The Way I See Things....11/26

[dg151]

For the scholarship losses, it's 5 lost from the 25 you're allowed to bring in each cycle, not the total scholarships you're losing overall, so if we lose 20 over 4 years, it would mean we'd be able to sign 20 each year instead of 25, but there would also likely be a restriction on total scholarships allowed, like 80 after the first year an 75 total each year following that until the 4 years are up. Playing with 65 a year isn't going to happen unless the NCAA destroys us. USC lost 30 over 3 years but was still allowed to have 75 players on scholarship over that time.

 

[Bigtip]

So when you are hit with scholarship reductions, is it a cap situation or just 5 less than what you could give out normally? Because if it's the latter, you'd still be giving out 17/18 a year with normal roster turnover even taking a reduction.

they can do it either way. for example, I believe that OSU lost 9 over 3 years but the limit was ONLY applied to the 85 man max. so they have to go with 82 per year for 3 years but can still sign the maximum. basically no penalty for them. they can sign and cut down to the 82 limit

most of the time there is a limit to the annual 25 AND the overall 85 man cap.

so if we lose 15 over 3 years, we would most likely only be able to sign 20 AND play at 80

 

[LuCane]

So when you are hit with scholarship reductions, is it a cap situation or just 5 less than what you could give out normally? Because if it's the latter, you'd still be giving out 17/18 a year with normal roster turnover even taking a reduction.

they can do it either way. for example, I believe that OSU lost 9 over 3 years but the limit was ONLY applied to the 85 man max. so they have to go with 82 per year for 3 years but can still sign the maximum. basically no penalty for them. they can sign and cut down to the 82 limit

most of the time there is a limit to the annual 25 AND the overall 85 man cap.

so if we lose 15 over 3 years, we would most likely only be able to sign 20 AND play at 80

I think we'll lose 20-25 over 4 years. Whatever. I still think we can do some good things.

 

[Artist Formerly Known As]

Scholarship reductions certainly don't help, but if we lose 18 over 3 or 20 over 4 or 5, we'll still be alright. It certainly is decimating.

 

[Flrcane]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how being at 78-80 players will decimate the program. We played with that this year + more than 50 freshmen and sophomores + a QB trying to figure things out + almost complete dead weight in our upperclassmen + looming sanctions and distractions. Sure, it was a down year for ACC teams, but we were a couple decisions from a 9-3 season and headed to the ACC Championship game either way.

If we want to get extreme, through many of the Coker and Shannon years - even some successful ones - I felt like we were actually playing with 65. Will there be more pressure on the coaches? Of course. But some of that is mitigated with their recruiting approach. They tend to offer local kids and kids they've seen at camps. It's a far cry from what we experienced over the last 10 years. This year is a great example. We'll take 15-16 kids. After following recruiting for about 15 years, I can say the error rate of a class like this, based on the types of guys I've seen live, is probably in the same range as some of our "best" classes.

I've been pessimistic in the past when it's appropriate, but place me in the "cautiously optimistic" camp now. Unless the NCAA absolutely obliterates us, I think we're going to enjoy ourselves and this original post (thread) will be the type of signal we look back at as a "bottom."

Agree 100%. I expect us to land in the 70-75 roster limit for 2-3 years. No doubt I have more faith in Golden & Co. at 70-75 scholies than Coker & Shannon at 85. The bigger concern is whether we can keep Golden & Co. around through the sanctions period.

 

[reef1515]

We were hit with loss of 30 plus scholy's in 1995. Won title in 2001
Don't overreact

 

[Bigtip]

We were hit with loss of 30 plus scholy's in 1995. Won title in 2001
Don't overreact

sweet. so best case scenario, we are in the hunt by about 2020

 

[Dingaan1828]

We were hit with loss of 30 plus scholy's in 1995. Won title in 2001
Don't overreact

But we were able to slide guys in on track scholarships back then. You can't do that now.

 

[dogcane]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how being at 78-80 players will decimate the program. We played with that this year + more than 50 freshmen and sophomores + a QB trying to figure things out + almost complete dead weight in our upperclassmen + looming sanctions and distractions. Sure, it was a down year for ACC teams, but we were a couple decisions from a 9-3 season and headed to the ACC Championship game either way.

