My two biggest concerns, along with everyone else going into this year was running back and O line, the O line isn’t going to get better this year. running back looked Ok to good, until the injury bug hit. Watson is out, who knows when he comes back, Arizona maybe, not sure. Now Jenkins, not sure how serious it is, but he’ll be playing banged up the rest of the year. So now we are down to Paine, appreciate his efforts, but he is not Watson or Jenkins. So now we might get a look at Schlenbaker, they wanted to redshirt him, but he can now play in the last 4 games and preserve his redshirt. Doubt he will make a huge impact, but does give us a little more depth going into next week, if we decide running up the middle for yard or two, versus losing 3-5 in the bubble screen
Running back situation
- Thread starter roses04
- Start date
Yep, and there’s more holes as well. Rolo & Co. lack of recruiting knowledge to the Power 5 & overall player development within those two years is showing this year.
This is what you get when a coach uses all Leach guys for two years & let’s 6 Olineman walk out the door cause they don’t fit your “offense”. WR is a dumpster fire too. Take the two I-Word guys outta this offense and what ya got left?
As Wulff built a 1AA program, Rolo was building a mid-level Mtn West program.
This is now a build back up program.
This is what you get when a coach uses all Leach guys for two years & let’s 6 Olineman walk out the door cause they don’t fit your “offense”. WR is a dumpster fire too. Take the two I-Word guys outta this offense and what ya got left?
As Wulff built a 1AA program, Rolo was building a mid-level Mtn West program.
This is now a build back up program.
I just have to ask - If Rolo gutted the program, how many years does Dickert get to claim it as his own. 2024? 2025? At some point, the buck is his and his alone to stop.
We're still hearing Wulff tales, what, 12 years later?
Just trying to set the bar in advance.
We're still hearing Wulff tales, what, 12 years later?
Just trying to set the bar in advance.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say he gutted the program. It’s interesting the two places we always seemed to have depth and a succession plan in place because of pure numbers with Leach was RB and OL. That plan seemed to have gone out the window with Rolo.
Ok - but at what point is it Dickert's guys?
Again, setting the bar because I've seen this now at least six times in my adult life. Erickson didn't leave Price jack sh*t; Price left Doba a stock cupboard and it wasted; Doba left Wulff with nothing; Wulff left Leach with nothing; Leach left Rolo with a stacked roster; Rolo gutted the roster and left Dickert with nothing.
You see where I'm going? When does the clock start on not blaming or riding the coattails of the prior guy?
Well, when you are arguably the worst coach in NCAA history, and beyond question the worst in program history, you are always going to be a standard for comparison.
As for Dickert, and the rebuild -- it is the portal era. Kiffin rebuilt the Ole Miss offense after losing 8 starters. So the three or four years rebuild standard of old does not apply any more. If we can't find 3 or 4 receivers in the portal better than the underwhelm group we have now, upgrades on the OL and RB, Dickert isn't going to make it as a head coach in this day and age. Kiffin brought in 12 transfers, they are 8-1, and they are averaging 37 pts and 500 yards a game, with essentially a brand new offense.
With the portal you know whether a coach will be successful almost immediately. Rolo was a portal disaster. Dickert brought in Ward and Henley, that is what we need, but in greater numbers. If he can't, when will he? Probably never.
Last edited:
I didn’t say gutted the program. I said recruiting & player development. We handed the ball off to two guys for two straight years. Both of whom were likely to leave at same time. Same goes with WR (Harris & Jackson Jr). When guys within your program are leaving your oline & your not backfilling them from roster spots perspective, you got an issue when guys don’t work out. Frosh playing, guys switching positions, some guy still starting that would have lost his job & the light of day after last years bowl game (choosing not to use young man’s name).
I’m still in a wait & see mode with Dickert & Co, but we are playing true freshman & walk-ons in some key spots which reminds me of what Leach had to do early on.
I’m still in a wait & see mode with Dickert & Co, but we are playing true freshman & walk-ons in some key spots which reminds me of what Leach had to do early on.
