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
New scholarship rule being considered
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
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 like the idea no matter how it happens. What if you could get 25 hs players plus 7 transfers? Could benefit less prominent programs, but also larger programs as they dislodge their mistakes in recruiting.
This rule will benefit the schools like Alabama, Ohio State and Clemson a lot more than it will WSU. As mentioned above, it gives them the freedom to encourage 7 kids a year to transfer so that they can fill up their incoming classes with more blue chips.
I know that the first response will be, "we weren't going to get those other new kids anyway." We won't, but someone else would have and now they have to go find 7 other kids, which at some point filters down to us losing a recruit that we might have otherwise gotten.
The only upside to this rule for WSU is maybe we can recruit a transfer portal kid that wasn't good enough for Alabama but would be great for us. We've already got a couple of those guys on the roster (McIntosh being exhibit A) and that isn't necessarily the worst thing. Still, this is a rule that is not intended to help WSU and schools like us.
I know that the first response will be, "we weren't going to get those other new kids anyway." We won't, but someone else would have and now they have to go find 7 other kids, which at some point filters down to us losing a recruit that we might have otherwise gotten.
The only upside to this rule for WSU is maybe we can recruit a transfer portal kid that wasn't good enough for Alabama but would be great for us. We've already got a couple of those guys on the roster (McIntosh being exhibit A) and that isn't necessarily the worst thing. Still, this is a rule that is not intended to help WSU and schools like us.
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.
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.
It is possible WSU is more attractive to kids on their second go thru recruiting.
It baffles me how soooo many kids go to schools and sit. Literally stand and clap on the sideline for years! Why wait? Go play ball.
Overall and in terms relative to its competition, this won't help WSU. As others have written, this is designed to benefit the power programs who bring on scores of 4- and 5-star recruits who then are unhappy they don't see the field and are encouraged to move on if they don't do it on their own initiative. The power programs don't like having their depth eroded like that.
WSU's risks with the portal primarily lie with quality, not quantity. WSU is not churning through a bunch of highly-rated recruits who are stuck down the depth chart like the power programs are. Instead, the concerns with WSU and the portal are an overlooked recruit panning out at WSU and looking to transfer, or a very good player being unhappy being on a 4-8 team and wanting to go somewhere he actually can play in some meaningful games in college. Not saying that will happen all the time, but that's when the portal would be most impactful to WSU. Otherwise, the run-of-the-mill portal entrants who don't see the field and who transfer out aren't a huge deal.
The power programs also generally are landing recruits who are closer to being ready to play the moment they get on campus, so signing extra players each year will help them more in terms of replenishing depth immediately than it will WSU, which generally has to sign players who will need to develop for a few years before being ready to play.
Also, as Flat mentioned, the programs above WSU in the hierarchy signing more players would just mean fewer legitimate P5-caliber players for WSU to sign, and the temporal aspect of transfers would mean more Bamas and USCs out there shopping around for the recruits who are legit players but who had qualification issues or otherwise would have been around for WSU to take a chance on after NSD.
Not beneficial to WSU at all, and would make it even more important than it already was to try to land those players who transfer out from the power programs.
WSU's risks with the portal primarily lie with quality, not quantity. WSU is not churning through a bunch of highly-rated recruits who are stuck down the depth chart like the power programs are. Instead, the concerns with WSU and the portal are an overlooked recruit panning out at WSU and looking to transfer, or a very good player being unhappy being on a 4-8 team and wanting to go somewhere he actually can play in some meaningful games in college. Not saying that will happen all the time, but that's when the portal would be most impactful to WSU. Otherwise, the run-of-the-mill portal entrants who don't see the field and who transfer out aren't a huge deal.
The power programs also generally are landing recruits who are closer to being ready to play the moment they get on campus, so signing extra players each year will help them more in terms of replenishing depth immediately than it will WSU, which generally has to sign players who will need to develop for a few years before being ready to play.
Also, as Flat mentioned, the programs above WSU in the hierarchy signing more players would just mean fewer legitimate P5-caliber players for WSU to sign, and the temporal aspect of transfers would mean more Bamas and USCs out there shopping around for the recruits who are legit players but who had qualification issues or otherwise would have been around for WSU to take a chance on after NSD.
Not beneficial to WSU at all, and would make it even more important than it already was to try to land those players who transfer out from the power programs.
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?
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?
As a coach you have to meet and recruit everyone. You never know who will go somewhere and not work out. If you are gonna use the portal you want to be reaching out to kids having already met them and having had some kind of relationship.
The issue I have with the portal is you could have little current film. How do you evaluate a kid that hasn’t played much in 3 years?
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.
It essentially is going after "high upside" recruits as you suggest, but with a higher floor, more of those high-upside players, and greater ability to rebuild functional depth quickly since the big schools can bring in 4- and 5-star players who can play earlier. It also has the effect of pulling more marginal talent up the chain, with the UWs and ASUs of the world grabbing the high 3-stars we otherwise might try to get when Bama and USC pull in the 4-stars UW and ASU otherwise would be going after.
Further, if a strategy of going after high-upside HS recruits was some kind of edge for WSU, it's something everyone else could do, too, including fellow have-nots like Oregon State, and those above WSU in the chain certainly could do so, too, if it was effective.
