Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
-
- Posts: 9007
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:10 am
- Has thanked: 292 times
- Been thanked: 2734 times
Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
Because now there is a good chance you are just developing them for another program, and if anything, if you are only going to get someone for two years, you are better off getting developed JuCo kids rather than getting the kids for only the year or two they are inexperienced then a another program getting the developed experienced versions of the player. And, there is if anything more of an incentive for the small programs to go after transfers from other schools cause then they have the guy locked up since he can't leave again.
It was pointed out in another thread that coaches have to rerecruit their own players every year, but the players who have already transfered once are the guys they need to put the least energy into rerecruiting.
It was pointed out in another thread that coaches have to rerecruit their own players every year, but the players who have already transfered once are the guys they need to put the least energy into rerecruiting.
- These users thanked the author GameFAQSAggie for the post (total 2):
- Winkie • gomretat
-
- Posts: 7646
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 396 times
- Been thanked: 4609 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
Yep. Will be interesting to see how our new staff approaches recruiting.
My prediction? The mid and low-majors will ultimately adapt and change the way they recruit (focusing on transfers, be that JC, D1, or D2). Odom has kind of foreshadowed this by pointing out at his press conference and with Scotty G and Hans that USU is uniquely positioned to nab low-major guys moving up, and P5 guys looking for playing time on a stage that is still pretty big.
The parties hurt the most will be some of the 3-star and below high school guys. There won’t be spots on P5 rosters for all of these guys, and low and mid-majors are not going to be interested in taking the risk of developing these guys for P5 schools. They’ll end up at JCs or some lower level instead, and will have to move up later.
Giving a scholarship to a non-blue chip HS kid is a high-risk, low upside move for a low or mid-major. You take on all the risk that the kid never develops and doesn’t pan out, but in the event he does pan out, he leaves for a P5 school. Why take on the risk and the chore of development if there’s a serious chance you never realize the benefit?
Look at Worster’s situation (and I am not knocking Rollie and respect his decision) — but why would a school like USU sign up for that situation again? Take a flyer on a kid from an underrecruited state who ends up being good enough to start on a MW team in year one. Then, instead of getting four years of that kid, all of your scouting, recruiting, and development costs go to benefit a P5 school.
Naw, I think we’ll let the JCs and D2s take on the risk and cost of developing these guys for us as the P5s do to us.
My prediction? The mid and low-majors will ultimately adapt and change the way they recruit (focusing on transfers, be that JC, D1, or D2). Odom has kind of foreshadowed this by pointing out at his press conference and with Scotty G and Hans that USU is uniquely positioned to nab low-major guys moving up, and P5 guys looking for playing time on a stage that is still pretty big.
The parties hurt the most will be some of the 3-star and below high school guys. There won’t be spots on P5 rosters for all of these guys, and low and mid-majors are not going to be interested in taking the risk of developing these guys for P5 schools. They’ll end up at JCs or some lower level instead, and will have to move up later.
Giving a scholarship to a non-blue chip HS kid is a high-risk, low upside move for a low or mid-major. You take on all the risk that the kid never develops and doesn’t pan out, but in the event he does pan out, he leaves for a P5 school. Why take on the risk and the chore of development if there’s a serious chance you never realize the benefit?
Look at Worster’s situation (and I am not knocking Rollie and respect his decision) — but why would a school like USU sign up for that situation again? Take a flyer on a kid from an underrecruited state who ends up being good enough to start on a MW team in year one. Then, instead of getting four years of that kid, all of your scouting, recruiting, and development costs go to benefit a P5 school.
Naw, I think we’ll let the JCs and D2s take on the risk and cost of developing these guys for us as the P5s do to us.
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post (total 2):
- 3rdGenAggie • Aggie in Boise
-
- Posts: 7646
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 396 times
- Been thanked: 4609 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
Also, people have compared transfer portal mania to NBA free agency. But it is honestly much wilder than that. There’s a collective bargaining agreement in the NBA with rules that try to level the playing field for the small and mid-market teams to hold onto star players (like salary caps, luxury tax, bird rights and supermax contracts).
