Online Now 579

The Junkyard

Where Dawg fans hunker down

Online now 802
Record: 3990 (6/13/2012)

Reply

The ripple effect

  • The SEC 25 scholarship per signing period makes possible non-qualifiers a risk that may follow a program for several years. If a SEC school accepts a LOI for a prospect who does not qualify there are two things that can happen:

    1) That prospect can become eligable by the next early signing period and count back to his original spot, no harm done.

    2) That prospect does not become eligable by the next early signing period and their original spot is wasted, reducing the number that can count back by one. If that prospect never enrolls the spot still counts. If he does enroll then he counts for both years. The end result is the same, a wasted spot in the original year.

    The wasted spot might not be the limiting factor for the school if it reaches the NCAA max of 85 total scholarships first but there is a ripple effect. There is one less open spot available for an early enrollee to take the next year. The non-qualifiers wasted spot will continue to limit the school year to year. There are two ways for the wasted spot to become irrelevant:

    1) The wasted spot costs the school a player that they thought could help the school win and wanted to take.

    2) The school doesn't have more early enrollees to count back than it has spots open from the previous year (which has a ripple effect of its own).

    An example is Floyd. He didn't qualify for 2012 and could not enroll early. He is part of the 2013 class but he counts against both 2012 and 2013. We had more early enrollees than open spots. That means that one of our 2013 early enrollees will count against 2013 that could have been counted back to the spot that Floyd wasted. That means that there will be one less 2013 spot for a 2014 early enrollee to take.

    If we take 33 in this class our max class size for 2014 will be 27 where it could have been a 28 max. If attrition is low it won't matter in 2014 because we'll hit 85 total before we hit 27 for the year but if we have 3 early enrollees that wasted spot will follow us to 2015 ....

    With recruiting pushing earlier there are more early enrollees and the chances are that a non-qualifier will eventually have a price. Not finding enough early enrollees that can contribute has a price of its own too.

    The whole point is that when someone does not qualify (for whatever reason, not just acedemic) it is a big deal now. When our staff does not offer someone with an issue we should be so quick to be critical.

    The right thing to do is to continue to recruit someone who may have an issue but not to take the LOI. A school could hold a spot if they weren't crazy about anyone else that year, the prosect was worth it, and he would take the school's word they were holding the spot.

    IMO, they only way that it makes sense to accept on LOI from a guy who may be a non-qualifier is if he won't consider schools who won't take it on signing day AND he is good enough to change the program (not just contribute). I think you'll see smaller programs taking these risks more often for that reason.

    Thoughts?

  • The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. blank

    signature image

    1eyedJack

  • Floyd being able to or unable to enroll early this year, did not effect any early enrollie this year. It did effect a regular scholarship.

    We were able to backcount 9 players against last year. (19 signed with 3 counting to the previous year so 16 spots last year. Hence 9 could add to that.) Floyd did not affect those 9 either way.

    Non-qualifiers cause you to lose that spot in the specific year, but it does not have a doubling affect.

  • Yes it does ... well, not a doubling effect, it just carries over. It doesn't increase.

    We had 10 EEs count toward 2012 (Atkins took his own original spot) so 35 was the max. We had 13 EEs. Three of them counted toward 2013.

    If he had not signed an LOI last year there would have been an 11th spot and one more of our EEs would have counted toward last year. Two of them would have counted toward 2013 and 36 would have been the max.

    It contiues to ripple forward. I'm just not explaining it very well.

    This post was edited by Jess Y 15 months ago

  • yes it was 1 spot taken that some other player in 2012 (or an EE in 2013) could have taken. and as a result that player has to count against the next year instead of the year before.

    but in effect its still only 1 spot being taken. if he had been able to sign his LOI, that other player would have to count against the next year also.

    we obviously though want them all to qualify. it hurts to lose the 1 spot in any class.

  • you are so right in that we need to be carful who we offer....make it a qualifying up front.....unless a suer star..

  • Let me try with specific numbers. If we take 34 we'll have 1 extra spot we didn't use.

    We could take up to 26 (25+1) in 2014. If Turene and Floyd didn't sign LOIs in 2012 we would be able to take 28 in 2014. That is because 2 more of that same 34 would have counted back to 2012, leaving 2 more that could count back to 2013 in 2014. In 2015 there would be 2 more that could count back to 2014.

    It goes on like that until you hit the max and can't take someone or don't have the EEs to fill the spots anyway.

    If it's still not making sense we'll have to leave it at that. I have a problem explaining myself sometimes and it's just not going to get any better.