Numbers Breakdown

View as article
I don't get people saying Seantrel is going pro when right now it looks doubtful he'll even start.

Grimble is going into his true freshman year, right? How is this a late bloomer?
 
Advertisement
I don't get people saying Seantrel is going pro when right now it looks doubtful he'll even start.

Grimble is going into his true freshman year, right? How is this a late bloomer?

Grimble will be a sophmore? Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not.

Henderson may not be ready to go, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him leave so he can start getting paid.
 
At what point will some of these predictions include the scholarship reductions i'm sure we will face. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to believe we will not face at least some minor reductions. Which could be another reason Golden has spoken about having 80 scholarship players.
 
As Storm mentioned above, this doesn't take into account that we will probably know our sanctions by the time this class signs. We are probably going to get at least a 5 scholly reduction from 85 to 80.

So we have 83 on scholarship - 11 graduating seniors = 72. That leaves 8 spots plus whatever spots are gained through attrition.
 
I really don't think we will know our full penalty until after NSD. I don't think it is this class but rather the next one that gets hit my sanctions.
 
Advertisement
I really don't think we will know our full penalty until after NSD. I don't think it is this class but rather the next one that gets hit my sanctions.

I don't think it is a good thing. We need to get this out of the way already.
 
I think the sanctions will affect the numbers for the next recruiting class, not this one.
 
I understand the penalties might not hit before signing day, but I was thinking as well as Golden has things planned out, when would the staff begin to approach things differently? Its not so much a matter of IF, its WHEN they hit, would it not be wise to be somewhat proactive the same way we were by taking a bowl ban last year?

Just a thought, seeing how USC has chosen to delay their scholarship reductions until this point, not sure if we would approach it the same way.
 
I don't get people saying Seantrel is going pro when right now it looks doubtful he'll even start.

Grimble is going into his true freshman year, right? How is this a late bloomer?

Grimble will be a sophmore? Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not.

Henderson may not be ready to go, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him leave so he can start getting paid.

I meant to say Grimble will be a true sophomore. Just mistyped.
 
Advertisement
I understand the penalties might not hit before signing day, but I was thinking as well as Golden has things planned out, when would the staff begin to approach things differently? Its not so much a matter of IF, its WHEN they hit, would it not be wise to be somewhat proactive the same way we were by taking a bowl ban last year?

Just a thought, seeing how USC has chosen to delay their scholarship reductions until this point, not sure if we would approach it the same way.

To prepare for future schollie reductions, Golden needs to max out as many schollies as he can NOW. That means make the team as YOUNG and as DEEP as he can now, BEFORE we are restricted. We stockpiled 50+ kids the last two classes. If we get at least 20 more in for 2013, that means we will have 70 kids on the team to give us as big a cushion as possible as we enter the restricted schollie years 2014 and 2015 and maybe 2016 where we could end up with 15-20 max schollies instead of 25 for each of those years.

Restricting schollies now or keeping deadweight SOs/JRs is a recipe for disaster. That is why this idea of taking only 16 ish kids is foolhardy. Frankly, i'd like to jam in 21-22 kids by getting rid of a ton of older kids now.
 
Last edited:
I understand the penalties might not hit before signing day, but I was thinking as well as Golden has things planned out, when would the staff begin to approach things differently? Its not so much a matter of IF, its WHEN they hit, would it not be wise to be somewhat proactive the same way we were by taking a bowl ban last year?

Just a thought, seeing how USC has chosen to delay their scholarship reductions until this point, not sure if we would approach it the same way.

To prepare for future schollie reductions, Golden needs to max out as many schollies as he can NOW. That means make the team as YOUNG and as DEEP as he can now, BEFORE we are restricted. We stockpiled 50+ kids the last two classes. If we get at least 20 more in for 2013, that means we will have 70 kids on the team to give us as big a cushion as possible as we enter the restricted schollie years 2014 and 2015 and maybe 2016 where we could end up with 15-20 max schollies instead of 25 for each of those years.

Restricting schollies now or keeping deadweight SOs/JRs is a recipe for disaster. That is why this idea of taking only 16 ish kids is foolhardy. Frankly, i'd like to jam in 21-22 kids by getting rid of a ton of older kids now.

USC was able to perfectly execute a similar strategy by appealing the sanctions thereby giving them one more year to sign a lot of kids. I don't think we will appeal when all is said and done.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top