Last edited:
I'd say after 2 years of full portal use. Especially after seeing what other coaches around the country are able to replace in just one year. I agree with Cougsocals post 100%
Nothing that extreme. Just qb draw and lead qb draw. Actually have him run zone read to the letter and keep it. He isn’t good enough to throw it 60 times and the OL has gone right back to what it was the first time McGuire was here…. So that’s what it is. Or, keep doing the same thing and lose 4/4.
The ones who should be ready to back fill should be redshirt soph from leachs class. They should be starting juniors and seniors but while leach brought in numbers it never meant quality depth. .
I mean, does that sound fair to you? I think it's legit with the portal system.
Since you are the only one willing to put a date and rationale behind it, it's the leader in the clubhouse.
Historically, it’s been in the ballpark of 3-4 years. For the moment, I think it stays there. The portal could be used to speed things up, but that assumes that the right players are in the portal. It also neglects the fact that the portal works both ways.
So, until proven otherwise, I say leave the standard alone.
It’s Dickerts first year, far too early to be putting it 100% on him for being paper thin at key positions. That said in the era of college free agency if these areas aren’t addressed for next season it’s 100% on him.
I’m not going to blame Rolo 3 years from now for “empty cupboards”. I don’t think he was any kind of a great recruiter but I’ve made it clear my issue with him was more about in game coaching. 38-0 twice in the second half in 11 games. Bringing in your third string QB for a fire drill on the goal line then pissing away a winnable game. This isn’t about blaming a HC for past recruiting, he was dog shit as a coach. Dickert’s already on the clock and he’s well aware of it and takes accountability for everything that I can see. Rough stretch now but I think he’ll pull the team through this and bring players in to plug holes.
When the whole dynamic of attainability changes in terms of players on a roster it can't stay at 3-4 years, and it shouldn't
I'd be comfortable saying they are "Dickert's guys" when they are ACTUALLY Dickert's guys. Taihtsat
The dynamic or retention changes too. In fact, the entire dynamic of roster management changes.
I think that the reasonable time horizon will fall, but it’s going to take a couple season to really see what happens with the portal (and now with the decreased portal windows). Until we see what impacts those things have…I don’t think we can change the math.
The portal is just recruiting.
Either you can do it or you can't.
And either you're cheating or you aren't. CJD better have phone calls/ IM's/ DMs out to all the kids he's considering right now through 2nd or 3rd parties, because all of the rest of the schools do. Until this gets regulated and/ or the NCAA decides to actually do something about the recruiting violations, I'm all for doing what needs to be done to get/ stay competitive.
Observer brings up a good point or two. I wish I had an answer. Before the portal and NIL bribes, I would have said that a new coach owns the program in his year 3. But for WSU in the new reality...yes, he owns it in year 3, but good use of the portal should theoretically make it possible to shore up a position of need or two a bit more quickly...some progress should be visible in year 2. On the flip side, you have teams like UCLA (self-dubbed as "transfer U") and USC who brought in so many kids they were almost starting over again. That can work from an athletic standpoint, but it plays havoc with any culture you may have had, as well as now having almost a whole new team (in UCLA's case) that you have to now teach & mold to your O and D systems. Re-establishing culture is tough, and impacts everything from conditioning to strength training to both athletic and academic study & prep work.
We all know that HS recruiting is a relationship building process that takes at least a year and more likely 2 to have any real progress. Transfer portal recruiting values both relationships and also immediate opportunities, so it is a somewhat different animal. Probably need a touch more analytical & closing skills recruiter in portal poaching than in high school recruiting, so getting the right balance of staff in place is probably at least a 2 year process.
Lots of variables. I don't pretend to fully understand how all the moving parts need to interact...
We all know that HS recruiting is a relationship building process that takes at least a year and more likely 2 to have any real progress. Transfer portal recruiting values both relationships and also immediate opportunities, so it is a somewhat different animal. Probably need a touch more analytical & closing skills recruiter in portal poaching than in high school recruiting, so getting the right balance of staff in place is probably at least a 2 year process.
