Nigel Knott Enters The Transfer Portal

[ShotgunDawg]

SMH. You can't make this up.

Who are the other leading former MS HS school kids that are the leading candidates to enter the portal sometime in the future? Alex Adams? Xavier Hill?

1221818049994612737

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

SMH. You can't make this up.

Who are the other leading former MS HS school kids that are the leading candidates to enter the portal sometime in the future? Alex Adams? Xavier Hill?

1221818049994612737

McKinnley Jackson

[ShotgunDawg]

McKinnley Jackson

read something yesterday that Lane Kiffin hasn't even contacted Jackson since taking the job at Ole Miss. There be some real toxicity with that kid for Kiffin to not even call.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

I bet Knott goes to OM

[ShotgunDawg]

All this tells me, yet again, that there are just too many scholarships.

When LSU is taking Xavier Hill & Alex Adams, it's senseless. Those kids will struggle to get on the field at those schools when they could be contributors at other SEC schools & thus raise the overall product the conference puts on the field.

Just completely senseless.

[preachermatt83]

These kids will learn one day maybe.

[ShotgunDawg]

These kids will learn one day maybe.

They won't ever learn. The only way to make things right is to reduce scholarships. You have to legislate things to prevent people from being stupid. You can't just hope they learn.

This will be continuous cycle until the NCAA steps in & reduces scholarships to 70-75 & thus creates a circumstance where these blue bloods aren't just meat markets that run players through the system & instead they actually have to invest in & develop the ones they do sign.

Reducing scholarships increases the importance of each signee & the demand to invest in & develop those players.

The system we have right now encourages the blue bloods to be meat markets with the front door & back door wide open. Players come in the front & don't stop until they've walked out the back. No investment in the middle unless you're a super star

[Dawgology]

They won't ever learn. The only way to make things right is to reduce scholarships. You have to legislate things to prevent people from being stupid. You can't just hope they learn.

This will be continuous cycle until the NCAA steps in & reduces scholarships to 70-75 & thus creates a circumstance where these blue bloods aren't just meat markets that run players through the system & instead they actually have to invest in & develop the ones they do sign.

Reducing scholarships increases the importance of each signee & the demand to invest in & develop those players.

The system we have right now encourages the blue bloods to be meat markets with the front door & back door wide open. Players come in the front & don't stop until they've walked out the back. No investment in the middle unless you're a super star

Yep! A lot of times both Bama and LSU will sign a 4 star from Mississippi just to keep us from having him knowing full well he will ride the pine the majority of his career. It started with Bear Bryant and continues to this day there. It's a shame.

[ShotgunDawg]

Yep! A lot of times both Bama and LSU will sign a 4 star from Mississippi just to keep us from having him knowing full well he will ride the pine the majority of his career. It started with Bear Bryant and continues to this day there. It's a shame.

it's ridiculous.

Alex Adams
Xavier Hill
Nigel Knott
Scott Lashely
Eddie Smith

What kills me isn't when we lose a mid to high 4 star type player to them. Those guys like Byron Young & Brandon Turnage will likely end up playing.

It's the low 4 star, high 3 star type that makes me cringe. They kids have little to no chance at those schools are just throwing away their career & any chance of being an NFL player by going there.

At the blue bloods, those kids just get processed through the system, whereas at MSU those are the types that are developed & turned into a NFL prospects.

Just crazy that the kids can't see this & even worse that the blue bloods have enough scholarships to continually pull this stunt

[Gutter Cobreh]

They won't ever learn. The only way to make things right is to reduce scholarships. You have to legislate things to prevent people from being stupid. You can't just hope they learn.

This will be continuous cycle until the NCAA steps in & reduces scholarships to 70-75 & thus creates a circumstance where these blue bloods aren't just meat markets that run players through the system & instead they actually have to invest in & develop the ones they do sign.

Reducing scholarships increases the importance of each signee & the demand to invest in & develop those players.

The system we have right now encourages the blue bloods to be meat markets with the front door & back door wide open. Players come in the front & don't stop until they've walked out the back. No investment in the middle unless you're a super star

Don't the kids still make the decision on where to sign???

Hard to legislate something when kids have the ability to make their own choice. Wouldn't limiting scholarships ultimately cost some kids a chance????

[ShotgunDawg]

Yep! A lot of times both Bama and LSU will sign a 4 star from Mississippi just to keep us from having him knowing full well he will ride the pine the majority of his career. It started with Bear Bryant and continues to this day there. It's a shame.

FWIW, I don't think they sign them to keep us from getting them. I don't think we have anything to do with it.

I think they just have a few extra, meaningless scholarships & just take the next best player. Of which they have little plan for & don't need, but they take them because they have the extra scholly.

[ShotgunDawg]

Don't the kids still make the decision on where to sign???

Hard to legislate something when kids have the ability to make their own choice. Wouldn't limiting scholarships ultimately cost some kids a chance????

They do make a decision where to sign, but they're stupid. I'm not talking about the mid to high 4 stars. I'm talking about the low 4 to high 3 star players that are just the best available for the last few scholarships. Those kids aren't invested in & are fed lies. It consistently ends up costing them their careers.

Will limiting scholarships cost kids a chance? No. There is a way to do it where you redistribute the scholarships to other sports or you raise scholarship levels at the D2 levels to compensate for the loss of scholarships at the D1 level. If D2 schools can now sign 85 players, then you allow them to sign 90 or so. Perhaps power 5 schools with the huge TV contract, pitch in some funding to help the D2 schools pay for it.

There are ways to allocate the schollies so that no kid is losing a chance. What you are doing though is increasing the parity at the D1 level, which will lead to better games, better ratings, more money, & more overall interest in the sport, which is good for everyone.

[parabrave]

it's ridiculous.

Alex Adams
Xavier Hill
Nigel Knott
Scott Lashely
Eddie Smith

What kills me isn't when we lose a mid to high 4 star type player to them. Those guys like Byron Young & Brandon Turnage will likely end up playing.

