Who's Leaving? 2024/25 version

ColoradoHusk said:
The timing of the transfer portal was decided by the adults in charge when they created the transfer portal and forced it to fall within the framework of college semesters/quarters. The players are doing what’s best for them within guidelines set by the NCAA. You want to call the players “losers”’, but the blame lies within the leadership who put this system in place. 
Click to expand...
I get all that.  That’s not what I’m referring to.

He’s had time to make this decision.  Watched everyone else do it and is now entering portal.  He’s already been in the portal.  That’s how he got here.

Definitely making a decision he thinks is best for him.  I didn’t call him a loser or anyone else.  May want to reread.  It’s a behavior that I believe facilitates a loser culture.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gobiggergoredder said:
I get all that.  That’s not what I’m referring to.

He’s had time to make this decision.  Watched everyone else do it and is now entering portal.  He’s already been in the portal.  That’s how he got here.

Definitely making a decision he thinks is best for him.  I didn’t call him a loser or anyone else.  May want to reread.  It’s a behavior that I believe facilitates a loser culture.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. My bad for misunderstanding your point. 

 
desertshox said:
I think by timing he is referring to Dowdell signing a new deal to stay then found out he didn't ask for enough.
Click to expand...
That’s the way I took the comment also.  And it’s ridiculous a system is in place that allows for that to happen.  Quite unfair to the program  IMO.  
Once an agreement is in place, there has to be an enforcement timeframe.  

 
gobiggergoredder said:
I get all that.  That’s not what I’m referring to.

He’s had time to make this decision.  Watched everyone else do it and is now entering portal.  He’s already been in the portal.  That’s how he got here.

Definitely making a decision he thinks is best for him.  I didn’t call him a loser or anyone else.  May want to reread.  It’s a behavior that I believe facilitates a loser culture.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but I am not really sure how we can generate much of an opposite culture in this environment.  That is why I still think taking a long term strategy of expected development (development is still necessary but planning on kids being here for 2-3+ years while it happens is a fools errand), redshirting and high school recruiting of projects is going to fail.  The days of that and having a long term culture are gone.  Places like Iowa are still doing it only because the coach was there for 15 years before this all started.  We aren't in that boat. 

 
runningblind said:
I get what you are saying, but I am not really sure how we can generate much of an opposite culture in this environment.  That is why I still think taking a long term strategy of expected development (development is still necessary but planning on kids being here for 2-3+ years while it happens is a fools errand), redshirting and high school recruiting of projects is going to fail.  The days of that and having a long term culture are gone.  Places like Iowa are still doing it only because the coach was there for 15 years before this all started.  We aren't in that boat. 
Click to expand...




Contracts would help reduce the number of players switching teams each year. I think you will still see the breakout players leaving for better contracts because it will be worth whatever they're losing when they leave, but you will see less of the merely decent, grass is always greener players leaving, because it will cost them too much.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Contracts would help reduce the number of players switching teams each year. I think you will still see the breakout players leaving for better contracts because it will be worth whatever they're losing when they leave, but you will see less of the merely decent, grass is always greener players leaving, because it will cost them too much.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think contracts are the only way to fix this.  

 
Moiraine said:
Contracts would help reduce the number of players switching teams each year. I think you will still see the breakout players leaving for better contracts because it will be worth whatever they're losing when they leave, but you will see less of the merely decent, grass is always greener players leaving, because it will cost them too much.
Click to expand...
Contracts would go a long ways.  However, there's a part of me that believes when we get 2-3 years past this huge cut in everyone's rosters, this is going to settle down, to a certain extent.  It's never going to go back to 10 years ago.  But, rosters are going to be at 105.  If you're on a roster on the two deep, and you have a chance to play and develop, you might strongly question if it's the right move to head to the portal.  It's not like you can just jump on another team.  That other team has to abide by that 105 number too and there might be far fewer options than there has been in the last 2-3 years.  Honestly, it might be a wakeup call to players that are on the edge of the 2 deep to work harder so they aren't cut.

 
This year also has the influx of the $15M in revenue share in addition to the NIL/collective dollars.  Teams that were spending $5M on a roster are now spending $20M on a roster.  So there’s a lot of additional money going around.

Contracts are still needed, but it will regulate a bit next year.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Five said:
This year also has the influx of the $15M in revenue share in addition to the NIL/collective dollars.  Teams that were spending $5M on a roster are now spending $20M on a roster.  So there’s a lot of additional money going around.

Contracts are still needed, but it will regulate a bit next year.  
Click to expand...
Is that $15M just for football?  Or, is that spread throughout the AD?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Contracts would help reduce the number of players switching teams each year. I think you will still see the breakout players leaving for better contracts because it will be worth whatever they're losing when they leave, but you will see less of the merely decent, grass is always greener players leaving, because it will cost them too much.
Click to expand...
That would gives teams the opportunity to get buyouts. Someone should pay to get a fully developed player 

 
I'm assuming after the bowl game is when the vast majority of the walkons are going to be told they no longer have a spot?  I believe there are still 47 on the roster.  But, that includes a couple kickers that probably are not going to be asked to leave (Koch, Hohl).

By then, they should have a clearer idea of what they can get from the portal.  If there's still room under the 105, maybe a few would be kept for depth and needed positions?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top