie limitations via sanctions, both are manifestly important. Let me explain.
The Gods in Kansas City may (just may) hand down sanctions limiting the number of scholliies per year, and a total roster limitation, as well. Usually, they do both!
For example only, let’s assume a penalty of 5 schollies a year for 3 years, with a maximum roster of 80 men.
That means that, instead of being able to award 25 ‘ships a year (assuming a limit of 85 total), we, we can only award 20 ships per year, so long as we do not exceed the limit of 80, as per the sanction limitation.
Remember, the number of SIGNEES in any class does not put us over the 85 (or 80 if we have sanction limitations) in February, because they are not yet enrolled! However the number that we ENROLL in September cannot exceed the maximum permissible number (usually 85, unless the Gods decree less.)
Those are the numbers that FreePawn has been referring to.
However, Roster management in anticipation of sanctions considers EEs very important for the following reasons.
Assuming we have about 5 slots for EEs who would count against last year’s class. (Only staff knows who counted against last year’s numbers.) Any EEs who enter this January would count against 2012 cycle. [We DO have room for 5 under the current 85 limit.]
Therefore, assuming we get the expected sanctions [assumed at 5, above], those sanctions would not affect us until the fall of 2014, or the 2014 recruiting class, at the earliest.
Again, assuming the 5 per year, assumed above, we would be permitted only 20, instead of the usual 25. BUT 5 OF THEM COULD COUNT AGAINST 2013 NUMBERS, if we have 5 EEs this year. Yes, we will also be up against the Roster Maximum of 80, instead of 85, but that should be taken care of by attrition.
So, you see, the number of EEs this year are very important! Especially if they are Jucos, because they will only last 2 years, thus lowering our cap numbers after 2016 to comport w/ expected cap sanctions, while allowing those stud freshman entering this year to redshirt, grow and contribute down the road.

 

[FreePawn]

assuming the 5 per year, assumed above, we would be permitted only 20, instead of the usual 25. BUT 5 OF THEM COULD COUNT AGAINST 2013 NUMBERS, if we have 5 EEs this year.

This is a valid point. Again it assumes we will be trying to add 25+ players for 2013. We won´t. Without attrition, we will be at 70 scholarship players, so for every signee exceeding the 15 total we will have to have one non-senior leave the team. Now, if we do "cut" more than 5 and sign players for each of them, then your scenario starts to become relevant. IMO that´s a bit of a stretch, I think the staff is reckoning with 20 tops, which would still leave the 5 spots for 2014 EEs that you mention.

Another factor is that the staff last year was adamant that we would only enroll 31 players, thanks to the 6 EE spots available. And, despite signing 32, come the fall, hey presto, only 31 enrolled. So I´m pretty (let´s say 99%) sure we don´t have any EE spots left to count back. Don´t get suckered into thinking that kids who enrolled and have since left the team open up spots in their respective class (they don´t), only their roster spots open up.

Neverless, some of that (how much attrition we will see this year; how many kids the coaches plan on taking) is conjecture on my part, so we´ll see, and thanks for the well thought out post.

 

[btcane]

FreePawn, One of the key points in my post was that, "Only the staff knoes how many EEs we have available to count against last year's numbers." That is because every year certain number get "back charged" against the previous year's class.

[NOTE TO ARIZ: Maybe you can call the FB office and get a definative answer.]

As for the issue of attrition, your attention is invited to another post of mine where i address that very point. I listed the following 10 guys. Five to two odds say at least 5 of 'em won't be back. Maybe more. There is your attrition!

Johnson (So) Will Al tolerate him?
Cain (Sr) - Ditto / might be a grades problem, as well
Highsmith (Sr) - Not easy, but he has his degree
Cleveland - Not UM talent
C. King (Jr) - Not UM talent
Brisco (So) - Reported non-contrib
D. Perry - Not UM talent
C. White - reportededly already gone
Henderson ?
Porter ?

BTW, I do not think we will add 25 new guys. I DO think we will add 20, or more, however.

 

[DiegoCane]

FreePawn, One of the key points in my post was that, "Only the staff knoes how many EEs we have available to count against last year's numbers." That is because every year certain number get "back charged" against the previous year's class.

[NOTE TO ARIZ: Maybe you can call the FB office and get a definative answer.]

As for the issue of attrition, your attention is invited to another post of mine where i address that very point. I listed the following 10 guys. Five to two odds say at least 5 of 'em won't be back. Maybe more. There is your attrition!