It's the low 4 star, high 3 star type that makes me cringe. They kids have little to no chance at those schools are just throwing away their career & any chance of being an NFL player by going there.

At the blue bloods, those kids just get processed through the system, whereas at MSU those are the types that are developed & turned into a NFL prospects.

Just crazy that the kids can't see this & even worse that the blue bloods have enough scholarships to continually pull this stunt

Don't forget the "running Back" from Brookhaven. He only played one play his entire career over there.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

nm

[ShotgunDawg]

Don't forget the "running Back" from Brookhaven. He only played one play his entire career over there.

No doubt. I was just listing the current act of characters.

[Gutter Cobreh]

They do make a decision where to sign, but they're stupid. I'm not talking about the mid to high 4 stars. I'm talking about the low 4 to high 3 star players that are just the best available for the last few scholarships. Those kids aren't invested in & are fed lies. It consistently ends up costing them their careers.

Will limiting scholarships cost kids a chance? No. There is a way to do it where you redistribute the scholarships to other sports or you raise scholarship levels at the D2 levels to compensate for he loss of scholarships at the D1 level. If D2 schools can now sign 85 players, then you allow them to sign 90 or so. Perhaps power 5 schools with the huge TV contract, pitch in some funding to help the D2 schools pay for it.

There are ways to allocate the schollies so that no kid is losing a chance. What you are doing though is increasing the parity at the D1 level, which will lead to better games, better ratings, & more overall interest in the sport

Are you trying to redistribute wealth? Why should we give Jackson State or Alcorn any money just to help them fund their football program? And we're doing this because 18 year olds are stupid and are committing to playing football at schools where they may or may not have a chance to play?

Lashley is coming here with a degree from Alabama? Are you telling him that his time spent there was worthless because his playing time in football was limited, or was it worth it because he got essentially a free undergraduate education?

[ShotgunDawg]

You guys can't just list the kids who didn't produce.

Raekwon Davis Bama
Cam Akers FSU
Saahdiq Charles LSU

Nakobe Dean UGA Byron Young Bama & Derrick Hall Auburn all got quality snaps as True Freshmen.

It sucks when they leave but y'all have to do a better job of acting like every kid who left MS made a mistake. There are some that did & some who didn't. No different than the kids who stayed instate & didn't produce.

the mid to high 4 stars are different.

All the ones you listed are those except Charles & Hall & we'll see if Hall is recruited over.

The mid to high 4 & 5 stars are invested in & didn't receive one of the last scholarships with little to no plan for his development.

Reminds me of a story where Bama tried to keep Jonathan Abram from signing with MSU.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

the mid to high 4 stars are different.

All the ones you listed are those except Charles & Hall & we'll see if Hall is recruited over.

The mid to high 4 & 5 stars are invested in & didn't receive one of the last scholarships with little to no plan for his development.

Reminds me of a story where Bama tried to keep Jonathan Abram from signing with MSU.

You're 1 of the loudest & leading proponents of MSU being bigger & better than what they are. We have to start thinking of ourselves on another level & stop being satisfied with just being mediocre. Isn't this the exact opposite thing you're telling these kids. Don't reach to be the best at Bama or LSU but stay at MSU or OM because it's easier to get p/t?

[dawgs]

FWIW, I don't think they sign them to keep us from getting them. I don't think we have anything to do with it.

I think they just have a few extra, meaningless scholarships & just take the next best player. Of which they have little plan for & don't need, but they take them because they have the extra scholly.

Yep, it's a lottery ticket. There's usually 1-2 low 4*/3* signees that do end up studs for bama/LSU type programs too, but the vast majority wash out and get processed after a couple years. They have the space, so of course take a few guys that have holes in their game and see if you get lucky.

[ShotgunDawg]

Are you trying to redistribute wealth? Why should we give Jackson State or Alcorn any money just to help them fund their football program? And we're doing this because 18 year olds are stupid and are committing to playing football at schools where they may or may not have a chance to play?

Lashley is coming here with a degree from Alabama? Are you telling him that his time spent there was worthless because his playing time in football was limited, or was it worth it because he got essentially a free undergraduate education?

- I'm trying to make the overall sport better like the pro leagues have done. Parity makes more money & creates more interest.
- We should give Jackson State & Alcorn some money to fund their programs if the reason for that is because it helps MSU compete at a more national level. The parity created by less scholarships would more than pay for whatever you offer D2 schools to help them pay for scholarships.
- We're doing this because it makes the sport better & offers talented kids a better path of development & playing time.
- I'm saying that Lashely could've had an MSU degree as well while playing more, with a better chance of being an NFL player, while also helping to close the gap between the blue bloods & others in their conferences

[ShotgunDawg]

You're 1 of the loudest & leading proponents of MSU being bigger & better than what they are. We have to start thinking of ourselves on another level & stop being satisfied with just being mediocre. Isn't this the exact opposite thing you're telling these kids. Don't reach to be the best at Bama or LSU but stay at MSU or OM because it's easier to get p/t?

Those schools have a monopoly on winning & there is virtually nothing anyone can do about it without cheating. Additionally, as we've seen with the Children's Hospital LSU is actually allowed to cheat.

I think MSU can be great, but there is a clear inefficiency in the sport right now that can be easily corrected with a few adjustments.

I don't understand why people like you aren't for it.

[ShotgunDawg]

Yep, it's a lottery ticket. There's usually 1-2 low 4*/3* signees that do end up studs for bama/LSU type programs too, but the vast majority wash out and get processed after a couple years. They have the space, so of course take a few guys that have holes in their game and see if you get lucky.

