NIL and RS Strategy

Donate To GopherHole
C

csom_1991

Active member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
604
Reaction score
171
Points
43
With all the NIL talk, I was thinking – should this change how coaches use their red shirts for programs like Minnesota? I think the general idea for the RS is that the player has more upside in Year 5 than in Year 1, so you sit the player so that they can mature and give their greatest contribution later. What I don’t know is – will coach RS a talent that is on par with the current roster depth? This is interesting to me because with NIL, a player that greatly overachieves is now probably more likely to chase NIL dollars at bigger schools given no transfer restrictions so that you actually don’t benefit from ‘Year 5’ (or even 3 or 4). So, can you make the argument that you should not RS any players in the current age? Also, could you turn this into a positive point? Tell all incoming players they can earn their way onto the field in year 1. If they can earn an NIL deal somewhere else, the U will fully support them but this comes with the risk that transferring hurts their pro prospects by changing systems, etc.
 

Overt
csom_1991 said:
With all the NIL talk, I was thinking – should this change how coaches use their red shirts for programs like Minnesota? I think the general idea for the RS is that the player has more upside in Year 5 than in Year 1, so you sit the player so that they can mature and give their greatest contribution later. What I don’t know is – will coach RS a talent that is on par with the current roster depth? This is interesting to me because with NIL, a player that greatly overachieves is now probably more likely to chase NIL dollars at bigger schools given no transfer restrictions so that you actually don’t benefit from ‘Year 5’ (or even 3 or 4). So, can you make the argument that you should not RS any players in the current age? Also, could you turn this into a positive point? Tell all incoming players they can earn their way onto the field in year 1. If they can earn an NIL deal somewhere else, the U will fully support them but this comes with the risk that transferring hurts their pro prospects by changing systems, etc.
Click to expand...
Don't Over think. Play the guys that earn a spot. Give them reasons to stay once they earn a spot. Better r than sit and stew thinking they could do better elsewhere
Any NIL speculation is still premature as we don't know how it will work going forward
 


I was wondering about that. Seems like a far-fetched scenario, but Fleck keeps saying it.

Taylor??

Haven’t seen him since Iowa? Did he already tell Fleck he’s done and out? I don’t personally believe signing with a Mpls rep firm means anything about staying here.
 



Before the game; on KFAN, PJ was trying to clarify that college football has changed. He said the game is not the same as it was 5 years ago. We need to think on a different level about kids staying and their reasons. There is a lot of information that we don't know, and maybe that's why Fleck sometimes looks so distracted.
 

As a follow up - how many RS did we use this year? Given our lack of depth and NIL/portal changing the game, did we burn them all or did we still use some?
 

Much as I dislike D1 FB becoming pro, the NIL might be the answer to the recruiting difficulty we face in Minneapolis. Top players seeking money may not be so picky about where they play. The problem with getting enough money to pay top dollar in the TCs is that so much fan money goes to the major pro programs in town. Your point about RSing is interesting. I agree with those here who say play anyone who is able to make a contribution to the team. This old geezer thinks that the beginning of the death of college sports was the lifting of the restriction on freshman playing.
 

I think we should go after the best local and Midwest kids and then go for young transfers from around the country. My idea is the local kids will be less apt to transfer and the transfers picked up from further away will have used up their free transfer. This way you can continue to try to be a developmental program.
 
Last edited:



^^ the transfers need to be from a lower level.

Why would a kid who went to a P5 school be making a lateral transfer to Minnesota after only a year or two? There are legitimate examples I’m sure, but thinking more likely questionable characters.
 

WHB Brewer said:
Overt

Don't Over think. Play the guys that earn a spot. Give them reasons to stay once they earn a spot. Better r than sit and stew thinking they could do better elsewhere
Any NIL speculation is still premature as we don't know how it will work going forward
Click to expand...
Yeah. Pretty safe strategy is to always play the best guys
 

MplsGopher said:
I was wondering about that. Seems like a far-fetched scenario, but Fleck keeps saying it.

Taylor??

Haven’t seen him since Iowa? Did he already tell Fleck he’s done and out? I don’t personally believe signing with a Mpls rep firm means anything about staying here.
Click to expand...
You think if he told PJ he was out, he would still be on the sidelines?
 