Lots of variables. I don't pretend to fully understand how all the moving parts need to interact...
Don't forget the Ducks. I believe they have 19 new players this year via the portal to go along with a new coaching staff. Seems to be paying off. They also lost a boatload of players when Mario departed including most of their crown jewel recruiting class.
By the way, speaking of Mario, I caught a few minutes of a Miami game on TV a couple of weeks ago....just long enough to see mustache-guy bodyguarding Cristobal with a shirt two sizes too small. Some things don't change.
Glad Cougar
The portal may be the end of WSU being a development school. Kids aren’t gonna sit 2-3 years to play. They’ll leave. Kids that play well early could find themselves with offers in their DMs and hit the portal.
I could see a day when WSU and schools like it walk away from high school players altogether. There is no value in developing a player and watching him go somewhere else. You are not getting a return on your investment at the high end of the players career. Does WSU go with portal and JC players? At least with kids that have limited years left or have already burned their free transfer you can hold them.
Also, where is the WSU collective? Who is contacting other teams players????
I could see a day when WSU and schools like it walk away from high school players altogether. There is no value in developing a player and watching him go somewhere else. You are not getting a return on your investment at the high end of the players career. Does WSU go with portal and JC players? At least with kids that have limited years left or have already burned their free transfer you can hold them.
Also, where is the WSU collective? Who is contacting other teams players????
Mike Leach said something similar regarding how he evaluates QBs now. Why invest so much time evaluating high school kids who you hope will mature into next level QBs when you can fish in the transfer portal and find kids who have D1 or FCS experience and help you immediately?
9 of 12 Pac 12 starting QBs at the beginning of the year were transfers.
If I was coaching at a blue blood school, I'd be seriously looking at this approach all over the field. I don't send my recruiters to evaluate hundreds of high schools, I have them looking at other D1 schools and finding me the freshmen and sophomores who can play.
I might even set up a little developmental deal with 3-4 little brother schools in my region. They can have the high school kids who look like prospects. If they develop, I call them up to the big leagues. If they don't, little brother can keep them for 4 years. Either way, my roster stays stacked.
You cant ask little brother to send you all their best kids while not being able to defend the in state kids from other P5 schools. You’re offering something you have no control over.
We could see HS kids struggle to catch on in some places.
Again, if the NCAA wants to create a competitive environment they need to cut rosters to 70. Place enormous value on just HAVING a roster spot. You will see the talent spread across the country and not just go to Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia.
Just to project this a bit farther....
Let's say for a minute that a whole swath of the middle P5/G5 programs conclude the same as Biggs suggests and don't recruit any significant number of HS kids. Within 2-3 recruiting cycles there won't be as many kids to poach. For that reason, I don't believe that it will go that far. What the portal is likely to become is a means of redistribution. Those who are young and good will to some extent simply follow the money, going where ever they can get paid more. That will create another opening to fill from the school that they left. That school will then poach a little further down the ladder. Ultimately the FCS schools won't be able to hold anybody good past their first good season, because FBS schools will take them. The only way FCS survives is to take kids that didn't make it at a FBS school and are on their way back down the food chain. If there are enough of those kids, FCS will survive. If any significant % of the kids travelling downward in competition don't make it to the next destination (because they dropped football, or dropped out of school, or whatever) I see this killing the FCS and the very bottom level of FBS first.
So far we seem to have learned that when a kid leaves a program there is no guarantee that anyone will pick them up. A not insignificant number seem to just vanish out of competitive football. If there are not as many travelling down the competitive ladder as travelling up, that imbalance will require either HS kids to make up, or more JC players (which seems unlikely at this moment). Of course, I might be wrong about that, because if HS kids are not being taken in the same numbers by D1 schools, some of those will end up in JC. So maybe JC transfer numbers will trend back up.
I think I have a headache now...
