forums

'Ship numbers

561Cane

561Cane

All ACC
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
5,744
It's comical that during recruiting so many inquire to the "how many will Miami sign" and the fact is, it doesn't matter. Why? Miami always falls short. As of today, Miami has 74 'ship players with 13 seniors, but with two add backs in Patchan and McCloud leaving the nbr at 63. You then add Garvin, J. Thomas, Dallas and Bandy leaving early and now we're down to 59. Throw in a couple of worthless 'ships to Few and the long snapper and it's truly 57. Add a couple of defections, at least one of the QB's will be gone and one of the LB's and that's 55. Miami, Blake James and Manny Diaz could sign basically 30 to get to PAR, 85!

And Ladies and Gentlemen, that's the crux of the issues. Expect that once again starting the season with less than 80. Miami self imposes sanctions...it's pathetic what Blake James has been allowed to do.

Actions speak much louder than words!
 
Advertisement
This is easily the biggest problem facing this program across regimes. If we don’t sign 25 that will qualify, it’s easily the most telling sign of an unorganized and unqualified staff. This is a game of one. You can only beat yourself

also: the schools that signed early 24/25 are now focused on 2021. We’re scrambling to finish. Very telling and “again” disappointing
 
It’s more about initial counters (25 per year with slight loopholes) than scholarships that hold the team back. The guy who explained this to everyone has been banned unfortunately.

Manny had flat out said already they only can take 25-27 guys this cycle - what restricts him is the initial counters not the 85 scholarships.
 
Advertisement
Patreek said:
It’s more about initial counters (25 per year with slight loopholes) than scholarships that hold the team back. The guy who explained this to everyone has been banned unfortunately.

Manny had flat out said already they only can take 25-27 guys this cycle - what restricts him is the initial counters not the 85 scholarships.
Click to expand...
Yes, he said this. My point is, we won’t get to 25-27. We’re at 18 today. You think Diaz and his merry band of men will sign another 7-9 come February? Ah, that’s a hard and fast NO!!!
 
561Cane said:
Yes, he said this. My point is, we won’t get to 25-27. We’re at 18 today. You think Diaz and his merry band of men will sign another 7-9 come February? Ah, that’s a hard and fast NO!!!
Click to expand...

They will ***** themselves on the transfer portal and easily hit the number just like last year.

I would much rather they actually get high school recruits but they will hit the number again almost for sure. When Miami “owned” the transfer portal (8) a lot of posters didn’t understand it was due to the horrific recruiting class (18) and that after they got Traore they probably had 0-1 counters left.

Miami will sign a handful more recruits and then go to the portal for the rest.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
This is a huge problem. As others have pointed out, it's literally no different than being on probation. We see plenty of local plan b type guys that we don't recruit but end up elsewhere being good and even very good players. We need to go ahead and target those guys and fill up these classes. Some of those guys will pan out and contribute. Some will provide quality depth. Taking a risk on a plan b type guy is infinitely better than not filling that spot at all, which is what we've been doing for years and years now.
 
Dudes leaving early has been a huge problem.
It affects practice numbers. It affects practice competition. Leadership takes a hit. Experience takes a hit.
Kirby took a squad to the wire with bama that was filled with seniors. Now he has a bunch of elite young kids and can’t even make the Playoffs.
 
561Cane said:
Yes, he said this. My point is, we won’t get to 25-27. We’re at 18 today. You think Diaz and his merry band of men will sign another 7-9 come February? Ah, that’s a hard and fast NO!!!
Click to expand...

They'll definitely sign or get transfers to max the counters.

With the new counters rule this is common everywhere now. We might be slightly under the norm because of these kids with no business leaving early declaring. You can't make up that spot.
 
Patreek said:
They will ***** themselves on the transfer portal and easily hit the number just like last year.

I would much rather they actually get high school recruits but they will hit the number again almost for sure. When Miami “owned” the transfer portal (8) a lot of posters didn’t understand it was due to the horrific recruiting class (18) and that after they got Traore they probably had 0-1 counters left.

Miami will sign a handful more recruits and then go to the portal for the rest.
Click to expand...

For this past season, I think we were still short of the max 85, even with all the portal transfers that came in. I expect it to be the same again.
 
Advertisement
Boarcane said:
This is easily the biggest problem facing this program across regimes. If we don’t sign 25 that will qualify, it’s easily the most telling sign of an unorganized and unqualified staff. This is a game of one. You can only beat yourself

also: the schools that signed early 24/25 are now focused on 2021. We’re scrambling to finish. Very telling and “again” disappointing
Click to expand...