Exactly & the sport of college football & those players would be much better off to go to other schools. Those players at the MSU, OMs, Arkansas, South Carolina, type schools would significantly increase the level of competition in college football & thus create a better product for fans to consume

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Those schools have a monopoly on winning & there is virtually nothing anyone can do about it without cheating. Additionally, as we've seen with the Children's Hospital LSU is actually allowed to cheat.

I think MSU can be great, but there is a clear inefficiency in the sport right now that can be easily corrected with a few adjustments.

I don't understand why people like you aren't for it.

I'm not for lessening scholarships because I don't want to eliminate almost 2000 kids an opportunity of playing big time football. Just for MSU to maybe have a slightly better chance to beat Bama & LSU. If you don't agree that's cool.

[PMDawg]

- I'm trying to make the overall sport better like the pro leagues have done. Parity makes more money & creates more interest.


I know I shouldn't even bother, and I shouldn't get involved....but can you explain exactly how you are doing this?

[PMDawg]

I don't understand why people like you aren't for it.

I think he probably just understands that his opinion on the issue doesn't matter in the least.

[TUSK]

You're 1 of the loudest & leading proponents of MSU being bigger & better than what they are. We have to start thinking of ourselves on another level & stop being satisfied with just being mediocre. Isn't this the exact opposite thing you're telling these kids. Don't reach to be the best at Bama or LSU but stay at MSU or OM because it's easier to get p/t?

Yep. I'd imagine most of the guys that sign with "bluebloods" are confident in their abilities and think they'll start there, too (like they always have)...

And while scholarship reductions (to, say 75) might help a little bit, the effect on the "bluebloods" would be negligible, IMO... Then the pool of (~100) recruits not signed would be diluted (over 50-100 teams) to the point where it wouldn't make a huge difference...

...although it'd help some.

[Coursesuper]

I'm not for lessening scholarships because I don't want to eliminate almost 2000 kids an opportunity of playing big time football. Just for MSU to maybe have a slightly better chance to beat Bama & LSU. If you don't agree that's cool.

Would you think that if those scholarship were rolled down to FCS and D2 and increase those programs numbers, would that be equitable? That would not decrease the number of kids that get to play at the next level.

[Gutter Cobreh]

- I'm trying to make the overall sport better like the pro leagues have done. Parity makes more money & creates more interest.
- We should give Jackson State & Alcorn some money to fund their programs if the reason for that is because it helps MSU compete at a more national level. The parity created by less scholarships would more than pay for whatever you offer D2 schools to help them pay for scholarships.
- We're doing this because it makes the sport better & offers talented kids a better path of development & playing time.
- I'm saying that Lashely could've had an MSU degree as well while playing more, with a better chance of being an NFL player, while also helping to close the gap between the blue bloods & others in their conferences

Let's continue to use Lashley as an example, as he fits the star level you've previously alluded who were making mistakes.

If he can't use the resources offered at Bama to break into their starting lineup, you think him being here out of high school closes the gap for us? That makes no sense. By your logic, the 2nd team at Bama is equal talent wise as their 1st team and you want to take those kids on the bench thinking you have a legit shot a beating them consistently?

Bama's resources dwarf what we have and if you move down a level (JSU/Alcorn) the gap widens considerably. You aren't making those gaps up any time soon, regardless of money.

Lashley got a chance to live somewhere outside the state of MS for a few years, earn his degree and now gets to come play a year at MSU while working on an advanced degree. That is the purpose and intent of college football. The goal of college football is not to put guys into the "league", since only 2% of all college football players play professionally.

[ShotgunDawg]

I'm not for lessening scholarships because I don't want to eliminate almost 2000 kids an opportunity of playing big time football. Just for MSU to maybe have a slightly better chance to beat Bama & LSU. If you don't agree that's cool.

I don't agree, but glad we could have a respectful conversation.

I don't see your view point as being for the good of the sport.

You used to be on the side of not wanting to eliminate a scholarship for those that need one. Now that I've found a solution to that problem, you don't want it because you don't want to limit 2k from the opportunity to play BIG TIME college football. So now you've changed your stance. Also with 130 D1 schools, reducing to 75 schollies would actually only cost 1,300 kids the opportunity to play big time college football, but with 169 D2 football schools across the country, we could make up that difference by allowing them to have an extra 7 kids on scholarship.

Makes no sense to me why you don't want to see the sport grow & increase in popularity

[ShotgunDawg]

I just ran the numbers on LSU's participation chart in the national title game:

They had 2 5 stars & 17 4 stars on the roster that did not play in that game.

That means that LSU in essence, according to 247, had the 22nd most talented team in America sitting on the bench in the national title game.

What are we doing? That is absolutely terrible for the sport of college football.

Makes ZERO sense

[confucius say]

There are several articles from sept 2019 saying knott was forced to medically retire from football... did he count against bamas 85 schollies in 2019 season?

[ShotgunDawg]

Let's continue to use Lashley as an example, as he fits the star level you've previously alluded who were making mistakes.

If he can't use the resources offered at Bama to break into their starting lineup, you think him being here out of high school closes the gap for us? That makes no sense. By your logic, the 2nd team at Bama is equal talent wise as their 1st team and you want to take those kids on the bench thinking you have a legit shot a beating them consistently?

Bama's resources dwarf what we have and if you move down a level (JSU/Alcorn) the gap widens considerably. You aren't making those gaps up any time soon, regardless of money.

Lashley got a chance to live somewhere outside the state of MS for a few years, earn his degree and now gets to come play a year at MSU while working on an advanced degree. That is the purpose and intent of college football. The goal of college football is not to put guys into the "league", since only 2% of all college football players play professionally.

This is a terrible take. Lacks rational thought.

If you don't understand how limiting scholarships would help make college football better, then you're not worth having this discussion with.

- What resources does Bama have to better develop players?
- Why would the coaches fully invest their time & effort into a player that they are recruiting over?
- Bama resources don't dwarf ours. In fact, we've got pretty much the same stuff. You know how I know that? because I've seen it all. Other than a few analysts, Bama doesn't have more resources than us to develop players. They don't.
- Your last paragraph is hideous. Not the conversation we're having.

