[BostonCard]

I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field.  I think I remembered that Washington had 17.  I stopped keeping track after that.

What am I missing? USC brought in 26 transfers but they are still limited to 85 total scholarships, correct? Assuming they kept the incoming freshman class of recruits, doesn't that mean that USC jettisoned 40% of its rising sophomore, junior and senior recruiting classes? Speaks a lot about their loyalty and commitment to recruits, doesn't it? Similar for Washington, but they only jettisoned the equivalent of one recruiting class, give or take.

Remember, USC brought in a new coach, so some "jetisonning" seems to be expected in this day and age, especially if the new coach wants to bring in players ready to run his offense.  If you were to design a system from scratch, unencumbered by academic or transfer limitations, parting ways with players who aren't cracking the two-deep by their junior year or who are over-recruited can be framed as a win-win; the team gets a scholarship spot back that they can use on a younger player with more potential or an incoming transfer at a position of need, while the player might get a better chance to start at another team. After all, they aren't there for academics /*sarcasm*/

And to be fair, everyone (including Stanford) has always done this with redshirt seniors.  That fifth year was not guaranteed, and was only offered to players who could contribute. 

BC

[BostonCard]

I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field.  I think I remembered that Washington had 17.  I stopped keeping track after that.

What am I missing? USC brought in 26 transfers but they are still limited to 85 total scholarships, correct? Assuming they kept the incoming freshman class of recruits, doesn't that mean that USC jettisoned 40% of its rising sophomore, junior and senior recruiting classes? Speaks a lot about their loyalty and commitment to recruits, doesn't it? Similar for Washington, but they only jettisoned the equivalent of one recruiting class, give or take.

Remember, USC brought in a new coach, so some "jetisonning" seems to be expected in this day and age, especially if the new coach wants to bring in players ready to run his offense.  If you were to design a system from scratch, unencumbered by academic or transfer limitations, parting ways with players who aren't cracking the two-deep by their junior year or who are over-recruited can be framed as a win-win; the team gets a scholarship spot back that they can use on a younger player with more potential or an incoming transfer at a position of need, while the player might get a better chance to start at another team. After all, they aren't there for academics /*sarcasm*/

And to be fair, everyone (including Stanford) has always done this with redshirt seniors.  That fifth year was not guaranteed, and was only offered to players who could contribute. 

BC