Johnson (So) Will Al tolerate him?
Cain (Sr) - Ditto / might be a grades problem, as well
Highsmith (Sr) - Not easy, but he has his degree
Cleveland - Not UM talent
C. King (Jr) - Not UM talent
Brisco (So) - Reported non-contrib
D. Perry - Not UM talent
C. White - reportededly already gone
Henderson ?
Porter ?

BTW, I do not think we will add 25 new guys. I DO think we will add 20, or more, however.

King will be a RS SO. Briscoe with be a RS FR.

 

[MiamiHurricane23]

I hope we keep King.. I remember him either being related or best friends with a big time recruit

 

[bobbydigius]

FreePawn, One of the key points in my post was that, "Only the staff knoes how many EEs we have available to count against last year's numbers." That is because every year certain number get "back charged" against the previous year's class.

[NOTE TO ARIZ: Maybe you can call the FB office and get a definative answer.]

As for the issue of attrition, your attention is invited to another post of mine where i address that very point. I listed the following 10 guys. Five to two odds say at least 5 of 'em won't be back. Maybe more. There is your attrition!

Johnson (So) Will Al tolerate him?
Cain (Sr) - Ditto / might be a grades problem, as well
Highsmith (Sr) - Not easy, but he has his degree
Cleveland - Not UM talent
C. King (Jr) - Not UM talent
Brisco (So) - Reported non-contrib
D. Perry - Not UM talent
C. White - reportededly already gone
Henderson ?
Porter ?

BTW, I do not think we will add 25 new guys. I DO think we will add 20, or more, however.

To add more players to POSSIBLY being apart of attrition
D Dye-should have his degree and we are recruiting lots of TEs
T Cornelius-probably gonna get passed by of the depth chart by everybody next year
Crow- maybe not this year, but I expect one of the QBs to transfer eventually, and right now it looks like it may end up Crow instead of Dewey
Thompson- Baseball could become a factor and he may decide to drop football, never know

Not saying any of these kids leave, but it is a possibility.
If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

 

[FreePawn]

If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

I give up. What is the fascination with EEs? Apart from the unlikely scenario of the staff wanting to sign more than 20 players, there is zero need for them. The staff isn´t pushing for EEs like they were last year, I´m sure they know why.

 

[rudebuddha]

Golden said we will only be adding 15-16 players. It can't get any more up front then that.

 

[btcane]

FreePawn, One of the key points in my post was that, "Only the staff knoes how many EEs we have available to count against last year's numbers." That is because every year certain number get "back charged" against the previous year's class.

[NOTE TO ARIZ: Maybe you can call the FB office and get a definative answer.]

As for the issue of attrition, your attention is invited to another post of mine where i address that very point. I listed the following 10 guys. Five to two odds say at least 5 of 'em won't be back. Maybe more. There is your attrition!

Johnson (So) Will Al tolerate him?
Cain (Sr) - Ditto / might be a grades problem, as well
Highsmith (Sr) - Not easy, but he has his degree
Cleveland - Not UM talent
C. King (Jr) - Not UM talent
Brisco (So) - Reported non-contrib
D. Perry - Not UM talent
C. White - reportededly already gone
Henderson ?
Porter ?

BTW, I do not think we will add 25 new guys. I DO think we will add 20, or more, however.

To add more players to POSSIBLY being apart of attrition
D Dye-should have his degree and we are recruiting lots of TEs
T Cornelius-probably gonna get passed by of the depth chart by everybody next yearCrow- maybe not this year, but I expect one of the QBs to transfer eventually, and right now it looks like it may end up Crow instead of Dewey
Thompson- Baseball could become a factor and he may decide to drop football, never know

Not saying any of these kids leave, but it is a possibility.
If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

I agree w/ comments re Dye & Cornelius. We'll see after Spring Game. Neither Crow nor Dewey are gonna leave this year, I don't think.

 

[bobbydigius]

If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

I give up. What is the fascination with EEs? Apart from the unlikely scenario of the staff wanting to sign more than 20 players, there is zero need for them. The staff isn´t pushing for EEs like they were last year, I´m sure they know why.

Fascination? Unlikely scenario that we sign more than 20? Golden said that the class of 2013 will be about 15-16 and that in it self is true. Now if we sign any JUCO kids plus any other 2013 kids in January, up to 6 of them, can and would count as being apart of the 2012 class. You are allowed to sign 28 a year with only 25 being able to report that summer/fall. Last year after all the smoke cleared, we only had 22/23(i forget that exact) report in the fall. We had room for 8 EEs to account against the small class in 2011. Bottom line is we can have 5/6 kids count against 2012, plus take 15 in 2013. Look at all the different kids we are recruiting and you will easily deduct that there will be more than 15 new names on the roster come next season. Now yes we do have that magic number of 85, which Golden has set as 80 as part of self imposing scholly reductions, to deal with, but if you look at the roster as we are in this thread you will notice that getting down to 60 is not that far fetched.