[smootness]

I just ran the numbers on LSU's participation chart in the national title game:

They had 2 5 stars & 17 4 stars on the roster that did not play in that game.

That means that LSU in essence, according to 247, had the 22nd most talented team in America sitting on the bench in the national title game.

What are we doing? That is absolutely terrible for the sport of college football.

Makes ZERO sense

How many of them were true freshmen?

I genuinely don't see why this is a terrible thing for the sport.

[EdDawg]

Do FCS schools even make money on football? If they do I wouldn't expect it to be much. Scholarships would then take away from their revenue.

I am for reducing scholarships, but not for adding more to the lower levels as many of them are probably losing money as is. Some may say it limits people's chance to go to college, but if schools start shutting down their programs than more lose out.

It's a delicate balance, and even though I'd like scholarships reduced, I can see the other side of the argument as well.

[Jarius]

Don't the kids still make the decision on where to sign???

Hard to legislate something when kids have the ability to make their own choice. Wouldn't limiting scholarships ultimately cost some kids a chance????

We could give the scholarships to a different sport like baseball so those kids don't have to pay to go to school. The scholarship doesn't have to just disappear. That will never happen though.

[ShotgunDawg]

How many of them were true freshmen?

I genuinely don't see why this is a terrible thing for the sport.

What does it matter how many are true freshman?

These kids are coming in more polished & ready to play than ever before. They have more resources at the HS level & better coaching than they've ever had.

You don't see how this isn't bad for college football? Really? Are you thinking?

[ShotgunDawg]

We could give the scholarships to a different sport like baseball so those kids don't have to pay to go to school. The scholarship doesn't have to just disappear. That will never happen though.

No no no. the scholarship vanishes in thin air & kids get screwed because it's a right to play big time college football even if you aren't good enough*

[ShotgunDawg]

Do FCS schools even make money on football? If they do I wouldn't expect it to be much. Scholarships would then take away from their revenue.

I am for reducing scholarships, but not for adding more to the lower levels as many of them are probably losing money as is. Some may say it limits people's chance to go to college, but if schools start shutting down their programs than more lose out.

It's a delicate balance, and even though I'd like scholarships reduced, I can see the other side of the argument as well.

- You could reallocate the scholarships to baseball, soccer, or another sport.
- Or D1 schools could help fund the extra 7 scholarships at the D2 level to make things equal out.

either way, a reduction in D1 scholarships can easily happen without to total number of scholarships across all levels of football decreasing.

Take the racial & poverty component out of the equation

[smootness]

You don't see how this isn't bad for college football? Really? Are you thinking?

LOL you're right, no one but you is able to think.

[ShotgunDawg]

LOL you're right, no one but you is able to think.

Well, show a thought process if you're thinking

Actually explain how you don't think better players getting filtered to other schools doesn't help college football.

[Gutter Cobreh]

This is a terrible take. Lacks rational thought.

If you don't understand how limiting scholarships would help make college football better, then you're not worth having this discussion with.

- What resources does Bama have to better develop players?
- Why would the coaches fully invest their time & effort into a player that they are recruiting over?
- Bama resources don't dwarf ours. In fact, we've got pretty much the same stuff. You know how I know that? because I've seen it all. Other than a few analysts, Bama doesn't have more resources than us to develop players. They don't.
- Your last paragraph is hideous. Not the conversation we're having.

It lacks rational thought because you don't like the truth?

Based on the link below in 2017-2018, Bama's athletic revenue = $177 million with expenses = $166 million; MSU's revenue = $103 million; expenses = $89 million - but continue that we have the same resources they do...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Oh and by the way, Alcorn State was at $5 million revenue. We pay our football coaching staff nearly double that. BUT - if you reallocate scholarships to push them down to that level - a kid coming out of high school will be given the same opportunity as if he had the chance to play at a DI school.

Also, if you could choose - would you prefer a degree from the University of South Carolina or South Carolina State? The University of Florida or Florida A&M? I'm not knocking these smaller schools, but you want to limit a kid's choice in schools all for some perceived chance at "parity" in football??? Your priorities are a bit out of whack.

[ShotgunDawg]

It lacks rational thought because you don't like the truth?

Based on the link below in 2017-2018, Bama's athletic revenue = $177 million with expenses = $166 million; MSU's revenue = $103 million; expenses = $89 million - but continue that we have the same resources they do...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/.

So what did Bama buy with that extra money that allows them to better develop players?

[ShotgunDawg]

Your priorities are a bit out of whack.

This is actually a fair point. Perhaps the best point you've made.

maybe my priorities are out of whack. That's for each individual person to decide.

I would say that if we aren't committed to creating the best, most competitive college football possible because of the education aspect, then perhaps we need to move football of the education system all together.

Perhaps that would be better for the sport.

[RougeDawg]

They won't ever learn. The only way to make things right is to reduce scholarships. You have to legislate things to prevent people from being stupid. You can't just hope they learn.

This will be continuous cycle until the NCAA steps in & reduces scholarships to 70-75 & thus creates a circumstance where these blue bloods aren't just meat markets that run players through the system & instead they actually have to invest in & develop the ones they do sign.

Reducing scholarships increases the importance of each signee & the demand to invest in & develop those players.

The system we have right now encourages the blue bloods to be meat markets with the front door & back door wide open. Players come in the front & don't stop until they've walked out the back. No investment in the middle unless you're a super star

Passing any legislation does not remove the stupidity from a person. It remains. That is the problem with this line of thinking. People who make bad decisions, generally make bad decisions, no matter how many laws/rules are put in place.

That?s why you could give every homeless person in the US, $100 million tomorrow and the vast majority will end up back out on the streets. Same way you could strip a successful person of all their wealth and make them start over. Eventually they will build it back up. Decision patterns do not change because you provide or prevent something. Human nature just does not work that way.

