[BostonCard]

By citing the bottom of the roster, you are using the benefit of hindsight.  The 80th through 85th recruits aren’t necessarily the 80th through 85th players on the roster, given the uncertain translatability between recruiting rankings and eventual outcome.  And while the last guys on the roster are unlikely to be stars (though there are notable exceptions, like Ben Gardner), we are talking about depth, where we do benefit from more shots on goal.  I think that there’s a pretty good chance that had we filled our scholarship quota to 85 consistently, that a couple of those counterfactual players might have been meaningful contributors had they been on the roster.

There’s a reason that imposing scholarship limits is viewed as a punishment for NCAA violations.  If your average school could laugh it off, then it wouldn’t be imposed.  But scholarship reductions are one of the more meaningful punishments that the NCAA metes out, and it’s the one schools really don’t want.

BC

[BostonCard]

By citing the bottom of the roster, you are using the benefit of hindsight.  The 80th through 85th recruits aren’t necessarily the 80th through 85th players on the roster, given the uncertain translatability between recruiting rankings and eventual outcome.  And while the last guys on the roster are unlikely to be stars (though there are notable exceptions, like Ben Gardner), we are talking about depth, where we do benefit from more shots on goal.  I think that there’s a pretty good chance that had we filled our scholarship quota to 85 consistently, that a couple of those counterfactual players might have been meaningful contributors had they been on the roster.

There’s a reason that imposing scholarship limits is viewed as a punishment for NCAA violations.  If your average school could laugh it off, then it wouldn’t be imposed.  But scholarship reductions are one of the more meaningful punishments that the NCAA metes out, and it’s the one schools really don’t want.

BC