Commitment thread? If not then post them here.

[Thick]

Does a school have to carry a roster of 105, or is that just a limit set by the NCAA? Why not carry 85, and maximize your NIL to get better players?

[ZedFedder]

What are the chances on Darby and Cooley?

[Coursesuper]

Does a school have to carry a roster of 105, or is that just a limit set by the NCAA? Why not carry 85, and maximize your NIL to get better players?

Agree

[Jarius]

Does a school have to carry a roster of 105, or is that just a limit set by the NCAA? Why not carry 85, and maximize your NIL to get better players?

Because there are only so many sure fire players out there and none of them are going anywhere to sit on the bench. Talent is spread out because players don't want to ride the pine. That bottom 3rd of the roster you have to throw as much sh*t against the wall as you can and hope to get lucky. All of them are basically the same players pedigree wise.

[KB21]

What are the chances on Darby and Cooley?

We are in the mix.

[Goldendawg]

That's all I was trying to say and everyone jumped all over me. We did good considering the circumstances, but if you sort rankings by average player rating we are #44 in the country. I'm glad we got who we got, they're Dawgs and I'll pull for them, but I want to be realistic on what we really accomplished compared to other SEC teams because in case you didn't notice that's who we can't seem to beat lately.

The flips turned our ranking around, but 15 of these signees are ranked .86 or .85 with one OL even being ranked a .84, (and many having very questionable offer sheets, but maybe a few diamonds in the rough will develop). We are still far below most of the other teams in the SEC. On the other side of the coin we were one of the very few teams to give a kicker a full ride. He is rated a .81, but a five star as a kicker and a 4 star as a punter on the kickers only rating site, but still pulls down your ranking per player. We must continue to improve on our recruiting cla$$e$, both HS/JC and the portal to move up in our talent level in the SEC..

[msstate7]

The flips turned our ranking around, but 15 of these signees are ranked .86 or .85 with one OL even being ranked a .84, (and many having very questionable offer sheets, but maybe a few diamonds in the rough will develop). We are still far below most of the other teams in the SEC. On the other side of the coin we were one of the very few teams to give a kicker a full ride. He is rated a .81, but a five star as a kicker and a 4 star as a punter on the kickers only rating site, but still pulls down your ranking per player. We must continue to improve on our recruiting cla$$e$, both HS/JC and the portal to move up in our talent level in the SEC..

Giving a kicker and punter a low rating despite being good is beyond dumb. What's the reasoning for doing this? Kickers and punters can win and lose games

[StarkVegasSteve]

Giving a kicker and punter a low rating despite being good is beyond dumb. What's the reasoning for doing this? Kickers and punters can win and lose games

Because evaluators don't know how to properly evaluate kickers. The only people that do are the kicking evaluators. Kohl's is the best at that and has Chambers rated as the 8th best kicker in the class.

[Goldendawg]

Giving a kicker and punter a low rating despite being good is beyond dumb. What's the reasoning for doing this? Kickers and punters can win and lose games

I have never understood this either. Maybe some of you guys who really follow and "understand" the recruiting rating system can provide more insight.

[Goldendawg]

Because evaluators don't know how to properly evaluate kickers. The only people that do are the kicking evaluators. Kohl's is the best at that and has Chambers rated as the 8th best kicker in the class.

Kohl's gave him the five star rating as a kicker and a four star as a punter. His HS has a long history of producing college kickers and a few have made the NFL.

[StarkVegasSteve]

Kohl's gave him the five star rating as a kicker and a four star as a punter. His HS has a long history of producing college kickers and a few have made the NFL.

Which is why I know he's pretty good. The last kicker we had rated this high was Evan McPherson......too bad Mullen stole him.

[Goldendawg]

Which is why I know he's pretty good. The last kicker we had rated this high was Evan McPherson......too bad Mullen stole him.

They also ranked him the #8 kicker in the country and we also have Ferrie back for his SR year, correct? Keep the pipeline full.

[Coursesuper]

Which is why I know he's pretty good. The last kicker we had rated this high was Evan McPherson......too bad Mullen stole him.

Same high school.

[Thick]

Because there are only so many sure fire players out there and none of them are going anywhere to sit on the bench. Talent is spread out because players don't want to ride the pine. That bottom 3rd of the roster you have to throw as much sh*t against the wall as you can and hope to get lucky. All of them are basically the same players pedigree wise.

I would use the 85 man roster every year. Recruit at a higher lvl, and be transparent about my intentions. All true freshman would be scout team. (There could be exceptions to that rule) Regardless, until the portal is controlled, you can lose starters and second and third teamers annually. Easy come, easy go?..wash, rinse, and repeat! I would not waste money/time on an extra 20 heads.

[Tripp McNeely]

South Carolina seems to be updating the model...only sign about 15 hs guys, and spend a lot of money on them. Then spend the rest of your cash on the portal. Don't waste money on the backend 10-15 hs recruits who will likely never crack your 2-deep

[msstate7]

South Carolina seems to be updating the model...only sign about 15 hs guys, and spend a lot of money. Then spend the rest of your cash on the portal. Don't waste money on the backend 10-15 hs recruits who will likely never crack your 2-deep

I said this should be the plan a few pages back,

[Coach34]

Georgia lost some guys because they wouldnt pay freshmen on the front end very much. I like that model as well. Make them earn some money before paying anything significant

[HoopsDawg]

South Carolina seems to be updating the model...only sign about 15 hs guys, and spend a lot of money. Then spend the rest of your cash on the portal. Don't waste money on the backend 10-15 hs recruits who will likely never crack your 2-deep

The thing im not clear on is schools have to spend the 20.5 million right. And funding full scholarships counts 2.5 toward that 20.5. So maybe it?s better for the AD budget to fully fund scholarships. Otherwise, I would have no more than 85 on scholarship. And I would probably only have 50 earning scholarships + rev share. Then maybe 25 of that 50 earning scholarship+rev+nil. This is off the top of my head but you guys know what im saying. Focus our dollars on the starting units, key positions, and do the best we can on depth.

[Hot Rock]

Does a school have to carry a roster of 105, or is that just a limit set by the NCAA? Why not carry 85, and maximize your NIL to get better players?

Most teams only pay about 45-50 any significant amount. The rest are limited NIL guys with as much upside as you can find. The more you got, the more likely you can find a few you like.

Even a limited NIL deal can be a better deal than a lot of places.

[gtowndawg]

South Carolina seems to be updating the model...only sign about 15 hs guys, and spend a lot of money on them. Then spend the rest of your cash on the portal. Don't waste money on the backend 10-15 hs recruits who will likely never crack your 2-deep

This is what makes the most sense to me by far. Your class ranking won't be great but who cares? Do what's best for your program not one day of crootin' bragging.