[ShotgunDawg]

Passing any legislation does not remove the stupidity from a person. It remains. That is the problem with this line of thinking. People who make bad decisions, generally make bad decisions, no matter how many laws/rules are put in place.

That?s why you could give every homeless person in the US, $100 million tomorrow and the vast majority will end up back out on the streets. Same way you could strip a successful person of all their wealth and make them start over. Eventually they will build it back up. Decision patterns do not change because you provide or prevent something. Human nature just does not work that way.

I actually agree with this.

Limiting scholarships would push more kids to where they need to be though. I think we can all agree on that.

[Lord McBuckethead]

So what did Bama buy with that extra money that allows them to better develop players?

They bought better players and coaches and have 50 off the field analyst made up of former head coaches.

[PMDawg]

ShotgunDawg


I don't agree, but glad we could have a respectful conversation.


ShotgunDawg


This is a terrible take. Lacks rational thought.

If you don't understand how limiting scholarships would help make college football better, then you're not worth having this discussion with.


- Your last paragraph is hideous.

Bi-polar much?

[Lord McBuckethead]

And it would create parity, that everyone wants.

[ShotgunDawg]

They bought better players and coaches and have 50 off the field analyst made up of former head coaches.

They did buy better players, but that doesn't help the individual development of a single player.

The analysts help with game planning & recruiting, but I don't see how they effect the develop of a player

[ShotgunDawg]

Bi-polar much?

I'm a nice guy until people starting saying stupid things that don't make sense.

That's when I have no choice but to call them out. I expect the same when I say something stupid that lacks sense. In fact, that happens pretty regularly, so I don't feel bad when I do it.

[ShotgunDawg]

And it would create parity, that everyone wants.

I think even blue bloods would end up liking this.

yes they would lose a few more games, but the quality of the games & their home schedules(fun at the stadium) would increase.

Football season would be more fun & intense on a week to week basis. That equals more fans, more money, higher ratings, & a strong conference

[Gutter Cobreh]

So what did Bama buy with that extra money that allows them to better develop players?

Invested in the strength and conditioning for one. They paid $400k more than we did last year. They ranked 5th, while we were sitting back at 62...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/strength

I've read on here, from you, that it's a vital part of the success of the program.

[ShotgunDawg]

Invested in the strength and conditioning for one. They paid $400k more than we did last year. They ranked 5th, while we were sitting back at 62...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/strength

I've read on here, from you, that it's a vital part of the success of the program.

Ok, so they just paid their head strength coach significantly more. It's still one guy & they can just a easily hire a bad strength coach as anyone else.

Did they have more strength coaches? Did they have better equipment?

I want to know how their resources actually allow them to better develop players.

My guess is there isn't a penny's worth of difference in the actual developmental process. Yes they have more money, but there is a real diminishing returns situation here.

Furthermore, by limiting scholarships, you raise all programs, which will mean that those programs grow somewhat stronger & make more money, which in turn will allow for more programs to invest in development at an elite level.

[Gutter Cobreh]

Invested in the strength and conditioning for one. They paid $400k more than we did last year. They ranked 5th, while we were sitting back at 62...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/strength

I've read on here, from you, that it's a vital part of the success of the program.

I'm also sure that they fund their tutoring program better, as I haven't seen them have 10 kids suspended for cheating on an online course. Hard to develop talent when they won't be actually playing in 2/3 of the season.

[ShotgunDawg]

I'm also sure that they fund their tutoring program better, as I haven't seen them have 10 kids suspended for cheating on an online course. Hard to develop talent when they won't be actually playing in 2/3 of the season.

Or they just cover that stuff up

[dawgs]

Let's continue to use Lashley as an example, as he fits the star level you've previously alluded who were making mistakes.

If he can't use the resources offered at Bama to break into their starting lineup, you think him being here out of high school closes the gap for us? That makes no sense. By your logic, the 2nd team at Bama is equal talent wise as their 1st team and you want to take those kids on the bench thinking you have a legit shot a beating them consistently?

Bama's resources dwarf what we have and if you move down a level (JSU/Alcorn) the gap widens considerably. You aren't making those gaps up any time soon, regardless of money.

Lashley got a chance to live somewhere outside the state of MS for a few years, earn his degree and now gets to come play a year at MSU while working on an advanced degree. That is the purpose and intent of college football. The goal of college football is not to put guys into the "league", since only 2% of all college football players play professionally.

If he's an average NFL talent but buried behind 2 all-pro caliber OTs, then yes he's good enough to make an impact for MSU while he "can't use the resources offered at bama to break into their starting lineup". There's 5-6 new OL signees every year trying to "use the resources offered at bama to break into their starting lineup" on top of veterans. Most of these guys are high 4* or 5* players. It's not unlikely an average, but useful NFL talent is just buried behind a couple future NFL studs and will simply never get the opportunity to show their NFL worth on the field, so instead of being a 3rd-7th round pick from MSU with lots of experience, they go undrafted and get lucky to be signed to a practice squad. And that's not even considering the lack of development that comes with not getting enough game reps.

[ShotgunDawg]

If he's an average NFL talent but buried behind 2 all-pro caliber OTs, then yes he's good enough to make an impact for MSU while he "can't use the resources offered at bama to break into their starting lineup". There's 5-6 new OL signees every year trying to "use the resources offered at bama to break into their starting lineup" on top of veterans. Most of these guys are high 4* or 5* players. It's not unlikely an average, but useful NFL talent is just buried behind a couple future NFL studs and will simply never get the opportunity to show their NFL worth on the field, so instead of being a 3rd-7th round pick from MSU with lots of experience, they go undrafted and get lucky to be signed to a practice squad. And that's not even considering the lack of development that comes with not getting enough game reps.

Thank you.

