forums

New Commit - PWO Long Snapper

Advertisement
TpaBayFlyFisher said:
Why should we run with only 72 scholarship players?
Click to expand...

Those are two separate issues, though I agree with your point (that we are hamstringing ourselves). In a non-probation year, and moving forward, UM should never be under 80 scholarships, with a full 85 being the obvious goal. But that doesn't mean you give your walk-on, project long snapper a football scholarship.

It does mean that the staff should put a few more offers out there early so that they aren't left undersigning (again). For example, we let Dixon sit until December, despite having space and knowing Brownlee was fishing for an offer to his "dream school" within moments of his "commitment." What are these clowns worried about? Having them both come?? There is still room in the class and scholarship space below 85 to have both kids on scholarship. But instead, the staff waits, dreaming up some master plan roster that only has a chance on NCAA Football, and we (most likely) miss out on both kids. Dumb.
 
Last edited:
This is an IMG kid with parents who have the money to send him. We have our snappers in Clay James and Mason Napper. We have our kickers in Bubba Baxa and Camden Price. We have our punter in Louis. We have our holder in Spicer. We have our pieces in place and this board needs to chill. Most have zero clue about ST and the complex schemes Hartley runs. Most teams have no clue what we bring each game bc Hartley is always mixing it up! Ya'll see a shank and freak out. Punt return was Top 3 in the country at one point (until the fumble at GT) DeeJay finished running 2 back for us. Get off this kid and move on to tomorrow. I hope this kid brings something positive to the scout team!!!
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Why would we waste a 5 year scholarship on this kid? If the kid turns out to be good in a year or 2 and he ends up playing and we have extra schollys we can put him on one for a couple years. It is dumb to waste a scholly on a kid like this in the off chance we end up loading up over the next couple years and then we end up not being able to offer a 2022 kid because this guy is hoarding a scholly.
Click to expand...

You either don't understand his question, or you haven't been following Miami the last 5-8 years. It's been almost a decade since we've used our full allotment of scholarships. What makes you think we're going to change anything?
 
Advertisement
umhurricane2511 said:
You either don't understand his question, or you haven't been following Miami the last 5-8 years. It's been almost a decade since we've used our full allotment of scholarships. What makes you think we're going to change anything?
Click to expand...

No I understood his question and I have been following the Canes. The majority of that time we had the scholly ban excuse and then we weren't just going to take 60 kids in one class to fill up the scholarships. I know Mork is really ******* up by not filling up the scholarships as quick as he should, but it would be moronic to waste one on a kid like this just because we have some extra scholarships. We have no idea what our scholarship situation will look like 4 years from now so wasting one on this kid that could potentially ***** us out of a good player would be an awful idea.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
No I understood his question and I have been following the Canes. The majority of that time we had the scholly ban excuse and then we weren't just going to take 60 kids in one class to fill up the scholarships. I know Mork is really ******* up by not filling up the scholarships as quick as he should, but it would be moronic to waste one on a kid like this just because we have some extra scholarships. We have no idea what our scholarship situation will look like 4 years from now so wasting one on this kid that could potentially ***** us out of a good player would be an awful idea.
Click to expand...

10-4. But Richt is about to enter year 4, and still be a good amount under the scholarship limit.
He hasn't had to deal with the reductions that I'm aware of (think it was just a Golden thing). It's just lazy (strong trend with him) roster management.
 
umhurricane2511 said:
10-4. But Richt is about to enter year 4, and still be a good amount under the scholarship limit.
He hasn't had to deal with the reductions that I'm aware of (think it was just a Golden thing). It's just lazy (strong trend with him) roster management.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. 2016 was the last scholarship ban year so at this point we should have been pretty close to filled. Richt screwed it up(as per usual), but giving away scholarships to people that don't deserve them is not going to solve it. Not only could this kid potentially lock out a good kid in a future class, but it also nets the school an extra 50k per year. It is a win win for the school. If the kid turns out to be decent in a couple years I would be fine with putting him on scholly for a year or 2 when he actually may get some playing time, but right now its dumb. If you want to fill up the team with useless schollys just go and grab a few 2 stars from schools we want to turn into feeders and use it to build repoir with the coaches there(I am against this as well, but it is a better idea than giving a scholly to some schitty long snapper).
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top