So, now it's looking like...

#102
#102
ETNVol said:
I don't disagree that it's possible. I was more commenting on your "looking like" post. Because I don't think by any stretch it's "looking like" we'll get that many of those guys. I think only the most optimistic among us think we're getting all you listed.
Click to expand...

Yeah...well, what can I say? TNHopeful looked a lot better than TNPessimist

I'm just pleased at the fact we are IN it for that quality of recruits.
 
#103
#103
JVol76 said:
As much as I hate Bama they are not a team on the rise they are already there.As far as playing soon you just said their stars are NFL bound so it would seem everyone has a fair shot at seeing the field.Like it or not, Bama is one of the premier programs in the country and saying otherwise is just foolish.I like Bama being good, when we start beating them it's going to be better than gettting them when they are down.
Click to expand...
==========================

We all though Florida "was there" too. And Texas.
 
#104
#104
I just read an article on SI about AU signing 32 last year. The rule states that you can only sign 28 between February and May.They signed 27, 1 below the limit. Then brought in 5 players in January(including Cam.) Did Chizic find a loophole or something? And could we use this to our benefit seeing how our numbers are down?
 
#105
#105
ETNVol said:
Some of that's true, but Saban is a tremendous coach. He's won 2 NCs in his last 5 years or so of coaching, at 2 different schools. They don't have a class with boatloads of 4 & 5 star recruits because they're on their way down.

That's no guarantee they'll stay there long-term. But I don't see Saban getting lazy and resting on his laurels the way Fulmer did.
Click to expand...

Don't tell that to the Dolphins
 
#106
#106
ETNVol said:
If you flip a coin 5 times, what are the odds you get the same side every time? Pretty slim.

Not that it applies to guys who probably have already made their decision, but I think it is totally unrealistic to think we get all of them. JMO, but of those guys, I'd say the ones we have a real shot with are Dawson and one of the DTs. I think that Fulse and Maggit are long shots, as is getting both DTs.
Click to expand...

32-1 odds. I've seen Kentucky Derbies won with worse. :) ... And the flipping the coin analogy doesn't fly. Dooley not random. He's mythodical!

I seriously doubt you'd give me those odds against Dooley and Co. I'd definitely bet a whopping dollar (or $20) if you'll give me 32-1 returns if he pulls that off.
 
Last edited:
#109
#109
"In spite of NCAA bylaw 13.9.2.3, more players will get caught in a similar scholarship crunch this year because the 28-signee limit is so toothless. The reason? The dates. Auburn could sign 32 players last year in spite of the SEC rule because the Tigers brought in five players -- including Heisman Trophy-winning junior college transfer quarterback Cam Newton -- in January. Only 27 players signed between February and May, one under the limit."

This statement in the article someone cited earlier would imply that the EEs won't count towards this years limit. I don't know if that's true but if so then this whole argument is moot.
 
#111
#111
I did not see in any posts where Tim Jernigan has been mentioned but I would seriously consider adding hi to the lsit. Hopefuly, CCS & CDD is closing him now with the remaining staff. He is no longer interested in FL from my understanding and is leaning UT/FSU.
 
#112
#112
Ya know what...instead of our "insiders" digging up the latest meal our target recruit ate, they should probably find out from someone who knows how many we can take and sign in this class. There are like 10 different "I'm 99% sure" answers on this board.
 
#115
#115
pcvolfan said:
Where's the fun in that? At this point I would rather be surprised.
Click to expand...

True. I guess I just figured we get on Volnation and try to figure out the big mystery of recruiting deciphering between fact and fiction from credible sources. You'd think we'd know something as simple as how many we can take.
 
#116
#116
Yeah, but I am confused by all of these differing opinions. I would rather just sit back and watch it all play out.
 
#118
#118
This is one of the best explanations I've seen so far from a reliable poster on TOS...



"The EE's do not sign LOI's but they do count against the nunber 25 that can be brought on board as a max each year.For example,We have 6 EE's ,therefore if Coach Dooley wanted he could sign 28 on Feb 2 and be within the letter of the law....by the way if he did so 34 names would be in the paper on Feb 3 ( day after signing day ) as " signing " with the University of Tennessee.That would not be true ....28 would have signed.Then out of the 34 aggregate ( 28 signees + 6 EE's ) only 25 could be enrolled in class as part of 2011 class in August ...since one will be backcounted to 2010 that would mean that 26 aggregate bodies could be brought aboard from Jan 1,2011 to Sept 1,2011."
 
#120
#120
i agree if we lead for wright and maggit why drop them from list cause wright would see alot of pt and maggit is very talented and will see plenty of pt and be a good lb and more weight de i say lb is better fit
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#121
#121
vol66 said:
This is one of the best explanations I've seen so far from a reliable poster on TOS...



"The EE's do not sign LOI's but they do count against the nunber 25 that can be brought on board as a max each year.For example,We have 6 EE's ,therefore if Coach Dooley wanted he could sign 28 on Feb 2 and be within the letter of the law....by the way if he did so 34 names would be in the paper on Feb 3 ( day after signing day ) as " signing " with the University of Tennessee.That would not be true ....28 would have signed.Then out of the 34 aggregate ( 28 signees + 6 EE's ) only 25 could be enrolled in class as part of 2011 class in August ...since one will be backcounted to 2010 that would mean that 26 aggregate bodies could be brought aboard from Jan 1,2011 to Sept 1,2011."
Click to expand...

This is it.
 
#122
#122
vol66 said:
This is one of the best explanations I've seen so far from a reliable poster on TOS...



"The EE's do not sign LOI's but they do count against the nunber 25 that can be brought on board as a max each year.For example,We have 6 EE's ,therefore if Coach Dooley wanted he could sign 28 on Feb 2 and be within the letter of the law....by the way if he did so 34 names would be in the paper on Feb 3 ( day after signing day ) as " signing " with the University of Tennessee.That would not be true ....28 would have signed.Then out of the 34 aggregate ( 28 signees + 6 EE's ) only 25 could be enrolled in class as part of 2011 class in August ...since one will be backcounted to 2010 that would mean that 26 aggregate bodies could be brought aboard from Jan 1,2011 to Sept 1,2011."
Click to expand...

.
 
Last edited:
#123
#123
Regulator said:
.
Click to expand...

This is the math for our class going back to Kiffin. Not sure what Auburn looks like with back counting and juco's. I'm not saying you aren't correct. The fact is with our class it's either a total of 28 or 29 on signing day.
 
#124
#124
utvolpj said:
so since he's not going to play next year he should pay his own way? Not sure too many understand this greyshirt thing and just toss it around like it's no big deal
Click to expand...

My take:

Redshirt: On scholly, but plays the following year.

Grayshirt: Not on scholly, gets pissed off & gets a scholly with another school.

:hi:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top