Let's say for a minute that a whole swath of the middle P5/G5 programs conclude the same as Biggs suggests and don't recruit any significant number of HS kids. Within 2-3 recruiting cycles there won't be as many kids to poach. For that reason, I don't believe that it will go that far. What the portal is likely to become is a means of redistribution. Those who are young and good will to some extent simply follow the money, going where ever they can get paid more. That will create another opening to fill from the school that they left. That school will then poach a little further down the ladder. Ultimately the FCS schools won't be able to hold anybody good past their first good season, because FBS schools will take them. The only way FCS survives is to take kids that didn't make it at a FBS school and are on their way back down the food chain. If there are enough of those kids, FCS will survive. If any significant % of the kids travelling downward in competition don't make it to the next destination (because they dropped football, or dropped out of school, or whatever) I see this killing the FCS and the very bottom level of FBS first.
So far we seem to have learned that when a kid leaves a program there is no guarantee that anyone will pick them up. A not insignificant number seem to just vanish out of competitive football. If there are not as many travelling down the competitive ladder as travelling up, that imbalance will require either HS kids to make up, or more JC players (which seems unlikely at this moment). Of course, I might be wrong about that, because if HS kids are not being taken in the same numbers by D1 schools, some of those will end up in JC. So maybe JC transfer numbers will trend back up.
I think I have a headache now...
What do you think makes more money for the NCAA... letting the big boys having 125 players or trying to spread the goods?
It'd be interesting to analyze exactly who helps with what kind of money.
I'm betting the NCAA wouldn't mind "trimming the fat" and having a more SUPER DUPER premium league.
If the NCAA really wanted more schools for more money... they'd cut the football scholarship limit to 50 and dial up schools from the Big Sky.
I'm not opposed to leveling out the playing field. I'd rather have more D1 college football teams and be back in the pre-80's
Look at the NFL.
52 man roster.
Salary cap.
Multi year deals.
Tampering rules.
Most games come down to 1 score or even a field goal as time is running out to win.
The league creates drama, excitement, anticipation, action all at the same time. It’s biggest event has viewers all over the nation, even going so far as to have parties to watch it.
Football is a tv show with a live audience. If Im the NCAA looking for the pathway to the most amount of $$$…. Im looking at what the NFL brings to networks. It isnt necesarily about the tv market the team is in, it’s about the quality of content being provided.
Make the league as competitive as possible. Create more storylines, create more opportunity, hell why not offer a streaming network for ALL the games thru the NCAA ??? Charge a fee just like netflix. Rather than think about what a few brands can do, why not think about what the entire Power 5 can do?
I can go along with 70. But since the NCAA apparently wants to be the NFL developmental league, I think that 70 should have NFL-like roster restrictions.
- 60 on the active roster, 10 on the practice squad. (I only went above 53 active because there's no free agent pool in college to sign from in case of season-ending injury).
- Any player from the PS who gets put on the active roster for any 3 games has to stay on the active roster for the rest of the season.
- Players on the active roster must be scholarship players - including any player elevated from the practice squad for 3 weeks.
- Practice squad players are non-scholarship and are unprotected - they can be contacted and signed by another team at any time, but they must be signed to the new team's active roster.
- Senior/Graduate transfers are not eligible to be placed on the practice squad.
- Practice squad players are eligible to travel and to participate in bowl games only.
I think the practice squad complicates it. Just have 70 kids, all on scholarships, no walk ons.
I think you will see kids get cut if they aren’t moving up the depth chart. Redshirts could be rare. The portal would be interesting.
It creates a complication, but also leaves an avenue for walk-ons. Those bottom 10 players aren't going to see the field anyway, so give them an easy out to move to another team.
Besides, it's a complication for the coaches...and one that means once in a while a blue blood coach is going to have to make an uncomfortable roster choice that ends up costing him a player he'd rather keep.
No more walk ons. With 70 kids, I think the bottom 10 will play. Travel rosters are 60 or so. Kids are gonna have to play.
I think you’d be surprised how fast the blue blood advantage shrank. Especially if they redshirted kids. You would see teams passing on kids they’d usually take. Kids would be signing LOI’s with schools they never dreamed of going to just so they could get a roster spot.
I’m willing to try anything at this point. If CFB continues on the current path, I’m out. And soon.
Similar threads