Not only the lack of development due to lack of reps but also the lack of development by position coaches focusing more on the elite talents at practice.

Great post.

[dawgs]

I don't agree, but glad we could have a respectful conversation.

I don't see your view point as being for the good of the sport.

You used to be on the side of not wanting to eliminate a scholarship for those that need one. Now that I've found a solution to that problem, you don't want it because you don't want to limit 2k from the opportunity to play BIG TIME college football. So now you've changed your stance. Also with 130 D1 schools, reducing to 75 schollies would actually only cost 1,300 kids the opportunity to play big time college football, but with 169 D2 football schools across the country, we could make up that difference by allowing them to have an extra 7 kids on scholarship.

Makes no sense to me why you don't want to see the sport grow & increase in popularity

Also, are the elimination of some scholarships from most of the G5 programs really denying guys the opportunity to play "big time football"? Is Tuesday night MACtion really "big time football"? Imo the number is less than 1300 because only the P5 programs should be considered "big time". Also, for a board that largely supports the "earn it" mentality, kinda weird to see folks lamenting the fact that the guys that didn't earn the higher ratings might have to lower their expectations to a G5 or FCS program instead of sitting the bench for a crappy P5 program (cause the back end of the mid to lower tier P5 recruits are the ones that'll be bumped down, the back end of the blue blood programs would just filter down to the mid and lower tier P5 programs, but still be on tv every week playing in front of tens of thousands of fans).

[Gutter Cobreh]

Ok, so they just paid their head strength coach significantly more. It's still one guy & they can just a easily hire a bad strength coach as anyone else.

Did they have more strength coaches? Did they have better equipment?

I want to know how their resources actually allow them to better develop players.

My guess is there isn't a penny's worth of difference in the actual developmental process. Yes they have more money, but there is a real diminishing returns situation here.

Furthermore, by limiting scholarships, you raise all programs, which will mean that those programs grow somewhat stronger & make more money, which in turn will allow for more programs to invest in development at an elite level.

For football - I found on a quick search they have 9 more football analysts (we call them quality control). They have 2 more nutritionists, a chef dedicated for athletics (we may have one but it wasn't listed), and 1 additional strength coach (just looking at those assigned to football only).

But as you state, it's all about how much time a position coach can spend with you and we have dead even regarding position coaches...

[dawgs]

Do FCS schools even make money on football? If they do I wouldn't expect it to be much. Scholarships would then take away from their revenue.

I am for reducing scholarships, but not for adding more to the lower levels as many of them are probably losing money as is. Some may say it limits people's chance to go to college, but if schools start shutting down their programs than more lose out.

It's a delicate balance, and even though I'd like scholarships reduced, I can see the other side of the argument as well.

Between insurance/CTE and declining numbers of youth players resulting in a smaller talent pool, we will see some G5, FCS, and D2 programs shutting down in the next decade or 2. Won't matter if they need to "pay" for 7 extra kids sit in classes or not.

[Gutter Cobreh]

If he's an average NFL talent but buried behind 2 all-pro caliber OTs, then yes he's good enough to make an impact for MSU while he "can't use the resources offered at bama to break into their starting lineup". There's 5-6 new OL signees every year trying to "use the resources offered at bama to break into their starting lineup" on top of veterans. Most of these guys are high 4* or 5* players. It's not unlikely an average, but useful NFL talent is just buried behind a couple future NFL studs and will simply never get the opportunity to show their NFL worth on the field, so instead of being a 3rd-7th round pick from MSU with lots of experience, they go undrafted and get lucky to be signed to a practice squad. And that's not even considering the lack of development that comes with not getting enough game reps.

I agree with your point. My take is that whomever is backing up those future NFL studs knew the roster before they signed their LOA. Players want to compete and be a part of a winning culture. Go tell some 5* kid coming out of high school that he isn't good enough to pass someone on the depth cart and he'll laugh in your face because in the small bubble he has been living in - he's the greatest player that has probably grown up in his town in decades. It isn't until they get out of that bubble and go heads up face to face do they realize that there are others as good if not better than they are.

[dawgs]

It lacks rational thought because you don't like the truth?

Based on the link below in 2017-2018, Bama's athletic revenue = $177 million with expenses = $166 million; MSU's revenue = $103 million; expenses = $89 million - but continue that we have the same resources they do...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Oh and by the way, Alcorn State was at $5 million revenue. We pay our football coaching staff nearly double that. BUT - if you reallocate scholarships to push them down to that level - a kid coming out of high school will be given the same opportunity as if he had the chance to play at a DI school.

Also, if you could choose - would you prefer a degree from the University of South Carolina or South Carolina State? The University of Florida or Florida A&M? I'm not knocking these smaller schools, but you want to limit a kid's choice in schools all for some perceived chance at "parity" in football??? Your priorities are a bit out of whack.

I think he means that at some point there's diminishing returns. Is a water slide in the clemson football building helping to develop players? Nope, but it's a fun way to waste a couple million.

[ShotgunDawg]

For football - I found on a quick search they have 9 more football analysts (we call them quality control). They have 2 more nutritionists, a chef dedicated for athletics (we may have one but it wasn't listed), and 1 additional strength coach (just looking at those assigned to football only).

But as you state, it's all about how much time a position coach can spend with you and we have dead even regarding position coaches...

But with a little more parity, where other programs can grow, everyone would have these things & thus numerous more kids would have the opportunity to be developed at the highest level possible.

some of you believe there is something special Bama. Like that logo & helmet gives them magic powers.

I reality, they are just a football program that has taken advantage of numerous years of having a monopoly over recruiting & thus has build a fan base that allows them to do such things.

If you take away the monopoly & allow other programs to grow, many many more program would be able to offer what Bama, if those things actually matter.

Limiting scholarships would be so beneficial to the overall game, product, & development of college football players.

