[pcgoode]

Oregon is losing three players looking to transfer, with more possibly on the way. The part that I found interesting from the story: "Without either Harrison or Amoako, the Ducks are down five cornerbacks from their roster for the Pac-12 championship game, with Troy Hill, Ifo Ekpre-Olomu and Dior Mathis graduating. The Ducks will bolster that position in recruiting, however, with corners Jihree Stewart and Ugo Amadi expected to sign with UO on Feb. 4, national signing day [emphasis added]".

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ss...errin.html

[pcgoode]

Oregon is losing three players looking to transfer, with more possibly on the way. The part that I found interesting from the story: "Without either Harrison or Amoako, the Ducks are down five cornerbacks from their roster for the Pac-12 championship game, with Troy Hill, Ifo Ekpre-Olomu and Dior Mathis graduating. The Ducks will bolster that position in recruiting, however, with corners Jihree Stewart and Ugo Amadi expected to sign with UO on Feb. 4, national signing day [emphasis added]".

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ss...errin.html

[StanFan88]

Looks like Helfrich is starting to adopt a Saban model - bring in an oversupply of 4- and 5-star players, and if it doesn't look like they will be starters after two years in the program (one year on the active roster), ship them off to another school so you have more scholarships available for a larger recruiting class.

It's a "legal" system under current NCAA rules, but the ethics of it are highly suspect.  Not sure how you stop it other than to somehow penalize the recruiting school if more than x number of players transfer by losing scholarships.  Maybe you make the school they transfer some lose a scholarship for one year?  Then the player sits for a year and the originating school can't get a scholarship replacement for a year.

[StanFan88]

Looks like Helfrich is starting to adopt a Saban model - bring in an oversupply of 4- and 5-star players, and if it doesn't look like they will be starters after two years in the program (one year on the active roster), ship them off to another school so you have more scholarships available for a larger recruiting class.

It's a "legal" system under current NCAA rules, but the ethics of it are highly suspect.  Not sure how you stop it other than to somehow penalize the recruiting school if more than x number of players transfer by losing scholarships.  Maybe you make the school they transfer some lose a scholarship for one year?  Then the player sits for a year and the originating school can't get a scholarship replacement for a year.

[Hulk01]

That system works with Saban because he gets a surplus of talent.  Oregon doesn't. 

[Hulk01]

That system works with Saban because he gets a surplus of talent.  Oregon doesn't. 

[washingtonismoney]

Well, you know, all schools see an exodus of players after the season -- typically because they don't see a place for themselves in the coming years. Sometimes they're named Brett Nottingham and Kevin Reihner, to pick two totally random examples. The question is how hard the coaches push in running players off. Saban's quite aggressive (and does stuff like grant obviously wrong medical exemptions).* Without more reporting it's hard to tell what end of the spectrum Helfrich is at.

*http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1468451306

[washingtonismoney]

Well, you know, all schools see an exodus of players after the season -- typically because they don't see a place for themselves in the coming years. Sometimes they're named Brett Nottingham and Kevin Reihner, to pick two totally random examples. The question is how hard the coaches push in running players off. Saban's quite aggressive (and does stuff like grant obviously wrong medical exemptions).* Without more reporting it's hard to tell what end of the spectrum Helfrich is at.

*http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1468451306

[slide]

The line between ruthlessness and simple honesty can be pretty thin in these cases. If a player asks a coach where he stands and the coach replies, "You're third string and I don't see you going any higher than that," does that count as running somebody off? Or is it worthwhile candor?

I'd say candor is good.  sometimes just honest, sometimes with an underlying message.  when Harbs labelled some guys as "steak eaters" I suspect it was more motivational than to run them off. 

[slide]

The line between ruthlessness and simple honesty can be pretty thin in these cases. If a player asks a coach where he stands and the coach replies, "You're third string and I don't see you going any higher than that," does that count as running somebody off? Or is it worthwhile candor?

I'd say candor is good.  sometimes just honest, sometimes with an underlying message.  when Harbs labelled some guys as "steak eaters" I suspect it was more motivational than to run them off.