Nigel Knott Enters The Transfer Portal

[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.

[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