This looks like it would be a helpful tool to help mitigate the impact of the transfer portal.
https://apple.news/A4cv6VtKLRKGFXxMCQ_EKkw
https://apple.news/A4cv6VtKLRKGFXxMCQ_EKkw
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I hate to think of kids being "power flushed" because they didn't meet the needs of the machine. I suppose if anyone will be doing the power flushing it will be the blue chip programs, but they pretty much already do that, pulling schollies from players who don't make the 2 deeps after a year or two.Some change will be necessary with transfer city taking place. 7 transfer additions each year could plug a lot of holes and there would be more emphasis on snagging kids with high upside and powerflushing the ones who don't pan out.
I hate to think of kids being "power flushed" because they didn't meet the needs of the machine. I suppose if anyone will be doing the power flushing it will be the blue chip programs, but they pretty much already do that, pulling schollies from players who don't make the 2 deeps after a year or two.
I think this rule would benefit schools like WSU as well. If we lose 5 players to the transfer portal, we can backfill those slots with other transfers or high school late enrollees. Recruiting is always going to favor the blue blood programs, but the transfer portal can also really benefit schools like WSU if the coaching staff knows how to play the game.
Check out this link: Utah State Football transfers.
Utah State has 14 transfers on their roster. Smart coaches know how to close kids on immediate playing time, and honestly, you would think that WSU checks a lot of boxes for transfer prospects. P12 program, playing time, great campus, safe city.
The instinct that the portal will hurt WSU is the correct one, but this *specific* proposal is likely a win for us.
As the rule is currently written, any HC change likely leads to a mass Exodus of players to the portal. Getting 7 scholarships back eases the blow. I don't think we'll get the caliber of players from the portal as Clemson, Ohio St, and Bama but we will get more talented players than walk-ons.
This will do 2 things: 1) Allow us to go after high upside hs recruits. If they don't work out we get up to seven scholarships back a year. 2) Allows us to backfill in areas of need with solid but unspectacular players who have proven they can contribute.
How much better would the program be if bringing in Guarantano, Ford-Dement, Hill, Jackson, Watson and Wilson didn't cost the school one of the 25 initial counters?
These are interesting points, especially about a coaching change. If we moved on from Rolo, that's a good point that this would be a boon in connection with expected transfers that result. Otherwise, though, this seems more like rationalizing how it could be "less bad" for WSU than it actually would be a good situation for WSU. You have to consider how it would impact everyone else, too. The big schools would benefit most of all from this, by just churning through a ton of highly recruited, high-upside players every year and being able to spit out the rest.The instinct that the portal will hurt WSU is the correct one, but this *specific* proposal is likely a win for us.
As the rule is currently written, any HC change likely leads to a mass Exodus of players to the portal. Getting 7 scholarships back eases the blow. I don't think we'll get the caliber of players from the portal as Clemson, Ohio St, and Bama but we will get more talented players than walk-ons.
This will do 2 things: 1) Allow us to go after high upside hs recruits. If they don't work out we get up to seven scholarships back a year. 2) Allows us to backfill in areas of need with solid but unspectacular players who have proven they can contribute.
How much better would the program be if bringing in Guarantano, Ford-Dement, Hill, Jackson, Watson and Wilson didn't cost the school one of the 25 initial counters?