Thoughts on transfers (generally)

Donate To GopherHole
M

mplsbadger

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
43
Points
48
Since we are in the dog days I thought I'd ask the experts for their thoughts on transfers. How many should a program take, under what circumstances, do they affect morale/culture, are they best only for rebuilding programs, do they cause or solve problems with position balance?

Both Kill and Brewster sought transfers early in their tenure. Some hits, some misses. It seems Kill is now focused primarily on filling gaps (like linebacker this year), but all things equal he'd prefer four year guys.

Interestingly, the new UW coach is really going after transfers. It seems a risky approach with an established team.

What do you guys think is the best approach generally and how do you assess the Gophers approach under Kill?
 

I take it that you're considering signing a JuCo as bringing in a transfer? They are a bit different, but yeah. . .

I think when a new coach arrives it's a necessary part of the process. It isn't ideal, but the new coach really wants to get guys in that fit that system. I think it's probably a bit less needed at a place like UW because UW didn't have the paper thin rosters that Kill and Brew took over (I don't want to rehash the ole Mason left the cupboard bare argument). Both of those guys needed to bring in guys who could play RIGHT away.

You also need to balance the need for proper class distribution. You never want a class of 30ish players because that will impact the size of the 4 other classes in the program. It seems like a good idea when that huge class is FR and through SRs, but you'll never be able to properly build a program because in year 5, you're in trouble (tiny class). Those large classes are also tough because guys want to play. People will transfer out if they are 3rd on the depth chart behind two guys in their class. Having depth is nice, but it's nice if it's spread out a bit between the classes (lets them see light at the end of the tunnel to play). Those JuCo guys come in, can play right away (save some RS on other players), and they graduate in two years (balances out the classes).

Kill has done a really nice job balancing the need to build the program through the 4 year players and to assist that process through the JuCo guys.
 

Bob_Loblaw, you are entirely too smart for your own good. You understand and explain things very well. Thank you. Doc
 

If I were the coach I would check with my proctologist. They are the authority on transfers.
 




Dr.Don said:
Transfers (from another BCS) or transplants (from JC ranks)?
Click to expand...

I did not know that proctologists needed to specialize in one or the other of of those two. I always viewed their field as already being rather narrow. I can understand why they would want to branch out though.
 

If there is a specific need, you are short on the depth chart, or lacking a starter its time to look. It was 1968, Nebraska need immediate help in the offensive line. The season was 6-4, 3-4 in conference. A home game Kansas State shutout, and a 47-0 loss at Oklahoma. There were rumblings on O street. The recruiting class was good, but the hole at left tackle and right guard the 1969. Two players put Nebraska back on the map. Two California Junior College transfers. Dick Ruppert and Bob Newton. With these two and a switch to the I formation, the rest they say is history. If you are going to get transfers, its is part an admission your recruiting missed. Transfers must contribute immediately.
 

It depends in the circumstances but one thing is for sure they better be good enough to at least give you depth. If you bring in say a constantly injured linebacker who may have been a Parade All American at one time maybe not. If you bring someone like say a record setting senior qb when you need a qb then great.
 



With the caveat that you need to balance classes and keep the team's academics in order, I think you take any transfer that you believe will be in the two deeps. No point in bringing depth guys in but if transfers will see the field bring them on.
 

Winnipegopher said:
With the caveat that you need to balance classes and keep the team's academics in order, I think you take any transfer that you believe will be in the two deeps. No point in bringing depth guys in but if transfers will see the field bring them on.
Click to expand...

Winni, I tend to interpret commentors who I think are saying we need to be bringing in depth guys translates to bringing in guys who will see the field. That does not mean being a starter, because being a starter is only temporary. Bring in depth guys in the positions of need who can add productive playing time whether they be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the depth chart. We not only need depth at all postitions, but we need depth that can be productive when it is money time.
 

Dr.Don said:
Winni, I tend to interpret commentors who I think are saying we need to be bringing in depth guys translates to bringing in guys who will see the field. That does not mean being a starter, because being a starter is only temporary. Bring in depth guys in the positions of need who can add productive playing time whether they be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the depth chart. We not only need depth at all postitions, but we need depth that can be productive when it is money time.
Click to expand...

Agreed, your take is just more nuanced.

I guess what I meant is that they need to have upside of being in the 2 deeps or at least potential of pushing the two deeps. The more Big ten quality players we have the better.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I take it that you're considering signing a JuCo as bringing in a transfer? They are a bit different, but yeah. . .

I think when a new coach arrives it's a necessary part of the process. It isn't ideal, but the new coach really wants to get guys in that fit that system. I think it's probably a bit less needed at a place like UW because UW didn't have the paper thin rosters that Kill and Brew took over (I don't want to rehash the ole Mason left the cupboard bare argument). Both of those guys needed to bring in guys who could play RIGHT away.

You also need to balance the need for proper class distribution. You never want a class of 30ish players because that will impact the size of the 4 other classes in the program. It seems like a good idea when that huge class is FR and through SRs, but you'll never be able to properly build a program because in year 5, you're in trouble (tiny class). Those large classes are also tough because guys want to play. People will transfer out if they are 3rd on the depth chart behind two guys in their class. Having depth is nice, but it's nice if it's spread out a bit between the classes (lets them see light at the end of the tunnel to play). Those JuCo guys come in, can play right away (save some RS on other players), and they graduate in two years (balances out the classes).

Kill has done a really nice job balancing the need to build the program through the 4 year players and to assist that process through the JuCo guys.
Click to expand...

While I certainly agree with you in principle, the reality is that the attrition rate of Brewster's classes was atrociously high. Bringing in JUCOs in the first two years was an excellent way to balance out the classes, although that did not work as well as I had hoped. A mixed class of JUCOs and HS scholarship players assumes, of course, that the HS seniors can redshirt and then stay for the full 5 years.
 



Dr.Don said:
Winni, I tend to interpret commentors who I think are saying we need to be bringing in depth guys translates to bringing in guys who will see the field. That does not mean being a starter, because being a starter is only temporary. Bring in depth guys in the positions of need who can add productive playing time whether they be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the depth chart. We not only need depth at all postitions, but we need depth that can be productive when it is money time.
Click to expand...

I agree. "Starter" is a relative term. If you have a JC guy that plays AT ALL, he's providing depth. A JC guy isn't brought in to save a redshirt. He's brought in for a need, whether it's to play 40 plays or 4.
 

To clarify, I was thinking either JUCO or transfer, but there is a world of difference. I like Kill's approach.
 

Did the OP ask for a Nebraska history lesson, or no? I'm confused.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom