Tony B. On why Tennessee won't be active in transfer portal

lifeisdeep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2017
Messages
2,107
Likes
2,665
Whole thing stinks. White put into Hoople’s contract that he will get extra years if there are scholarship limits. The assumption was that it would be NCAA imposed not self imposed. This is gonna wind up costing another five or six million on the buyout in a couple of years.
That seems to me to be the very definition of some foul-smelling crap.
 

stillavol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
487
Likes
378
No. I'm saying that head count is defined differently than the way you are counting. I'll not quibble about how wrong you are. What you think (or what any of us think) the headcount is doesn't matter to the NCAA or the University.
I don't think I'm wrong in refuting that UT only has x number of recruits on hand because of self imposed reductions (which is what this thread pertains to). I will agree a few haven't enrolled yet. You are acting like this is a disadvantage and only applicable to UT. Why so much emphasis on a Jan. headcount lol? There probably isn't a school that had every recruit enroll early.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,427
Likes
43,064
Whole thing stinks. White put into Hoople’s contract that he will get extra years if there are scholarship limits. The assumption was that it would be NCAA imposed not self imposed. This is gonna wind up costing another five or six million on the buyout in a couple of years.
Why is it totally unsurprising that this would be your take?

I watched something that seemed to explain this last night. Supposedly UT can count last fall as their "scholarship reduction" if they do not take new players until after the spring session. If so... that would be a pretty slick way of saying you took a 15 scholarship pop... without actually taking any kind of real reduction. UT lost players through the portal and played with the one year Covid players to get the roster to about 80. Kind of provides some context for the mantra that UT only had 70 scholarship players... If they wait on the NCAA to investigate and rule then that option is gone. They'll have to take reductions later.

Really not worried about a buyout at this point. Heupel shows very good leadership and according to most overachieved in his first year. (I like him but wouldn't agree he overachieved however that's a different debate.) The question is how we can anticipate the next 5 years going. Heupel is a good leader. He has created a very good culture and is bringing the right kinds of people into it. You don't have a mass, unexplainable exodus of productive players leaving after playing for him. You have players who have run out of eligibility wishing they could return. His prospects are much better than UT has had since 2004.

He's capable on the field... but he'll survive longer because he's the best leader UT has had in a long time. I would have said since Fulmer but the culture under Fulmer was not good without Cut.

The missing piece is players. He has to improve the roster. But getting past whatever scholarship reductions they take in whatever form... is the first step to building the roster up.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
48,427
Likes
43,064
I don't think I'm wrong in refuting that UT only has x number of recruits on hand because of self imposed reductions (which is what this thread pertains to). I will agree a few haven't enrolled yet. You are acting like this is a disadvantage and only applicable to UT. Why so much emphasis on a Jan. headcount lol? There probably isn't a school that had every recruit enroll early.
This is not my "theory" but I watched a show last night that talked about a strategy. If you don't count the one year Covid grace players that took a lot of programs way over 85 players and brought UT to about 80... the Vols had around 70 scholarship players last fall. If they don't go back to the 85 limit (not counting those whose career ended due to eligibility) then they can count those missing scholarships as their penalty then go back to the 85 limit after the spring term ends.

This is what a lot of us were screaming for last fall. UT in our minds had already suffered a "scholarship reduction" when they played with such a short roster compared to the rest of CFB.

So head count right now matters. The difference between 85 and UT's current head count minus "retired" players is their "scholarship reduction" for the 2021 season.
 

BondJamesBond

Double naught spy (DNS)
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
2,000
Likes
3,672
I don't think I'm wrong in refuting that UT only has x number of recruits on hand because of self imposed reductions (which is what this thread pertains to). I will agree a few haven't enrolled yet. You are acting like this is a disadvantage and only applicable to UT. Why so much emphasis on a Jan. headcount lol? There probably isn't a school that had every recruit enroll early.
The number of players enrolled in school is what makes up the 85. That's the only reason it matters. If they are signed but not enrolled, they don't count until they enroll in fall. Meanwhile others may graduate, transfer out, leave the team. Many of our most recent class are not yet enrolled. That appears to me to be the difference in your number and the consensus number. You are counting the entire class as enrolled. They aren’t. I'm no expert and talking round numbers, but it seems that the difference is there. And that's why January numbers matter.
 

VN Store




Top