-
-
I'm pretty sure one of those not coming back is Rigby. It's weird because he's
going to be a senior but apparently he's transferring, or so that's the word. Rigby's Dad and the coaches don't geehaw.
"The QB and the receiver weren't on the same page there, but hey its only week eleven". (Jack Cristil)
-
My guy tells me Coggin won't be back.
-
Member
Plumlee, K-lock, Bragg, Jolly, Ford, and Mahoney are done
-
Originally Posted by
RocketDawg
Where did the 11.7 scholarship limitation come from? Is that the resultant number from adding all the men's sports and having to balance with women's? Did baseball have more than that before Title IX? I remember some years ago going to an alumni meeting here and Polk spoke, and complained vehemently about that number, blaming it on women's sports. And I pretty much agreed with him.
Seems like if it's just a balancing act, they could cut scholarships from other less important sports.
The NCAA voted back in 1991 to reduce all scholarships across all sports as a cost reduction measure. Baseball was trimmed from 13 to 11.7, football had a phase in to 85, and basketball from 15 to 13. Also the number of baseball games scheduled went from a maximum of 70 to 56. Title IX screwed up a lot of things but this wasn't one of them.
-
Originally Posted by
JimmyMcNulty
Plumlee, K-lock, Bragg, Jolly, Ford, and Mahoney are done
Close to the same list I got
my cowbell is louder than yours
-
Plumlee pitched pretty well down the stretch so you have to wonder what the deal
is with him. I think Blaylock and Bragg would've been good in due time. The rest are very much expendable.
"The QB and the receiver weren't on the same page there, but hey its only week eleven". (Jack Cristil)
-
Originally Posted by
Saltydog
is with him. I think Blaylock and Bragg would've been good in due time. The rest are very much expendable.
Plumlee is really surprising to me
-
Originally Posted by
Saltydog
is with him. I think Blaylock and Bragg would've been good in due time. The rest are very much expendable.
All 3 aren't very talented. If you want to build your roster to look like the CWS teams, you can't have dead weight.
CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG
Quit Your Bi$&$&?!, He's Not Going to Run the Ball More
-
Originally Posted by
ShotgunDawg
All 3 aren't very talented. If you want to build your roster to look like the CWS teams, you can't have dead weight.
Define talented. If talented is getting drafted, then we just took a pitcher from Tulane that wasn't drafted. I don't think MiLB level talent is necessary at all the positions to win in college baseball. Look at Cody brown this year
-
-
Originally Posted by
confucius say
Who is k-lock?
Blaylock
K (strike out)-lock
Creative
-
Originally Posted by
msstate7
Blaylock
K (strike out)-lock
Creative
Not Koole
-
Originally Posted by
confucius say
Not Koole
Or luKe
-
Originally Posted by
TaleofTwoDogs
The NCAA voted back in 1991 to reduce all scholarships across all sports as a cost reduction measure. Baseball was trimmed from 13 to 11.7, football had a phase in to 85, and basketball from 15 to 13. Also the number of baseball games scheduled went from a maximum of 70 to 56. Title IX screwed up a lot of things but this wasn't one of them.
Title IX still plays a part though because it was responsible for the original number both before 1991 and now having to be balanced. Even if you went back to 13, that is still WAY too low. How can you justify enough scholarships to be 4-deep at every position in football with scholarship players, 2-3 deep at every position in basketball, but not even 1-deep in baseball...especially when you consider needing 5 starting pitchers plus 5-6 relievers? If everything was proportional, baseball would have an absolute minimum of 18 scholarships, and realistically the fair thing would be 20-21 scholarships.
-
We were already looking at 16-18 returning healthy players. Factor in all these, and it's closer to 10.
I'm excited about Cann and his recruiting skills, but filling a roster with SEC-worthy players after this and after the draft put a hurting on us is going to be interesting.
-
Originally Posted by
bulldogcountry1
We were already looking at 16-18 returning healthy players. Factor in all these, and it's closer to 10.
I'm excited about Cann and his recruiting skills, but filling a roster with SEC-worthy players after this and after the draft put a hurting on us is going to be interesting.
Interesting yes, as far as hurting, pretty sure Cann has a plan.
I think a couple more who played want make the cut next fall. Out with old and in with the new!
-
My question has to do with replacing them. It's pretty late in the game as far as finding replacements to come in August and go through fall and then get ready for next spring isn't it?? We're in June now, going on July. Are there 6 replacements out their with more ability than those 6? You do want guys with "more" ability, not just equal. If you come out equal, you may as way have stayed where you were.
Can anybody answer this?
-
Originally Posted by
Lumpy Chucklelips
My question has to do with replacing them. It's pretty late in the game as far as finding replacements to come in August and go through fall and then get ready for next spring isn't it?? We're in June now, going on July. Are there 6 replacements out their with more ability than those 6? You do want guys with "more" ability, not just equal. If you come out equal, you may as way have stayed where you were.
Can anybody answer this?
If you get equal from the juco ranks, you really got less bc they'll have less sec experience.
-
Originally Posted by
JDog13
My guy tells me Coggin won't be back.
He was let go last week.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.