Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Thanks for sharing, I found the Clawson comments especially interesting -

"The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship. In 2020, rostered athletes were granted an extra year of eligibility due to COVID-19. As such, coaches do not have to strictly adhere to the 85-man limit in 2022; however, they must find a way to pare their rosters back down to 85 ahead of the 2023 season.

"How the hell are we going to get to 85?" said Clawson, who has been named to the American Football Coaches Association board of trustees. "Our rosters are getting thinner and thinner. We have less control over them, and the NCAA isn't giving us any relief.

"What they've done is done a great job of opening up the outflow valve. And they haven't helped us at all with the inflow valve."

I am very curious how the players lost to the transfer portal does compare to other leagues, which the article says isn't currently known. But it does seem clear that the other P5 conferences, being for the playoff, apparently aren't having the issues attracting players that Clawson and the ACC are under this market-based system where players have more freedom to make a change to a program that offers more appeal to them.

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Coaches are the last ones you should ask about these sorts of things. They are working 80-100 hours a week focusing on winning football games.

(01-18-2022 03:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Thanks for sharing, I found the Clawson comments especially interesting -

"The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship. In 2020, rostered athletes were granted an extra year of eligibility due to COVID-19. As such, coaches do not have to strictly adhere to the 85-man limit in 2022; however, they must find a way to pare their rosters back down to 85 ahead of the 2023 season.

"How the hell are we going to get to 85?" said Clawson, who has been named to the American Football Coaches Association board of trustees. "Our rosters are getting thinner and thinner. We have less control over them, and the NCAA isn't giving us any relief.

"What they've done is done a great job of opening up the outflow valve. And they haven't helped us at all with the inflow valve."

I am very curious how the players lost to the transfer portal does compare to other leagues, which the article says isn't currently known. But it does seem clear that the other P5 conferences, being for the playoff, apparently aren't having the issues attracting players that Clawson and the ACC are under this market-based system where players have more freedom to make a change to a program that offers more appeal to them.

Saw someone saying Houston had lost 9. Texas, last I checked had lost 13 with more expected.

There is a rule that up to 6 players above the limit can be taken to offset transfers. So you can add 31 if you have 6 leave.

I am reading Texas is looking at 36 or so this year using prior year availability (they get admitted as part of last year's 25 man limit) and the extra for transfers. Last I checked Texas was down to 58 (graduation and transfers) and expecting more to leave. They've signed 27 freshmen, have one more committed and have 3 transfers.

Is there a more self-serving collection of folks than College Football coaches?

All this concern and righteousness "for student-athletes" and "the good of the game" and yet crickets when their fellow millionaires bail on their players before the season's even finished.

Spare me the B.S.

Tell these grumblers the annual scholarship limit will be elevated from 85 to 90 and restrictions studied for NIL and the transfer portal — and they'd be back in 30 minutes asking their agent to push for a pay raise and the AD to get moving with the $750,000 upgrade to the recruiting lounge.

It all sounds like a bunch of whiny coaches. Having a roster of 90 doesn't mean they will play the fresh #86-90 player instead of the sore starter.
"We're having a hard time doing our job (and paid millions to do so), so nobody else gets their way until we get our complaints taken care of!" Its not about the players, its about the coaches.

Interesting article--From the article:
"...For some, waiting for the NCAA to clean up its act delays the inevitable.

"You either want to expand or you don't," said one FBS commissioner in favor of expansion.

For the first time in the expansion discussion, the bracket staying the same four years from now has become a legitimate possibility. That's how wide the differences are between the conferences.

"If we can't make decisions because of uncertainty, we will never make decisions because every day is uncertain," said Sankey, one of four persons on the CFP subcommittee that proposed expansion...."

(01-18-2022 03:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Coaches are the last ones you should ask about these sorts of things. They are working 80-100 hours a week focusing on winning football games.

So true.

Unfortunately (at least for college sports business-minded people like us), coaches are the public faces for these schools, so they're the ones that get interviewed the most despite them having very little ultimate authority on the decisions. It would be way more instructive to me to see an interview with the University of Pittsburgh president as opposed to their football coach about why the ACC is holding off on approving CFP expansion. All of us can understand why coaches wouldn't want CFP expansion... but that doesn't really tell me anything because they're not the decision-makers here. Nick Saban, the most powerful coach of them all, effectively all but said that "CFP expansion is stupid," yet the CFP expansion format was authored by Greg Sankey.

(01-18-2022 03:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Thanks for sharing, I found the Clawson comments especially interesting -

"The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship. In 2020, rostered athletes were granted an extra year of eligibility due to COVID-19. As such, coaches do not have to strictly adhere to the 85-man limit in 2022; however, they must find a way to pare their rosters back down to 85 ahead of the 2023 season.

"How the hell are we going to get to 85?" said Clawson, who has been named to the American Football Coaches Association board of trustees. "Our rosters are getting thinner and thinner. We have less control over them, and the NCAA isn't giving us any relief.

"What they've done is done a great job of opening up the outflow valve. And they haven't helped us at all with the inflow valve."

I am very curious how the players lost to the transfer portal does compare to other leagues, which the article says isn't currently known. But it does seem clear that the other P5 conferences, being for the playoff, apparently aren't having the issues attracting players that Clawson and the ACC are under this market-based system where players have more freedom to make a change to a program that offers more appeal to them.

I'd be willing to wager that teams from all conferences are having problems with the number of players in the transfer portal. Free agency is new, lots of players are using the new found tool. It's hard to tell whether this is good or bad, but it's changing the responsibilities of coaches...they need to learn to re-recruit their players.