 

[WhatTheHell]

There is a lot of dead weight on this roster.

 

[FreePawn]

If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

I give up. What is the fascination with EEs? Apart from the unlikely scenario of the staff wanting to sign more than 20 players, there is zero need for them. The staff isn´t pushing for EEs like they were last year, I´m sure they know why.

Fascination? Unlikely scenario that we sign more than 20? Golden said that the class of 2013 will be about 15-16 and that in it self is true. Now if we sign any JUCO kids plus any other 2013 kids in January, up to 6 of them, can and would count as being apart of the 2012 class. You are allowed to sign 28 a year with only 25 being able to report that summer/fall. Last year after all the smoke cleared, we only had 22/23(i forget that exact) report in the fall. We had room for 8 EEs to account against the small class in 2011. Bottom line is we can have 5/6 kids count against 2012, plus take 15 in 2013. Look at all the different kids we are recruiting and you will easily deduct that there will be more than 15 new names on the roster come next season. Now yes we do have that magic number of 85, which Golden has set as 80 as part of self imposing scholly reductions, to deal with, but if you look at the roster as we are in this thread you will notice that getting down to 60 is not that far fetched.

Golden himself said 15-16. Unless we try and add more than 20, EEs change nothing about the numbers, either now or in the future. If we do go down to 60 by "cutting" 10 non seniors, EEs again change nothing about the number of players we can take. Nothing. Nada. Zip. We could still count all 20 for 2013 and nothing would change.

 

[bobbydigius]

If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

I give up. What is the fascination with EEs? Apart from the unlikely scenario of the staff wanting to sign more than 20 players, there is zero need for them. The staff isn´t pushing for EEs like they were last year, I´m sure they know why.

Fascination? Unlikely scenario that we sign more than 20? Golden said that the class of 2013 will be about 15-16 and that in it self is true. Now if we sign any JUCO kids plus any other 2013 kids in January, up to 6 of them, can and would count as being apart of the 2012 class. You are allowed to sign 28 a year with only 25 being able to report that summer/fall. Last year after all the smoke cleared, we only had 22/23(i forget that exact) report in the fall. We had room for 8 EEs to account against the small class in 2011. Bottom line is we can have 5/6 kids count against 2012, plus take 15 in 2013. Look at all the different kids we are recruiting and you will easily deduct that there will be more than 15 new names on the roster come next season. Now yes we do have that magic number of 85, which Golden has set as 80 as part of self imposing scholly reductions, to deal with, but if you look at the roster as we are in this thread you will notice that getting down to 60 is not that far fetched.

Golden himself said 15-16. Unless we try and add more than 20, EEs change nothing about the numbers, either now or in the future. If we do go down to 60 by "cutting" 10 non seniors, EEs again change nothing about the number of players we can take. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is where we disagree, because EE do change the amount you can sign that particular cycle, because if you had the room because of past smaller classes EES can/will count against a previous year. Right now we have room still available in the 2012 class, and JUCOs and/or EEs would count against that number. I feel the amount of kids we are recruiting back my theory up.

 

[FreePawn]

If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

I give up. What is the fascination with EEs? Apart from the unlikely scenario of the staff wanting to sign more than 20 players, there is zero need for them. The staff isn´t pushing for EEs like they were last year, I´m sure they know why.

Fascination? Unlikely scenario that we sign more than 20? Golden said that the class of 2013 will be about 15-16 and that in it self is true. Now if we sign any JUCO kids plus any other 2013 kids in January, up to 6 of them, can and would count as being apart of the 2012 class. You are allowed to sign 28 a year with only 25 being able to report that summer/fall. Last year after all the smoke cleared, we only had 22/23(i forget that exact) report in the fall. We had room for 8 EEs to account against the small class in 2011. Bottom line is we can have 5/6 kids count against 2012, plus take 15 in 2013. Look at all the different kids we are recruiting and you will easily deduct that there will be more than 15 new names on the roster come next season. Now yes we do have that magic number of 85, which Golden has set as 80 as part of self imposing scholly reductions, to deal with, but if you look at the roster as we are in this thread you will notice that getting down to 60 is not that far fetched.