There is nothing preventing Duke or Kansas from taking as many of the best players it wants from other schools.
There is nothing preventing Duke or Kansas from taking as many of the best players it wants from other schools.
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post (total 3):
- utaggies • Aggie in Boise • Winkie
-
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: December 17th, 2018, 12:46 pm
- Has thanked: 325 times
- Been thanked: 800 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
I believe the exact opposite is true.
While everyone is wetting themselves over the transfer portal, I'd be hitting the high school market HARD looking for talent. With the eligibility freeze last year, there are far fewer scholarships to begin with, and most programs are looking to the portal for plug-and-play options. Last year, many high schoolers were not able to play their full senior year and be fully evaluated (not to mention the logistical difficulty of scouting during COVID).
This has created a very depressed market with unusual opportunities. It's very likely you will be able to land a higher level of talent than would have been possible in years past (maybe even a one-and-done). The smart investor never puts money on overappreciated assets.
Also, why worry about IF other bigger programs might steal your developed talent? It may happen once in a blue moon but we're not Idaho State! It's a looser mentality to think like that anyway - no offense
While everyone is wetting themselves over the transfer portal, I'd be hitting the high school market HARD looking for talent. With the eligibility freeze last year, there are far fewer scholarships to begin with, and most programs are looking to the portal for plug-and-play options. Last year, many high schoolers were not able to play their full senior year and be fully evaluated (not to mention the logistical difficulty of scouting during COVID).
This has created a very depressed market with unusual opportunities. It's very likely you will be able to land a higher level of talent than would have been possible in years past (maybe even a one-and-done). The smart investor never puts money on overappreciated assets.
Also, why worry about IF other bigger programs might steal your developed talent? It may happen once in a blue moon but we're not Idaho State! It's a looser mentality to think like that anyway - no offense
- These users thanked the author OrangeCountyAggie for the post:
- thegreendalegelf
-
- Posts: 7646
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 396 times
- Been thanked: 4609 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
I appreciate the counterargument, and you might be right. There’s definitely a large degree of speculation with all of this.OrangeCountyAggie wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 6:33 pmI believe the exact opposite is true.
While everyone is wetting themselves over the transfer portal, I'd be hitting the high school market HARD looking for talent. With the eligibility freeze last year, there are far fewer scholarships to begin with, and most programs are looking to the portal for plug-and-play options. Last year, many high schoolers were not able to play their full senior year and be fully evaluated (not to mention the logistical difficulty of scouting during COVID).
This has created a very depressed market with unusual opportunities. It's very likely you will be able to land a higher level of talent than would have been possible in years past. The smart investor never puts money on overappreciated assets.
Also, why worry about IF other bigger programs might steal your developed talent? It may happen once in a blue moon but we're not Idaho State! It's a looser mentality to think like that anyway - no offense
But if we’re making an investment analogy, to me, recruiting HS players with current transfer rules is like dumping $5,000 into a stock and giving Warren Buffet an option to take it from you for free in two years. There well may be more talent out there at the HS level because of the transfer portal, but that doesn’t mean we are any more likely to hold onto it.
And you’re right, we’re not Idaho State. But an argument can be made that might actually make us more vulnerable to poachers, because a Pac-12 school knows that if a player is a star in the MW, the odds are much better that will translate to the Pac-12 than a guy that blows up in the Big Sky.
I agree with Coach Odom though. I think schools like USU are actually positioned well in the transfer portal economy if we actually do use the portal.
And I don’t think it’s a winner’s or loser’s mentality. Just a question of roster construction and strategy.
Last edited by ineptimusprime on April 11th, 2021, 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post:
- OrangeCountyAggie
-
- Posts: 1936
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:32 pm
- Has thanked: 49 times
- Been thanked: 1366 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
I think a nice mix works.. Maybe add 2 freshmen a year and 2 grad transfers..Though it seems like a jillion guys are in the portal but there are thousands of players who aren't in the portal..
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
One thing that is unique to the Utah schools. I would guess that most LDS kids that also do missions are not big on transferring. USU has had good luck with getting those kids to stick. Collette being the exception. But his was a byu type mission anyway. Anyway my point being, that we should continue to recruit kids like Ashworth, Bean, Potter that is coming in and the Grant kid from Cedar City.