If we want to get extreme, through many of the Coker and Shannon years - even some successful ones - I felt like we were actually playing with 65. Will there be more pressure on the coaches? Of course. But some of that is mitigated with their recruiting approach. They tend to offer local kids and kids they've seen at camps. It's a far cry from what we experienced over the last 10 years. This year is a great example. We'll take 15-16 kids. After following recruiting for about 15 years, I can say the error rate of a class like this, based on the types of guys I've seen live, is probably in the same range as some of our "best" classes.

I've been pessimistic in the past when it's appropriate, but place me in the "cautiously optimistic" camp now. Unless the NCAA absolutely obliterates us, I think we're going to enjoy ourselves and this original post (thread) will be the type of signal we look back at as a "bottom."

It's not about how many players you are going to play. It is about the size of talent pool. Being at 78-80 for 3 or 4 years, you are almost like lose a whole class of recruits in those years.

 

[Dingaan1828]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how being at 78-80 players will decimate the program. We played with that this year + more than 50 freshmen and sophomores + a QB trying to figure things out + almost complete dead weight in our upperclassmen + looming sanctions and distractions. Sure, it was a down year for ACC teams, but we were a couple decisions from a 9-3 season and headed to the ACC Championship game either way.

If we want to get extreme, through many of the Coker and Shannon years - even some successful ones - I felt like we were actually playing with 65. Will there be more pressure on the coaches? Of course. But some of that is mitigated with their recruiting approach. They tend to offer local kids and kids they've seen at camps. It's a far cry from what we experienced over the last 10 years. This year is a great example. We'll take 15-16 kids. After following recruiting for about 15 years, I can say the error rate of a class like this, based on the types of guys I've seen live, is probably in the same range as some of our "best" classes.

I've been pessimistic in the past when it's appropriate, but place me in the "cautiously optimistic" camp now. Unless the NCAA absolutely obliterates us, I think we're going to enjoy ourselves and this original post (thread) will be the type of signal we look back at as a "bottom."

Agree 100%. I expect us to land in the 70-75 roster limit for 2-3 years. No doubt I have more faith in Golden & Co. at 70-75 scholies than Coker & Shannon at 85. The bigger concern is whether we can keep Golden & Co. around through the sanctions period.

If UM gets a 70 scholarship limit, you can shut the program down. That's not going to happen. A limit of 80, with initial counter limit of 17 or 18 per year is survivable.

But, this whole discussion highlights the problem with someone saying "we lost *** ships". You have to be more specific. What is the overall limit and what is the initial counter limit? You have to know both to make any sense of it.

 

[Dingaan1828]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how being at 78-80 players will decimate the program. We played with that this year + more than 50 freshmen and sophomores + a QB trying to figure things out + almost complete dead weight in our upperclassmen + looming sanctions and distractions. Sure, it was a down year for ACC teams, but we were a couple decisions from a 9-3 season and headed to the ACC Championship game either way.

If we want to get extreme, through many of the Coker and Shannon years - even some successful ones - I felt like we were actually playing with 65. Will there be more pressure on the coaches? Of course. But some of that is mitigated with their recruiting approach. They tend to offer local kids and kids they've seen at camps. It's a far cry from what we experienced over the last 10 years. This year is a great example. We'll take 15-16 kids. After following recruiting for about 15 years, I can say the error rate of a class like this, based on the types of guys I've seen live, is probably in the same range as some of our "best" classes.

I've been pessimistic in the past when it's appropriate, but place me in the "cautiously optimistic" camp now. Unless the NCAA absolutely obliterates us, I think we're going to enjoy ourselves and this original post (thread) will be the type of signal we look back at as a "bottom."

It's not about how many players you are going to play. It is about the size of talent pool. Being at 78-80 for 3 or 4 years, you are almost like lose a whole class of recruits in those years.

The upside is that you can concentrate on recruiting the best guys you are after. Just forget about reaches, projects, and legacies.

