-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
2 commits
- Thread starter BeachPoke
- Start date
McPeachy
Well-known member
BeachPoke said:
Wyoming Football is falling behind all of our conference peers in recruiting the class of 2022 / 2023. Anyone see all the WR's the sheep signed recently? All with P5 offers, all highly recruited. Bohl better get his shit going, or we are going to be passed up, literally.
:tickedoff:
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
Recruit good players and develop them for other programs?phxpoke said:
OrediggerPoke said:
This is the new reality. No matter whether we recruit better players or recruit lesser ones and develop them, the threat of them being plucked by a P5 is real. To me, the answer is not to pull in your horns and not try. The answer is to double down to create a team that the kids will think twice about leaving. Winning and abandoning a culture that is stuck in 1965 are good starts.
Will players like Neyor leave in the future? Probably. Perhaps you embrace the fact that you develop talent and some of your players end up Longhorns, but you have a program that uses the hell out of those players to win while they are at UW. Imagine if we had an offense that could optimize talent like Neyor for 2 years? We'd have won a lot more games. He still would have left, but we'd have won in the meantime. Maybe the model is to be the overt training ground for Texas and Alabama? Set it up with Saban that we will culture your 3* and 4* for two years and then he can have them for the Natty. In the meantime, we win and go to NY6 bowls...and restock the next year with the next crop. Do I love that reality? No. Is it any less a reality? No.
To me, the worst thing we can do is stand pat and reflect the arrogance and obstinance that Bohl has to date. Things are changing. We may not like it, but they are changing. How do you adapt? I'm guessing it won't happen with a coach that is so stubborn that he retains an offense that produces nothing and is so pigheaded that he won't accept anything less than absolute loyalty and fidelity to him and UW. I appreciate loyalty as much as the next guy, but it is not realistic to expect it.
laxwyo
Well-known member
The real key is to develop relationships with P5 schools and their coaches much in the same way we develop relationships with high school coaches. these coaches will know which kids on their roster probably will never get any meaningful time on the team. The P5 will be always looking to make room for the kids they're poaching from the g5 and know which kids they missed on. It's possible that when coaches talk to the kids that they could direct them to coaches they have relationships with. "Hey 5th string LB on alabama, we have a 5* coming in and I don't see a scenario where you're going to get significant playing time. Coach Bohl at Wyoming knows how to coach LBs and gets them in the NFL. You could go make an impact for his team and get exposure"
It's clear the future is different.
It's clear the future is different.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
laxwyo said:
I agree with you. However, Bohl has already basically stated that high school recruiting and development is and will always be his philosophy. With Bohl, we might pick up a few transfers every year, but it looks to me that Wyoming is now basically a farm team to identify and develop talent.
OrediggerPoke said:
I don't really see much of a difference....in both scenarios, guys like Neyor or Josh Allen will not be playing their junior or senior seasons here. I don't see why developing high schoolers where a few of the really good ones leave makes much of a difference vs playing with power program cast-offs.
When Wyoming has been good...those teams had lots of starters that could start for big time programs. No matter how you slice it...whether we get cast-offs from the big guys, or we develop high schoolers, once that caliber of player reveals themselves, they are transferring. The results are a team that is full of guys that are not talented enough to play at the upper echelon of college football.
The silver lining is that every MWC level team will be facing this same reality. I actually could see a scenario where, for teams at our level, this flattens the talent differential and puts the emphasis back on x's and o's.
Players only get to transfer once correct?... so why not put all our recruiting resources into the portal. Recruit underclassmen that are transferring in the portal. Then you can have a player 3-4 years and build somewhat of a culture and development. The way the system is right now there is no point in Wyoming recruiting high school players. All efforts should be be put into getting players out of the portal.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
Cornpoke said:
Agree, I think a good team could be built out of transfer from P5 schools that were 2nd and 3rd stringers.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
Meh. The sheep have been out recruiting us on paper for a long time, but how many times out of the last 10 have they beaten us?McPeachy said:
LanderPoke said:
So....talent-wise....roughly where we are now? just without the guys that could actually start at the big time programs.
How good is the average Wyoming starter? Are they on par with a backup at an Ohio State? I think they probably are. Maybe going hard into the transfer route helps the depth...but I'm skeptical that overall talent will increase, and top end talent will definitely decrease.
Does anybody know the breakdown of players in the transfer portal by how many years of eligibility they have remaining? I predict the effect of talent difference in the MWC, no matter which way you go (HS or transfers), is going to decrease over time which puts a premium on "systems". Does this benefit AFA?