(01-18-2022 05:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Thanks for sharing, I found the Clawson comments especially interesting -

"The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship. In 2020, rostered athletes were granted an extra year of eligibility due to COVID-19. As such, coaches do not have to strictly adhere to the 85-man limit in 2022; however, they must find a way to pare their rosters back down to 85 ahead of the 2023 season.

"How the hell are we going to get to 85?" said Clawson, who has been named to the American Football Coaches Association board of trustees. "Our rosters are getting thinner and thinner. We have less control over them, and the NCAA isn't giving us any relief.

"What they've done is done a great job of opening up the outflow valve. And they haven't helped us at all with the inflow valve."

I am very curious how the players lost to the transfer portal does compare to other leagues, which the article says isn't currently known. But it does seem clear that the other P5 conferences, being for the playoff, apparently aren't having the issues attracting players that Clawson and the ACC are under this market-based system where players have more freedom to make a change to a program that offers more appeal to them.

I'd be willing to wager that teams from all conferences are having problems with the number of players in the transfer portal. Free agency is new, lots of players are using the new found tool. It's hard to tell whether this is good or bad, but it's changing the responsibilities of coaches...they need to learn to re-recruit their players.

One coach was saying you need to recruit and keep them happy when they are there. Seems to be a new concept to coaches!

Players should have the same freedom as coaches and other students. That's a good thing regardless of the impact on wins and losses at a particular program.

(01-18-2022 05:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Coaches are the last ones you should ask about these sorts of things. They are working 80-100 hours a week focusing on winning football games.

So true.

Unfortunately (at least for college sports business-minded people like us), coaches are the public faces for these schools, so they're the ones that get interviewed the most despite them having very little ultimate authority on the decisions. It would be way more instructive to me to see an interview with the University of Pittsburgh president as opposed to their football coach about why the ACC is holding off on approving CFP expansion. All of us can understand why coaches wouldn't want CFP expansion... but that doesn't really tell me anything because they're not the decision-makers here. Nick Saban, the most powerful coach of them all, effectively all but said that "CFP expansion is stupid," yet the CFP expansion format was authored by Greg Sankey.

I agree, but Phillips did make a point to say he had talked to the coaches and they were all opposed.

(01-18-2022 06:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 05:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.

Article Here From CBS Sports

Coaches are the last ones you should ask about these sorts of things. They are working 80-100 hours a week focusing on winning football games.

So true.

Unfortunately (at least for college sports business-minded people like us), coaches are the public faces for these schools, so they're the ones that get interviewed the most despite them having very little ultimate authority on the decisions. It would be way more instructive to me to see an interview with the University of Pittsburgh president as opposed to their football coach about why the ACC is holding off on approving CFP expansion. All of us can understand why coaches wouldn't want CFP expansion... but that doesn't really tell me anything because they're not the decision-makers here. Nick Saban, the most powerful coach of them all, effectively all but said that "CFP expansion is stupid," yet the CFP expansion format was authored by Greg Sankey.

I agree, but Phillips did make a point to say he had talked to the coaches and they were all opposed.

Yes, more evidence that he is in way over his head and has no idea what he's doing.

I agree with ACC concerns about the scholarship limits. With the transfer portal gushing players, IMO an increase in scholarships is warranted.

That said, I'm not sure why the ACC has mentioned what its coaches want. A coach's job is to coach. Playoff expansion is an upper-level decision, IMO.

The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

(01-18-2022 07:00 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

well, come 4 years from now, being unanimous isn't required. The ACC can cry all they want- but they know they can't opt out of it or their recruiting would be absolutely screwed forever.

(01-18-2022 06:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure why the ACC has mentioned what its coaches want. A coach's job is to coach. Playoff expansion is an upper-level decision, IMO.

The ACC leaders decided, for other reasons, that they oppose playoff expansion, so to get support for the opposition that they had decided upon, they gathered the input of their coaches, who they already knew were opposed to it.

It's like if someone wants to build a meatpacking plant in your town. Suppose the mayor has the ability to block the plant himself, and he opposes the plant because he is vegan, but he doesn't want his veganism to be the publicly-stated reason for blocking the plant. So, he gathers up statements from residents who are opposed to the traffic from all the out-of-town workers that would commute to the new plant, and then the mayor puts that out front as his reason for blocking the meatpacking plant, even though that's not his real motivation.

Honestly we all know the real reason the ACC doesn’t want playoff expansion. A 12 team expansion pretty much guarantees the big 10 and sec expanding again. Most like poaching of ACC teams in the process.

A 4 team playoff makes conference expansion less desirable. The sec probably wouldn’t have expanded if they knew the 12 team playoff was off the table. Hell the 12 team playoff probably wouldn’t be off the table if the sec didn’t expand.

(01-18-2022 07:56 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  Honestly we all know the real reason the ACC doesn’t want playoff expansion. A 12 team expansion pretty much guarantees the big 10 and sec expanding again. Most like poaching of ACC teams in the process.

A 4 team playoff makes conference expansion less desirable. The sec probably wouldn’t have expanded if they knew the 12 team playoff was off the table. Hell the 12 team playoff probably wouldn’t be off the table if the sec didn’t expand.

If Texas and Oklahoma are available, you take them.

(01-18-2022 07:00 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

It is a "possibility."

For it to be a possibility you need the following circumstances:
1) A team not ranked in the top 4 but in the top 12 played in a ccg
2) They win their first round game where they may or may no be a favorite
3) They win their 2nd round game where they will be an underdog
4) They win in the semi-finals where they will also almost certainly be an underdog

It will happen eventually, but it is highly unlikely in any given year. It might be 20 or 30 years before it happens.
Looking back to the beginning of the BCS era the wild 2007 year is the only time that would be remotely possible. Although prior to 2010 only a few conferences had CCGs so there weren't many who fit in category 1.