- These users thanked the author GUS for the post:
- ineptimusprime
-
- Posts: 7646
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 396 times
- Been thanked: 4609 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
GUS wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 7:24 pmOne thing that is unique to the Utah schools. I would guess that most LDS kids that also do missions are not big on transferring. USU has had good luck with getting those kids to stick. Collette being the exception. But his was a byu type mission anyway. Anyway my point being, that we should continue to recruit kids like Ashworth, Bean, Potter that is coming in and the Grant kid from Cedar City.
I can see an argument for LDS kids being a bit different.
- BLUERUFiO
- Posts: 2877
- Joined: August 30th, 2011, 1:22 pm
- Location: Smithfield
- Has thanked: 2796 times
- Been thanked: 302 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
I think we're overstating how often a high school player will transfer after being developed. College can be the best time of your life where you make life long friends and have a ton of fun. Players will get girlfriends. Things like this can make players want to stay.
Now, when an entire coaching staff leaves, it makes things a little harder for the player to stay. But, I think recency bias is getting us a bit worked up right now.
Now, when an entire coaching staff leaves, it makes things a little harder for the player to stay. But, I think recency bias is getting us a bit worked up right now.
GO AGGIES! GO AGGIES! HEY! HEY! HEY!
-
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: December 17th, 2018, 12:46 pm
- Has thanked: 325 times
- Been thanked: 800 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
Spot on. Are you not going to date a hot girl that's younger than you because you're worried that some other guy might steal her away? That's not what winners do. Go out, and find the hottest, coolest chick you can, convince her that you're worth the emotional investment, and put a ring on it!BLUERUFiO wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 8:21 pmI think we're overstating how often a high school player will transfer after being developed. College can be the best time of your life where you make life long friends and have a ton of fun. Players will get girlfriends. Things like this can make players want to stay.
Now, when an entire coaching staff leaves, it makes things a little harder for the player to stay. But, I think recency bias is getting us a bit worked up right now.
-
- Posts: 7646
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 396 times
- Been thanked: 4609 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
I don’t think these analogies work as well as you think they do.OrangeCountyAggie wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 9:42 pmSpot on. Are you not going to date a hot girl that's younger than you because you're worried that some other guy might steal her away? That's not what winners do. Go out, and find the hottest, coolest chick you can, convince her that you're worth the emotional investment, and put a ring on it!BLUERUFiO wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 8:21 pmI think we're overstating how often a high school player will transfer after being developed. College can be the best time of your life where you make life long friends and have a ton of fun. Players will get girlfriends. Things like this can make players want to stay.
Now, when an entire coaching staff leaves, it makes things a little harder for the player to stay. But, I think recency bias is getting us a bit worked up right now.
I may be overstating things, but maybe not. The strong trend is towards player autonomy and open borders. We should plan our recruiting to best position ourselves in this new recruiting economy. This isn’t a conversation happening just in this thread.
-
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: December 17th, 2018, 12:46 pm
- Has thanked: 325 times
- Been thanked: 800 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
You as well. But I'll bet EVERY school thinks their well-position for the transfer portal economy. You assume that if you develop a great player that some other big-time program will just automatically steal them away. No, they will have 12,000 other kids in the portal to look at. And how many open spots at bigger-name programs really need to be filled? Maybe that player (al-la Queta) just goes pro and you lose him anyway (which is a good thing).ineptimusprime wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 6:45 pmI appreciate the counterargument, and you might be right. There’s definitely a large degree of speculation with all of this.OrangeCountyAggie wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 6:33 pmI believe the exact opposite is true.
While everyone is wetting themselves over the transfer portal, I'd be hitting the high school market HARD looking for talent. With the eligibility freeze last year, there are far fewer scholarships to begin with, and most programs are looking to the portal for plug-and-play options. Last year, many high schoolers were not able to play their full senior year and be fully evaluated (not to mention the logistical difficulty of scouting during COVID).
This has created a very depressed market with unusual opportunities. It's very likely you will be able to land a higher level of talent than would have been possible in years past. The smart investor never puts money on overappreciated assets.