Is he still on the sidelines? If so fine, probably not then
 



Most Minnesota recruits are going to need a year of college weight training to be contributors. Seems like there are enough injuries in 4 years of eligibility that a redshirt can be used at some point. Play the Freshman if they are ready.
 

csom_1991 said:
With all the NIL talk, I was thinking – should this change how coaches use their red shirts for programs like Minnesota? I think the general idea for the RS is that the player has more upside in Year 5 than in Year 1, so you sit the player so that they can mature and give their greatest contribution later. What I don’t know is – will coach RS a talent that is on par with the current roster depth? This is interesting to me because with NIL, a player that greatly overachieves is now probably more likely to chase NIL dollars at bigger schools given no transfer restrictions so that you actually don’t benefit from ‘Year 5’ (or even 3 or 4). So, can you make the argument that you should not RS any players in the current age? Also, could you turn this into a positive point? Tell all incoming players they can earn their way onto the field in year 1. If they can earn an NIL deal somewhere else, the U will fully support them but this comes with the risk that transferring hurts their pro prospects by changing systems, etc.
Click to expand...
Forever, if a true freshman is better than someone on the field he plays. Nothing changes.
 

Dakota2 said:
Forever, if a true freshman is better than someone on the field he plays. Nothing changes.
Click to expand...
I don't think I agree with that take on how it was done in the past. Look at Ohio State last year - Quinn Ewers took a red shirt year. You are telling me that he could not make the 3 deep at Ohio State but then was good enough to start and star at Texas the next season? For a lot of positions, there is a perceived advantage to an additional year of maturity - and these often see red shirts. We also saw this in-season forever. As injuries mount, coaches decide to burn red shirts or not and they did not do this for lateral moves plus a little more, which is why burning red shirts were seen as big deals.
 

csom_1991 said:
I don't think I agree with that take on how it was done in the past. Look at Ohio State last year - Quinn Ewers took a red shirt year. You are telling me that he could not make the 3 deep at Ohio State but then was good enough to start and star at Texas the next season?
Click to expand...
Two years ago when Ewers was at tOSU instead of playing his last year of high school football, I don't think anyone believes he was a better option than CJ Stroud was at the time.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Two years ago when Ewers was at tOSU instead of playing his last year of high school football, I don't think anyone believes he was a better option than CJ Stroud was at the time.
Click to expand...
So now you want to switch the argument to: you only burn the red shirt year if they are better than the current starting player? If you are not saying this, then I do not get the point you are trying to make.
 

csom_1991 said:
With all the NIL talk, I was thinking – should this change how coaches use their red shirts for programs like Minnesota? I think the general idea for the RS is that the player has more upside in Year 5 than in Year 1, so you sit the player so that they can mature and give their greatest contribution later. What I don’t know is – will coach RS a talent that is on par with the current roster depth? This is interesting to me because with NIL, a player that greatly overachieves is now probably more likely to chase NIL dollars at bigger schools given no transfer restrictions so that you actually don’t benefit from ‘Year 5’ (or even 3 or 4). So, can you make the argument that you should not RS any players in the current age? Also, could you turn this into a positive point? Tell all incoming players they can earn their way onto the field in year 1. If they can earn an NIL deal somewhere else, the U will fully support them but this comes with the risk that transferring hurts their pro prospects by changing systems, etc.
Click to expand...

I think our best bet at this point.... Redshirt every freshman. Play him sparingly as a redshirt. Get him 2 years into his classes and 2 years to build friendships. Then unleash him in year 3. If he performs, other teams will come after him. But at least he'll have more reason to stay here because he has friends.

If we recruit a true freshman and he goes gangbusters out of the gate (don't call me "Bucko") then 50/50 he's gone.
 
Last edited:

I think it's a lot like our offensive philosophy....you can't play scared. Probably, most freshmen we recruit should be red shirted. They need to get bigger, stronger. They need to settle into college.

Like Gopher7 says...get them acclimated...hopefully, they find a girlfriend whose dad won't let her transfer. :)

They can play four games...if they explode onto the scene, then play em.
 

The other thing is we got like 25 freshmen coming in...does that make sense with the portal?
Recruit guys out of the portal. In some cases they'll have college game tape vs high school tape. That has to make evaluation less of a guess. They are not likely to transfer because they would have to sit a season to do so.
 

csom_1991 said:
So now you want to switch the argument to: you only burn the red shirt year if they are better than the current starting player? If you are not saying this, then I do not get the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

I assume that if Ewers was the second best QB on the roster.....that they could pull his redshirt and play him if Stroud went down. Otherwise.....why burn a year of eligibility? To get him in for a couple of snaps per game?
 

60's Guy said:
The other thing is we got like 25 freshmen coming in...does that make sense with the portal?
Recruit guys out of the portal. In some cases they'll have college game tape vs high school tape. That has to make evaluation less of a guess. They are not likely to transfer because they would have to sit a season to do so.
Click to expand...
That’s not a bad take. If a program like ours, which is a developmental by all accounts took the cream of the crop at th lower level that would be a formidable squad. Yes you might lose a few of our elites to the big programs but you certainly could do worse with this strategy.
 