[ShotgunDawg]

I agree with your point. My take is that whomever is backing up those future NFL studs knew the roster before they signed their LOA. Players want to compete and be a part of a winning culture. Go tell some 5* kid coming out of high school that he isn't good enough to pass someone on the depth cart and he'll laugh in your face because in the small bubble he has been living in - he's the greatest player that has probably grown up in his town in decades. It isn't until they get out of that bubble and go heads up face to face do they realize that there are others as good if not better than they are.

I'll say again. I'm not speaking to the 5 star/high 4 star players. With reduced scholarships, those players will still be taken by the blue bloods.

I'm speaking to the high 3 star & low 4 star players. College football would be immeasurably better & those players better off by being redistributed to other schools.

[dawgs]

I agree with your point. My take is that whomever is backing up those future NFL studs knew the roster before they signed their LOA. Players want to compete and be a part of a winning culture. Go tell some 5* kid coming out of high school that he isn't good enough to pass someone on the depth cart and he'll laugh in your face because in the small bubble he has been living in - he's the greatest player that has probably grown up in his town in decades. It isn't until they get out of that bubble and go heads up face to face do they realize that there are others as good if not better than they are.

All we are suggesting is that it's beneficial to all of those guys if they are told where they stand when they are being recruited. Lashley still might've thought he was as good as any OT on bama's roster, but if bama didn't offer him a scholarship, he'd have been at state with a chip on his shoulder driving him, so not like he has no future in the sport if he didn't get that bama offer. There's guys every single year that believe they are as good as anyone in the country and end up at a mid or low tier P5 program cause that's the scholarship offer they had. I don't see how changing the scholarship totals to 75 instead of 85 changes this process, all it does is shift which players are subjected to it a little bit.

[Quaoarsking]

Instead of getting rid of hundreds or thousands of scholarships, just limit at the top to cut down on dynasties:

If you win the CFP, you play the next year with 80 and can only bring in 20.

If you make the CFP, you play the next year with 82 and can only bring in 22.

If you make the NY6, you play the next year with 84 and can only bring in 24.

Nothing earth shattering, but a way to help with parity. All those are example numbers and maybe they could be further tweaked.

[ShotgunDawg]

Instead of getting rid of hundreds or thousands of scholarships, just limit at the top to cut down on dynasties:

If you win the CFP, you play the next year with 80 and can only bring in 20.

If you make the CFP, you play the next year with 82 and can only bring in 22.

If you make the NY6, you play the next year with 84 and can only bring in 24.

Nothing earth shattering, but a way to help with parity. All those are example numbers and maybe they could be further tweaked.

I think a standard number for everyone would work better

We aren't getting rid of hundreds of scholarships. No kid would lose a scholarships under my plan of giving D2 more schollies & or reallocating some to other sports

[Pipedream]

First off, I'm not opposed to the idea of reducing by 5-10 scholarships as it would undoubtedly create more parity within the sport. The problem is two fold, however. 1. You're reducing a significant amount of opportunities for football athletes. That isn't going to sit well with the football crazed American public. I know they'll be redistributed and that most here would like to see that go to baseball, but if you polled every P5 fan base in American, they're not going to be on that side. MSU is unique in that it is one of the 10 or so schools that has a rabid baseball fanbase. The majority of the other p5 schools are going to want those 'ships for football bc it matters more to them. So you have legislative (NCAA) issues in ever getting that passes. Secondly, you are fighting uphill against the history of the sport. From it's beginnings there have been haves and have nots. There have been power houses. The sport itself was not constructed and does not live and die with your idea of "parity". The sport has gotten more and more popular whether that's money or media engagement or TV viewership under the idea that they need to make sure the brand name teams are front and center. Thus the big brands have the big advantage. It's in the DNA of the sport.

[Quaoarsking]

I think a standard number for everyone would work better

We aren't getting rid of hundreds of scholarships. No kid would lose a scholarships under my plan of giving D2 more schollies & or reallocating some to other sports

D2 schools don't want more scholarships. Many of them aren't filling to the max currently in football or other sports.

Kinda like the NCAA isn't going to add more baseball scholarships when most schools aren't at 11.7 anyway.

[ShotgunDawg]

First off, I'm not opposed to the idea of reducing by 5-10 scholarships as it would undoubtedly create more parity within the sport. The problem is two fold, however. 1. You're reducing a significant amount of opportunities for football athletes. That isn't going to sit well with the football crazed American public. I know they'll be redistributed and that most here would like to see that go to baseball, but if you polled every P5 fan base in American, they're not going to be on that side. MSU is unique in that it is one of the 10 or so schools that has a rabid baseball fanbase. The majority of the other p5 schools are going to want those 'ships for football bc it matters more to them. So you have legislative (NCAA) issues in ever getting that passes. Secondly, you are fighting uphill against the history of the sport. From it's beginnings there have been haves and have nots. There have been power houses. The sport itself was not constructed and does not live and die with your idea of "parity". The sport has gotten more and more popular whether that's money or media engagement or TV viewership under the idea that they need to make sure the brand name teams are front and center. Thus the big brands have the big advantage. It's in the DNA of the sport.

Solid post.

- You don't have to just reallocate scholarships to other sports. You can allow D2 schools to sign more players or allow non power 5 schools to sign more players. There are ways to make sure that total number of football schollies distributed does not change.

-The sport has grown, it hasn't grown at the same rate as the NFL, which thrives on parity.

- Perhaps you are correct that big brands being front & center is in the DNA of the sport, but I'm not sure anyone knows the difference well enough to have that opinion. Perhaps you could've said the same about baseball in the 1940s & 50s when the Yankees & Cardinals played for almost every Word Series, yet baseball is more popular now & makes significantly more money now that the draft was instituted, a luxury tax created, & more parity has entered the game. I believe that college football would easily see the same result. The new rules in baseball hasn't changed the power structure. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, & Dodgers are still the best teams, as they've been for 100 years, but it's given smaller market teams a path to success. A path that if they do things the right way & have plan that they too can win big. College football lacks that path for 2nd tier programs without cheating.

- Lastly, under my plan, the blue bloods would still be front & center. Reducing the scholarship limits from 85 to 70-75 would not create a new power structure in college football. However, what it would do is create more upsets & create significantly more competitive games week in & week out. When you turn on that CBS 2:30 game every Saturday only to see Bama or LSU beat the 17 out of who ever they are playing by 30 points, that game may become a 10 point game or a 14 point game that is in doubt until midway through the 4th quarter. That would only be good for the sport. More exciting games & actually keep viewers engaged longer on TV which helps everyone grow their brand

[Percho]

But with a little more parity, where other programs can grow, everyone would have these things & thus numerous more kids would have the opportunity to be developed at the highest level possible.

some of you believe there is something special Bama. Like that logo & helmet gives them magic powers.

I reality, they are just a football program that has taken advantage of numerous years of having a monopoly over recruiting & thus has build a fan base that allows them to do such things.

If you take away the monopoly & allow other programs to grow, many many more program would be able to offer what Bama, if those things actually matter.

Limiting scholarships would be so beneficial to the overall game, product, & development of college football players.

You know I agree with you.

Logan Young!


Was LY the last LY? Was LY the only LY? I want to play for Bame. Bama has won x NCS.


I wonder how many LYs there have been and how many LYs there a r e?

It's just something special about the name BAMA*********************************************

[dawgs]

Passing any legislation does not remove the stupidity from a person. It remains. That is the problem with this line of thinking. People who make bad decisions, generally make bad decisions, no matter how many laws/rules are put in place.

That?s why you could give every homeless person in the US, $100 million tomorrow and the vast majority will end up back out on the streets. Same way you could strip a successful person of all their wealth and make them start over. Eventually they will build it back up. Decision patterns do not change because you provide or prevent something. Human nature just does not work that way.

Well a homeless person is likely to end up back on the streets for lots of reasons that need to be addressed. Mental illness, addiction, job training, etc. need to be addressed to keep someone off the street permanently, not just handing them a wad of cash.

That said, it's hard to blow through $100M unless you are being duped into awful big time business investments, so maybe $100K is a more apt value since that's enough to initially get someone's life stabilized in the short term, but would require actual planning for the long term.

[Big4Dawg]

Let's continue to use Lashley as an example, as he fits the star level you've previously alluded who were making mistakes.

If he can't use the resources offered at Bama to break into their starting lineup, you think him being here out of high school closes the gap for us? That makes no sense. By your logic, the 2nd team at Bama is equal talent wise as their 1st team and you want to take those kids on the bench thinking you have a legit shot a beating them consistently?

Bama's resources dwarf what we have and if you move down a level (JSU/Alcorn) the gap widens considerably. You aren't making those gaps up any time soon, regardless of money.

Lashley got a chance to live somewhere outside the state of MS for a few years, earn his degree and now gets to come play a year at MSU while working on an advanced degree. That is the purpose and intent of college football. The goal of college football is not to put guys into the "league", since only 2% of all college football players play professionally.

I don't think this is true at all. Lashley would have been one of our highest rated OL. Being a higher rated player normally leads to more opportunities to succeed. Which leads to more practice reps. etc. Players lower on coaches boards earn fewer reps and when they make mistakes, the error stands out more. It's kinda like NFL teams and drafting players in 1st round. (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2431195-the-hidden-advantage-of-being-a-high-nfl-draft-pick#comments)

[DEDawg]

Sorry if it's already been asked but I can't bring myself to read through the 4 pages of stuff posted on here not about Knott. Is he looking at us? Would we take him? Thanks

[ShotgunDawg]

Sorry if it's already been asked but I can't bring myself to read through the 4 pages of stuff posted on here not about Knott. Is he looking at us? Would we take him? Thanks

It's not known who he is looking at & I don't believe we would take him.

[DEDawg]

It's not known who he is looking at & I don't believe we would take him.

oh wow thats surprising with how young we are in the defensive backfield. guess he looked pretty bad at Bama

[ShotgunDawg]

oh wow thats surprising with how young we are in the defensive backfield. guess he looked pretty bad at Bama

We only have 83 scholarships this year due to the Tutor gate.

We must use those wisely & we'd probably need a safety or WR significantly more than another CB

If Knott wanted to walk-on I'm sure we'd take him

Obviously Spring attrition may effect this so, if Knott wants to be Bulldog, he'd probably need to wait

[defiantdog]

I'm confused..... is it considered "transfer portal" if you're basically cut from the team?

[CadaverDawg]

Someone should take a different kind of Shotgun to this thread

[ShotgunDawg]

Someone should take a different kind of Shotgun to this thread

Always glad when you chime in. One of my favorite posters

[Todd4State]

Can Knott help us? Not sure. That should be the main discussion here. And if he is healthy enough to help us.

[RocketDawg]

FWIW, I don't think they sign them to keep us from getting them. I don't think we have anything to do with it.

I think they just have a few extra, meaningless scholarships & just take the next best player. Of which they have little plan for & don't need, but they take them because they have the extra scholly.

If that's the case, maybe they should move the scholarships to the academic side. It's gotten to be pretty difficult to get an academic scholarship at Bama.

[PMDawg]

Someone should take a different kind of Shotgun to this thread

Amen

[Jack Lambert]

I bet Knott goes to OM

Running behind Ole Miss O Line is not like running behind Bama's line. Surely he is not that stupid.

[Bothrops]

This kid is tailor made for Belhaven or MC football.

[Todd4State]

Running behind Ole Miss O Line is not like running behind Bama's line. Surely he is not that stupid.

Well he's a cornerback.

[dawgday166]

Someone should take a different kind of Shotgun to this thread

LOL ... You mean a shotgun to shoot the Shotgun?? **

[TUSK]

Yup.