Offseason Attrition Thread

Ok, here is where the 105 limit comes from (you can google it and find sources): it is the number of players you are allowed to have on the roster "year round": so that allows 20 walk-ons to workout, train, and eat with the team year round. During the season/fall semester there are no limits so additional walk-ons can join the team for practice and everything else until after your bowl game. Some coaches don't like the rule because it doesn't allow "all the walkons" to join the team during summer practice.

Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me. It seems like they may have changed the number to 125 recently but I can't find an NCAA document with that number. Feel free to correct this if you can find a source.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-players-college-football-team-df4ac1a80d13e08e
 
BackstreetBuzz said:
I know we hate UGA and all that, but I like the way they play 3 or 4 running backs extensively during the game. Also, you are probably going to have a RB or two nicked up most of the time. In addition to Mason and Griffin and possibly Gibbs, I like what I saw of Smith before he was injured and I heard Ellison looked great in practice.
Click to expand...
I like that as well. I'm just saying that I think Mason will no longer get 70+% of the carries if my expectations come true.
 
Getting Gibbs would be huge for so many reasons. One of which would allow the staff to not have to target a RB next year and really concentrate on the DLine. We could then concentrate on RB’s in the 2022/2023 class.
 
I'm betting Gibbs does not see the field much as a RB until he becomes a descent blocker. CTC is an absolute stickler for that.
 
OptionJacket said:
Getting Gibbs would be huge for so many reasons. One of which would allow the staff to not have to target a RB next year and really concentrate on the DLine. We could then concentrate on RB’s in the 2022/2023 class.
Click to expand...
I dont think we will skip a year ever; that doesnt follow the book. I could see us going for the very top running backs rather than targeting "the best running back we realistically think we can get" because we know we could whiff.
 
smokey_wasp said:
Two things that always feel icky to me are speculating who might leave and speculating on recruits' grades. Not that I don't engage in such from time to time, but I don't feel great about it.
Click to expand...

To make people feel less icky, way back in the day, Ma Tech politely informed me that I had to leave because my grades apparently weren't satisfactory in nature. :bigthumbup:
 
Vespidie said:
To make people feel less icky, way back in the day, Ma Tech politely informed me that I had to leave because my grades apparently weren't satisfactory in nature. :bigthumbup:
Click to expand...
Well, see...it looks like you've stumbled on the secret. Seems like you just have to do it 'politely'. :)
 
GTCrew said:
I dont think we will skip a year ever; that doesnt follow the book. I could see us going for the very top running backs rather than targeting "the best running back we realistically think we can get" because we know we could whiff.
Click to expand...
Agree. Roster management in the age of the transfer portal is going to be dicey. If you did "skip" a year on RB's for example, all it takes is two or three guys leaving for whatever reason, and wham !, a whole position is depleted. At least until the teams learn the nuances of the transfer procedures, I think everybody will be conservative.
 
Roster management, attrition, and available slots are not going to be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top