 

[Consigliere]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how being at 78-80 players will decimate the program. We played with that this year + more than 50 freshmen and sophomores + a QB trying to figure things out + almost complete dead weight in our upperclassmen + looming sanctions and distractions. Sure, it was a down year for ACC teams, but we were a couple decisions from a 9-3 season and headed to the ACC Championship game either way.

If we want to get extreme, through many of the Coker and Shannon years - even some successful ones - I felt like we were actually playing with 65. Will there be more pressure on the coaches? Of course. But some of that is mitigated with their recruiting approach. They tend to offer local kids and kids they've seen at camps. It's a far cry from what we experienced over the last 10 years. This year is a great example. We'll take 15-16 kids. After following recruiting for about 15 years, I can say the error rate of a class like this, based on the types of guys I've seen live, is probably in the same range as some of our "best" classes.

I've been pessimistic in the past when it's appropriate, but place me in the "cautiously optimistic" camp now. Unless the NCAA absolutely obliterates us, I think we're going to enjoy ourselves and this original post (thread) will be the type of signal we look back at as a "bottom."

It won't it is just stupid Miami fans overreacting to nothing. Are scholarship losses a good thing? No. But the world is not over.

 

[hoops156]

dude...No. How the **** did you get 63? And you want us to leave the ACC?

For basketball we're in the best conference in America, and that will only become stronger. We will never be a dominant program, the ACC is great for us because of the revenue.

We're in great position football wise in the ACC. Considering they just re-upped the contract with the Orange Bowl, guarantees us a marquee opponent instead of a fledgling big east team.

agree and idk where the **** we are going to come up w 50 mill to even leave. do u realize UF would block Miami from joining the SEC and i dont think UM wants to be associated w the academics of the ACC. moreover, once UM finally gets to where it used to be, the ACC will receive plenty of attention from the media w a FSU-UM matchup twice a year along w the usual suspects (VT mainly, UNC if they can continue drawing talent there like butch did)

 

[OMG618]

X,

I emailed some friends from this site something similar recently. I'm not sure if Miami can, will, or even wants to leave the ACC. What the ACC needs to do instead is recruit and hire tier-one coaches. Loosen up those purse strings and bring aboard top-shelf coaches. If they do that, the wins will follow. They have the money, and most of these schools sit on or near more fertile recruiting grounds than most of the country. That's a more realistic option, and one that the commish of the ACC needs to really impress upon all of the ACC schools.

+REP......I posted this in another thread but it's relevant.

The only difference between the ACC and SEC is coaching and I mean that from a head coach, assistant coach, strength coach and total program perspective. Every year the ACC is right up there with SEC when it comes to NFL talent. There is absolutely no reason the ACC has to be this putrid. Improve the ACC coaching staffs and you'll see the conference turn around in a hurry.

Both of you have put the cart before the horse. There's a reason the Floridas, Alabamas and Ohio States can acquire the Meyers and Sabans of the world, money, and a lot it (20 to 25 mil) comes from their belonging to a bigtime conference. As an ACC member we receive 16 mil and are without a big tv deal like the one UF has with Sun. So without further adieu there is no competing with the sec for coaching talent via dollars, and facilities, because they've got the ACC trumped.

By the way the discrepancy will be much larger in 5 years as other conferences have laid out a better plan (own networks and proper expansion) than the ACC, which still prioritizes hoops which is a dead stick owned by the NCAA.

As someone stated in the WEZ's conference realignment thread, we are a football school and need to be aligned with like-minded sport departments, plain and simple.

No one said you have to compete with the SEC for coaches. I said you have to "make the right hire", meaning hire good coaches. You don't have to pay top dollar to good coaches....maybe to keep them, but not to get them. These administrators in the ACC have epic failed with their hires for years and until that changes then the ACC will be business as usual.

Easier said than done. It's typical to have to pay for quality, diamonds in the rough are rarities for a reason and immediately are in demand and hence valuable. The formula you describe above is not sustainable, and IMO neither is the viability of the ACC.

If either FSU or UNC split, as has/is rumored, it's good night.