12-16-2019, 01:34 PM
(12-16-2019, 01:23 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: God I hate giving Wilner clicks. But he's generally on the mark here. I also don't think we get 22... 20-21 most likely IMO, unless we count an LDS guy (would be c/o '22 so I don't count him). Roughly the class size I'd ideally want every year. The "smaller" classes should be 18, not 15.
He does make a good point about more than half our scholarships going to underclassmen. This, folks, is why the '18 class was so disastrous for the team, and why our depth seemed nonexistent this year. If you have 5-7 guys that don't make an impact in a given class, that's pretty normal/understandable when the class size is 20+. When the class size is 15 and you're giving a scholarship to a walk-on S in the next class because he's already better than a scholarship RS Fr who has an entire year of practice and S&C under his belt? Yikes.
Right, your analysis reveals why Wilner is not a great journalist. He tells us the what, but he doesn't tell us the how or why; it's a factually correct but skin deep article. Ultimately, we will be fighting this problem until 2022, when the members of the 2018 class would be seniors. At that point, we will hopefully have four full classes of 18-22 recruits. But as long as the hole is there, we will be struggling with depth, inexperience, or both.
BC