Golden himself said 15-16. Unless we try and add more than 20, EEs change nothing about the numbers, either now or in the future. If we do go down to 60 by "cutting" 10 non seniors, EEs again change nothing about the number of players we can take. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is where we disagree, because EE do change the amount you can sign that particular cycle, because if you had the room because of past smaller classes EES can/will count against a previous year. Right now we have room still available in the 2012 class, and JUCOs and/or EEs would count against that number. I feel the amount of kids we are recruiting back my theory up.

Please explain why we can add 20 kids with EEs, but not without.

 

[btcane]

If you scan over the roster, you can see that it is very realistic for us to sign 18-20 new kids(3-6 being EE), and still be at 80.

I give up. What is the fascination with EEs? Apart from the unlikely scenario of the staff wanting to sign more than 20 players, there is zero need for them. The staff isn´t pushing for EEs like they were last year, I´m sure they know why.

Fascination? Unlikely scenario that we sign more than 20? Golden said that the class of 2013 will be about 15-16 and that in it self is true. Now if we sign any JUCO kids plus any other 2013 kids in January, up to 6 of them, can and would count as being apart of the 2012 class. You are allowed to sign 28 a year with only 25 being able to report that summer/fall. Last year after all the smoke cleared, we only had 22/23(i forget that exact) report in the fall. We had room for 8 EEs to account against the small class in 2011. Bottom line is we can have 5/6 kids count against 2012, plus take 15 in 2013. Look at all the different kids we are recruiting and you will easily deduct that there will be more than 15 new names on the roster come next season. Now yes we do have that magic number of 85, which Golden has set as 80 as part of self imposing scholly reductions, to deal with, but if you look at the roster as we are in this thread you will notice that getting down to 60 is not that far fetched.

Golden has never said he wanted to "self-impose scholie reductions." In fact, is cannot be done! No such thing!

All he can do, and I'm sure he will manage to do it quite well w/o my help, is plan for future sanctions. There is absolutely no need to play w/ only 80 men this season unless he expects to have less than aprox 20 graduating seniors & attrition after next year. Assuming no rising seniors leave before next season (not a good assumption) we will have only about 18 graduating seniors. It is for that reason that Al wants to keep the roster close to 80 --- to allow himself flexibility next year when we will probably face sanctions. But if he has a chance to grab a 'sure thing' stud, he'll sign him. Bank on it!

 

[bobbydigius]

I give up. What is the fascination with EEs? Apart from the unlikely scenario of the staff wanting to sign more than 20 players, there is zero need for them. The staff isn´t pushing for EEs like they were last year, I´m sure they know why.

Fascination? Unlikely scenario that we sign more than 20? Golden said that the class of 2013 will be about 15-16 and that in it self is true. Now if we sign any JUCO kids plus any other 2013 kids in January, up to 6 of them, can and would count as being apart of the 2012 class. You are allowed to sign 28 a year with only 25 being able to report that summer/fall. Last year after all the smoke cleared, we only had 22/23(i forget that exact) report in the fall. We had room for 8 EEs to account against the small class in 2011. Bottom line is we can have 5/6 kids count against 2012, plus take 15 in 2013. Look at all the different kids we are recruiting and you will easily deduct that there will be more than 15 new names on the roster come next season. Now yes we do have that magic number of 85, which Golden has set as 80 as part of self imposing scholly reductions, to deal with, but if you look at the roster as we are in this thread you will notice that getting down to 60 is not that far fetched.

Golden himself said 15-16. Unless we try and add more than 20, EEs change nothing about the numbers, either now or in the future. If we do go down to 60 by "cutting" 10 non seniors, EEs again change nothing about the number of players we can take. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is where we disagree, because EE do change the amount you can sign that particular cycle, because if you had the room because of past smaller classes EES can/will count against a previous year. Right now we have room still available in the 2012 class, and JUCOs and/or EEs would count against that number. I feel the amount of kids we are recruiting back my theory up.

Please explain why we can add 20 kids with EEs, but not without.

Now we get down to the root of the discussion. The reason is because of supposed imposed scholly reductions. You are right we can sign 20 without EEs, **** we could sign close to 30 again if we did include EEs. The thing is that we are gonna impose for the 2013 class, but its not our fault that we are still permitted to take kids that would count against 2012.

