Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

GoDucksTroll wrote:

jimmy12 wrote:

GoDucksTroll wrote:^ Henry’s dad wants to go to Bama, but Bama has signed 27 and the hard limit is 25+3 so they only have one spot they’re probably saving for JTT.

Sounds like we’re getting outbid or the price is being raised.

Where are you getting the 25 +3? I have only seen a limit of 25, so I am curious.

25 is the official limit, but if you don’t fill out all 25 you can use the remainder the next year on early enrollees.

The SEC set a hard limit of +3 so you if you signed 22 in 2020 you have 28 for 2021. But if you signed 18 in 2020 you only have 28 still.

Bama has signed 25 or more each year for like three years, four years ago or so they had 21 or something, they rolled it over. Plus, some of their transfers or high school signees are walk-ons. That’s the only way the numbers pencil out. They’re convincing 4-stars or coveted transfers to walk-on.

Thank you for clarifying! I did not know there was a difference between SEC and PAC rules for numbers. I assumed it was an NCAA rule.

jimmy12 wrote:

GoDucksTroll wrote:

jimmy12 wrote:

GoDucksTroll wrote:^ Henry’s dad wants to go to Bama, but Bama has signed 27 and the hard limit is 25+3 so they only have one spot they’re probably saving for JTT.

Sounds like we’re getting outbid or the price is being raised.

Where are you getting the 25 +3? I have only seen a limit of 25, so I am curious.

25 is the official limit, but if you don’t fill out all 25 you can use the remainder the next year on early enrollees.

The SEC set a hard limit of +3 so you if you signed 22 in 2020 you have 28 for 2021. But if you signed 18 in 2020 you only have 28 still.

Bama has signed 25 or more each year for like three years, four years ago or so they had 21 or something, they rolled it over. Plus, some of their transfers or high school signees are walk-ons. That’s the only way the numbers pencil out. They’re convincing 4-stars or coveted transfers to walk-on.

Thank you for clarifying! I did not know there was a difference between SEC and PAC rules for numbers. I assumed it was an NCAA rule.

The 25 + whatever you didn’t sign from the previous nurse is an NCAA rule, but the SEC knew they had to cap it somewhere or their teams would fins some new way to game it.

Another well intentioned but poorly executed NCAA rule. There are now talks of adding spots for players who left the program with a degree. So in 2021 Oregon would have an extra spot for Tyler Shough, Jevon Holland, etc that left before four years with a degree in hand.

GoDucksTroll wrote: The 25 + whatever you didn’t sign from the previous nurse is an NCAA rule, but the SEC knew they had to cap it somewhere or their teams would fins some new way to game it.

Another well intentioned but poorly executed NCAA rule. There are now talks of adding spots for players who left the program with a degree. So in 2021 Oregon would have an extra spot for Tyler Shough, Jevon Holland, etc that left before four years with a degree in hand.

I would hope they wouldn't. There's so little parity as-is, that implementing rules that benefit the biggest programs would only get worse. (obviously personal opinion)

StevensTechU wrote:

GoDucksTroll wrote: The 25 + whatever you didn’t sign from the previous nurse is an NCAA rule, but the SEC knew they had to cap it somewhere or their teams would fins some new way to game it.

Another well intentioned but poorly executed NCAA rule. There are now talks of adding spots for players who left the program with a degree. So in 2021 Oregon would have an extra spot for Tyler Shough, Jevon Holland, etc that left before four years with a degree in hand.

I would hope they wouldn't. There's so little parity as-is, that implementing rules that benefit the biggest programs would only get worse. (obviously personal opinion)

I didn’t consider that, it’s a good point. Talent is being consolidated at the top at an increasing rate, combined with more accurate scouting/recruiting rankings that is further reducing parity.

On the other hand it might benefit Oregon. It would have for the 2021 cycle. It also encourages programs to get kids to graduate, but I could also see that backfiring with kids being forced into basket weaving majors. Yet another point is that it creates more scholarship opportunities and helps programs rebuild if the roster gets devastated.

Somewhat related, there have been media people (like the LA Times prep sports writer/USC homer) saying Oregon’s classes aren’t performing up to expected levels. It made me think of the unfairness of the Holland and Sewell situation: you don’t expect to only get two years out of your best OL and DB and have them opt out before their junior seasons. I wonder if that will become a thing even in non-pandemic years.

How would a USC guy know or hear anything that we haven’t? Suuuuure pal

My assumption, is that because Flowe only played a few snaps they count that as underperforming. Which negates the fact that Flowe got hurt after the first game and needed surgery.

Oregon has had the best recruiting class in the Pac the past 2 years, and won the conference the past 2 years. That is fairly successful.

USC claiming Oregon is doing less with more? That's adorable.

Eric Sondheimer was the guy I was thinking of:

“Why is it always raining in Oregon and Washington and why would any SoCal player want to play in rain”
https://twitter.com/latsondheimer/statu ... 11587?s=21

“Oregon loses to Oregon State and Cal in consecutive weeks. Is it possible Oregon’s five-star and four-star prospects really aren’t five-star and four-star players?”
https://twitter.com/latsondheimer/statu ... 59369?s=21