We always sign 25 that "qualify", we have rarely had non-qualifiers.

Most people are clueless about two main issues.

First, the "25" is for Initial Counters, not just graduating HS seniors. Thus, all of our transfers count too. We have almost always signed 25, and nearly everyone that Miami has signed for the past 10 years have been "qualifiers.

Second, and much more importantly, we must cut down on attrition and non-development, that is, guys leaving the program. When guys transfer out, or simply fail to develop, that is a MUCH BIGGER numerical challenge, and one that cannot be surmounted by the current IC limitation.

We can sign 125 kids over a 5-year period. Easy.

But we have to limit our attrition. If we lose more than 40 of those kids, for ANY reasons (disciplinary, choice to transfer, non-development, etc.), then we will be under 85.

This isn't complicated. We need a higher hit-rate. We need to keep 85 out of the 125 that we can sign in any 5-year period.

This isn't some wacky conspiracy whereby the coaches are choosing not to sign the maximum numbers each year.

If you are bleeding out faster than your body can produce blood, or faster than blood can be transfused into you, then you will die.
 
561Cane said:
For this past season, I think we were still short of the max 85, even with all the portal transfers that came in. I expect it to be the same again.
Click to expand...


BUT WE WERE NOT SHORT OF THE IC MAX.

So what would you have us do? Violate the NCAA rules and sign 30 or 40 kids to get to 85?

WE HAVE TO CUT DOWN ON ATTRITION. We have to develop kids, get kids to stay, not transfer out, not turn pro early.

It is honestly time to stop whining about "85" and start focusing on development and retention.

THAT is how we get to 85. Not by whining about Blake.

I motherfugging HATE Blake, but THIS PROBLEM is not his fault.
 
This IC stuff doesn't make sense. If you are allowed to have 85 scholarships, then you should be allowed to have 85 scholarships. Period.
 
Advertisement
duke4heisman said:
This IC stuff doesn't make sense. If you are allowed to have 85 scholarships, then you should be allowed to have 85 scholarships. Period.
Click to expand...


It makes a lot of sense. Without the initial counter rules teams like Alabama and Georgia would sign 50 kids a year and make half of them wait for scholarships to free up. They'd probably start finding ways to force kids to give up scholarships if they weren't a valuable contributor 2-3 years in.

Where it doesn't make sense is when programs keep hemorrhaging players as soon as they can declare for the NFL or when players transfer to other programs. The initial counter rules do need updated to take into account the realities of college football today. But there is a good reason for having these limits. Without some sort of signing limit the gap between the haves and have-nots would be even more egregious than it is today.
 
Patreek said:
It makes a lot of sense. Without the initial counter rules teams like Alabama and Georgia would sign 50 kids a year and make half of them wait for scholarships to free up. They'd probably start finding ways to force kids to give up scholarships if they weren't a valuable contributor 2-3 years in.

Where it doesn't make sense is when programs keep hemorrhaging players as soon as they can declare for the NFL or when players transfer to other programs. The initial counter rules do need updated to take into account the realities of college football today. But there is a good reason for having these limits. Without some sort of signing limit the gap between the haves and have-nots would be even more egregious than it is today.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm referring to. Obviously you can't just allow teams to have hundreds of players but you shouldn't be penalized. For any reason if you're under 85, you should be allowed to fill the spots.
 
duke4heisman said:
That's what I'm referring to. Obviously you can't just allow teams to have hundreds of players but you shouldn't be penalized. For any reason if you're under 85, you should be allowed to fill the spots.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to understand the rules. And the intent of the rules.

So what is your genius "new rule" suggestion that will prevent teams from being "penalized" for being under 85, while at the same time preventing teams from having "hundreds of players". And let's not forget, the IC rules are in place to prohibit oversigning.

****, I challenge anyone to come up with an improvement to the rules. I have already suggested two, which would be the creation of two new exceptions (similar to the mid-year graduation exception) that allow an addition to the IC numbers for any (a) grad transfer who leaves, and (b) any non-graduate who is drafted by the NFL.

Maybe even a third exception for non-graduate transfers who leave after 2 full years at the original institution, and maybe with a limitation on the number of appearances (i.e., 4 or fewer games per year). In essence, if you "redshirt" for your first 2 years, you are allowed to go wherever you want, with immediate eligibility, and your original school gets to replace you in the IC numbers.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top