Also, why worry about IF other bigger programs might steal your developed talent? It may happen once in a blue moon but we're not Idaho State! It's a looser mentality to think like that anyway - no offense
But if we’re making an investment analogy, to me, recruiting HS players with current transfer rules is like dumping $5,000 into a stock and giving Warren Buffet an option to take it from you for free in two years. There well may be more talent out there at the HS level because of the transfer portal, but that doesn’t mean we are any more likely to hold onto it.
And you’re right, we’re not Idaho State. But an argument can be made that might actually make us more vulnerable to poachers, because a Pac-12 school knows that if a player is a star in the MW, the odds are much better that will translate to the Pac-12 than a guy that blows up in the Big Sky.
I agree with Coach Odom though. I think schools like USU are actually positioned well in the transfer portal economy if we actually do use the portal.
And I don’t think it’s a winner’s or loser’s mentality. Just a question of roster construction and strategy.
Think about how many high-level HS seniors are out there whose scholarship was taken by a returning senior or a transfer portal player. Plus those guys have been HIGHLY under scouted.
-
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: December 17th, 2018, 12:46 pm
- Has thanked: 325 times
- Been thanked: 800 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
This is exactly my point, why play the same game everyone else is playing? Look at Gonzaga they took the counter-approach to program building 10 (or whatever) years ago by building off of transfers. Now that everyone else is doing that, they are going heavily after high school kids again. You will never win if you play the same game against the blue-bloods.ineptimusprime wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 9:53 pmI don’t think these analogies work as well as you think they do.OrangeCountyAggie wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 9:42 pmSpot on. Are you not going to date a hot girl that's younger than you because you're worried that some other guy might steal her away? That's not what winners do. Go out, and find the hottest, coolest chick you can, convince her that you're worth the emotional investment, and put a ring on it!BLUERUFiO wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 8:21 pmI think we're overstating how often a high school player will transfer after being developed. College can be the best time of your life where you make life long friends and have a ton of fun. Players will get girlfriends. Things like this can make players want to stay.
Now, when an entire coaching staff leaves, it makes things a little harder for the player to stay. But, I think recency bias is getting us a bit worked up right now.
I may be overstating things, but maybe not. The strong trend is towards player autonomy and open borders. We should plan our recruiting to best position ourselves in this new recruiting economy. This isn’t a conversation happening just in this thread.
-
- Posts: 1152
- Joined: November 27th, 2013, 10:16 am
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 307 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
Whether we want it or not, it may well be where we end up. I think for sure most kids who come in as Freshman and kill it will be looking to move up.GameFAQSAggie wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 9:30 amBecause now there is a good chance you are just developing them for another program, and if anything, if you are only going to get someone for two years, you are better off getting developed JuCo kids rather than getting the kids for only the year or two they are inexperienced then a another program getting the developed experienced versions of the player. And, there is if anything more of an incentive for the small programs to go after transfers from other schools cause then they have the guy locked up since he can't leave again.
It was pointed out in another thread that coaches have to rerecruit their own players every year, but the players who have already transfered once are the guys they need to put the least energy into rerecruiting.
-
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: December 17th, 2018, 12:46 pm
- Has thanked: 325 times
- Been thanked: 800 times
Re: Building with freshmen makes even LESS sense now
You're making the assumption that everyone thinks like that. Just like the dating analogy, you can't be scared of what MIGHT happen.gomretat wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 10:27 pmWhether we want it or not, it may well be where we end up. I think for sure most kids who come in as Freshman and kill it will be looking to move up.GameFAQSAggie wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 9:30 amBecause now there is a good chance you are just developing them for another program, and if anything, if you are only going to get someone for two years, you are better off getting developed JuCo kids rather than getting the kids for only the year or two they are inexperienced then a another program getting the developed experienced versions of the player. And, there is if anything more of an incentive for the small programs to go after transfers from other schools cause then they have the guy locked up since he can't leave again.
It was pointed out in another thread that coaches have to rerecruit their own players every year, but the players who have already transfered once are the guys they need to put the least energy into rerecruiting.