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
307bball said:
How good is the average Wyoming starter? Are they on par with a backup at an Ohio State? No, I don't believe so and I don't believe it is particularly close. I hope to be proven wrong.
Does anybody know the breakdown of players in the transfer portal by how many years of eligibility they have remaining? Many of the current players or those players that entered the portal
after last season only have 1-2 years of eligibility given the unique COVID situation and the extra year. I suspect in future years, the portal will trend toward younger players and to include many MWC players who have 'proven' themselves.
I predict the effect of talent difference in the MWC, no matter which way you go (HS or transfers), is going to decrease over time which puts a premium on "systems". Does this benefit AFA? I would have said yes but I believe the new college cut blocking rules will have a bigger impact on the AFA system.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
Cornpoke said:
Players can only transfer in the portal once penalty free (otherwise they have to sit out a year). However, a graduate transfer may still leave penalty free even if they transferred before.
USU has adopted your proposed strategy. Considering that they won the MWC last year, it is hard to argue that it isn't successful. I also like the idea.
OrediggerPoke said:
The reason I thought that the big time programs backups were roughly on par with Wyoming starters is based on friends that I have had who played College football. They felt that, when playing big time programs, the big time programs starters were generally better but it wasn't a gigantic difference. When the back-up guy for the big time program came in they were not as good as the starter but they were still very good while the Wyoming players back-up was much worse.
I don't think that the 2nd and definitely not third string from Power programs are head and shoulders above the typical Wyoming starter. This is why I think that depth could be the main thing that gets improved by leaning into the transfer portal...but I think it comes at the cost of guys that will be with the program for three or more years.
McPeachy
Well-known member
Bohl needs to change, or fade off into the sunset. Let's face it, we would have more success and less attrition if our roster was filled with 20 year old transfers, rather than 18 year old unproven 1 & 2 star high school kids.
This little league coach would fill the roster with plug and play transfers, and maybe HS kids from CO & WY only.
This little league coach would fill the roster with plug and play transfers, and maybe HS kids from CO & WY only.
McPeachy said:
Personally....he needs to fade off....but the way forward in the new NIL and transfer era will still be a problem for the next coach. I know people point to USU and say "look, transfers = success!" but lots of high transfer schools struggle as well. I'm not seeing the straight line between developing HS kids and losing or the straight line between lots of transfers and success. Does any football coach really like the transfer stuff? I don't think any of them do but they don't say it out loud like Bohl does....that's the difference.
McPeachy said:
Agreed. This is the modern day version of what Bill Snyder did with JUCO kids to build his KState program. Add in the element of being a proving/training ground for P5 kids that may only be here for one or two years and I think you might have a path to stay FBS, whatever that means.
laxwyo
Well-known member
There’s definitely going to be a place for high school kids on the team. It’d be figuring out the percentages. Bohl also needs to know that the transfer kids are going to be quite different than in the past. Previously, it seemed that transfers were almost considered damaged goods because maybe they were kicked off a team, a bad attitude whatever it is. Now, you’re going to have solid players enter the portal because their team picked up a g5 stud. I’m thinking the 3rd wr who isn’t a superstar but worked his way into some reps coming into his jr season but is now displaced.
I don’t disagree that we are still a development program. We still will have and need Garrett Cralls and Lucas Wacha type guys. The question is whether or not we’d be able to hold on Wilsons and Mumas. It’s clear we’d lose the Neyors and Allens. I do agree with oredigger that the talent in the MW could flatten. I’ve long thought that Boise could be a big loser in this new world
I don’t disagree that we are still a development program. We still will have and need Garrett Cralls and Lucas Wacha type guys. The question is whether or not we’d be able to hold on Wilsons and Mumas. It’s clear we’d lose the Neyors and Allens. I do agree with oredigger that the talent in the MW could flatten. I’ve long thought that Boise could be a big loser in this new world
laxwyo said:
That is an interesting point lax...todays transfer player is not like a '90's transfer.
I'm for anything that works .... All of the stuff we are discussing is a bit theoretical until it gets put into play. I'm not as convinced as some that "plug and play" transfer roulette is a superior strategy. I think it has pluses and minuses. Wouldn't every example of a coach doing well with lots of transfers have a counter-example of high transfer teams sucking? What USU did last year and what you referenced at KState just proves it "can" be done....not that it is the reason that it happened.