 

[FreePawn]

Fascination? Unlikely scenario that we sign more than 20? Golden said that the class of 2013 will be about 15-16 and that in it self is true. Now if we sign any JUCO kids plus any other 2013 kids in January, up to 6 of them, can and would count as being apart of the 2012 class. You are allowed to sign 28 a year with only 25 being able to report that summer/fall. Last year after all the smoke cleared, we only had 22/23(i forget that exact) report in the fall. We had room for 8 EEs to account against the small class in 2011. Bottom line is we can have 5/6 kids count against 2012, plus take 15 in 2013. Look at all the different kids we are recruiting and you will easily deduct that there will be more than 15 new names on the roster come next season. Now yes we do have that magic number of 85, which Golden has set as 80 as part of self imposing scholly reductions, to deal with, but if you look at the roster as we are in this thread you will notice that getting down to 60 is not that far fetched.

Golden himself said 15-16. Unless we try and add more than 20, EEs change nothing about the numbers, either now or in the future. If we do go down to 60 by "cutting" 10 non seniors, EEs again change nothing about the number of players we can take. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is where we disagree, because EE do change the amount you can sign that particular cycle, because if you had the room because of past smaller classes EES can/will count against a previous year. Right now we have room still available in the 2012 class, and JUCOs and/or EEs would count against that number. I feel the amount of kids we are recruiting back my theory up.

Please explain why we can add 20 kids with EEs, but not without.

Now we get down to the root of the discussion. The reason is because of supposed imposed scholly reductions. You are right we can sign 20 without EEs, **** we could sign close to 30 again if we did include EEs. The thing is that we are gonna impose for the 2013 class, but its not our fault that we are still permitted to take kids that would count against 2012.

That´s just wrong. If we signed 30 kids (we can´t, we signed a full class last year and at the very most could back date 2-3 EEs) we would have to drop 15 non-graduating players from the roster. If we signed 20 kids ("cutting" 10), we would still be able to "backdate" 5 2014 EEs to the 2013 class. So, if we get hit with a scholly reduction of 5, we could still sign a 25 man compliment in 2014 even if we got the 18-20 you predict in 2013. Which is why EEs don´t matter this year.

 

[bobbydigius]

I understand what you are saying FreePawn, but you are missing the point here. You asked what is the fascination with EEs and how it pertains to the numbers we can take. EEs as whole dont change all that much but they will this go around and are important. First and foremost we have a need for JUCOs and getting them would count against the previous year(I know already stated). Second and the most important reason it would then have our 2013 class be at 15, which is ten schollys less than the 25 allotted. So we are then self imposing a ten scholly reduction for 2013, but were able to sign 18-20 new kids. So when sanctions come down, we have a claim that we have already self imposed 10 ships. Now whether or not the NCAA accepts that is another question, but if they dont, eff it we sign as many kids as possible in 2014 because 10 can be back logged to 2013, or they do expect it and we get a bunch of sanctions out of the way which would be helpful. Lastly on EEs and this is a minor one, but lets also not act like EEs are automatic. Its not like we can take any kid and make them an EE. They need to have their paper work in order. For instance last year we had room for 8, but only got 7 in early and one of them cant even play ball anymore in Witt.

 

[FreePawn]

Ah, now here´s where we seem to be just plain talking past each other. See, I am quite sure we aren´t going to get anywhere near a 10 scholly reduction. 5 is the upper limit of what I believe is possible, 3 more likely (both for 3 years). Working on that assumption, anything equal or below 20 players this year renders EEs irrelevant as that would leave the 5 open to be backdated. Once again, have heard elsewhere that the staff is not pushing for EEs, so they would seem to be working with the same numbers. Either that or they´re working with the fact that we don´t have any room to count anyone in this haul as part of the 2012 class, as that was full.

Self imposing scholly reductions is not going to work. You can prove that you were bowl eligible and declined, pretty much impossible toconvince the NCAA that you voluntarily undersigned.

 

[bobbydigius]

Ah, now here´s where we seem to be just plain talking past each other. See, I am quite sure we aren´t going to get anywhere near a 10 scholly reduction. 5 is the upper limit of what I believe is possible, 3 more likely (both for 3 years). Working on that assumption, anything equal or below 20 players this year renders EEs irrelevant as that would leave the 5 open to be backdated. Once again, have heard elsewhere that the staff is not pushing for EEs, so they would seem to be working with the same numbers. Either that or they´re working with the fact that we don´t have any room to count anyone in this haul as part of the 2012 class, as that was full.

Self imposing scholly reductions is not going to work. You can prove that you were bowl eligible and declined, pretty much impossible toconvince the NCAA that you voluntarily undersigned.

I am one of those that thinks you gotta expect the worst and hope for the best. I think we get SC types sanctions, but I say that having no inside knowledge of ****. I just think the NCAA and the rest just have it out for us and we got caught.