I think this is the $6 million per year nut that needs to be cracked...

Hopefully time shows we got a bargain...
 

It's a choice of philosophies.

Fleck - based on what he has said - still wants to recruit a majority of HS players and just use the portal to fill gaps. that's fine in theory.

other coaches have decided that using the portal for a majority of your class brings in players who are older, more developed physically, and have at least some college experience. the downside is that you may only have them for a couple of years.

but if a HS kid isn't really ready to play for a couple of years, what's the difference? the difference is that by using the portal, you benefit from a player without having to go through all of the growing pains.

If it was me, I would go heavy in the portal - IF I had the NIL to help bring in quality players. and that's the big IF.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
It's a choice of philosophies.

Fleck - based on what he has said - still wants to recruit a majority of HS players and just use the portal to fill gaps. that's fine in theory.

other coaches have decided that using the portal for a majority of your class brings in players who are older, more developed physically, and have at least some college experience. the downside is that you may only have them for a couple of years.

but if a HS kid isn't really ready to play for a couple of years, what's the difference? the difference is that by using the portal, you benefit from a player without having to go through all of the growing pains.

If it was me, I would go heavy in the portal - IF I had the NIL to help bring in quality players. and that's the big IF.
Click to expand...
Even without the big "NIL IF" ... it is a more solid evaluation, a sounder plan like you laid out. And they are far less likely to transfer. We have gotten nice additions through the portal. We mis-evaluated some but they are out of eligibility in a year or two.
We must have something to offer in NIL...we say we are middle tier...some better...some worse.
There are still good players left after Oregon, Texas A&M, Alabama etc spend all their money.
We aren't chasing those guys anyway.
Older, more experience wins...he's lamenting he has none...he's focusing his recruiting on the wrong candidates. Listen to him today, he's not about winning, he wants to build men and spread the row the boat culture by winning enough games not to get fired. With his contract if he wins 5 or 6 per year he'll be here forever. We won't have the money to replace him...just like Ben. The Coyle contracts make us prisoners.
 

Fleck talked about this at length in the presser yesterday:

When you look at roster depth, you lost more players than you brought in last year. Do you need to have an approach this offseason with more of a one for one type of approach?​

Minnesota head coach PJ Fleck: "Well, I think you want that to happen. I think there are things that when you're talking about the portal, how do you get them out of the portal?

What do they want on the portal?

Can you get them out of the portal that way?

But yes, I think everybody's going through that for the first time of there's two portal windows. And if you lose people later in April, it's way harder to replace them in April. And we had some people leave in April that affected the depth of our team, not an excuse that just affected it when you're that late.
Okay, well the first cycle is shown right to have the most guys in it, but also the guys that are going to be with you to develop that depth. You can bring a guy in, that's fine, but then you have just like a true freshman to learn that system and you get on the field, and it can be a little bit more difficult. I think you always want a one-one ratio, whether that is a high school player or that is a transfer portal player.

You always want to take the best player available, and then what you can get. And I think that's what you have to continue to look at. I think everybody's learning from what's worked for them and what hasn't worked for them. It's new to everybody. It's new to us. I've learned things this year that I'll apply to next year that I maybe I didn't know before, until you actually go through it.

You might think you're good at a position, and then you get past April, and you're not good at that position. And how many guys can you actually bring in, because then you know if you're bringing in three guys through the portal, some of those portal guys are like, how many guys are you bringing in at that position? Then you might only be able to get one in the portal and have to get two in high school. So there's just a lot of things.

Then the NIL piece of that, the portal piece of that and the depth piece of that. We knew that this year that we were going to have to stay healthy. But that's not an excuse. That's just part of the reason when you look at the roster management that you're going to be able to learn from and apply that to next year. So that's things that I have to look at and and be better at going forward."
 

^^ to me it's a really interesting point about losing guys in April vs losing guys in Dec/Jan.

I wonder if at least a valid, reasonable half-step measure could be that teams and players need to make a renewed yearly commitment to each other, for better or for worse, from Jan 1 to the end of the regular season (including conf champ game). No more ducking out after spring ball, no more ducking out in summer.

That is, if you want to be immediately eligible on your one free transfer.

You can always leave any time you want, no one can chain you to the campus. But it's about immediate eligibility.

Basically then, effectively only one transfer portal window in Dec/Jan. If you transfer outside that, unless rare exception, then no immediate eligibility.
 

60's Guy said:
The other thing is we got like 25 freshmen coming in...does that make sense with the portal?
Recruit guys out of the portal. In some cases they'll have college game tape vs high school tape. That has to make evaluation less of a guess. They are not likely to transfer because they would have to sit a season to do so.
Click to expand...
There is good and bad with both high school and portal recruiting.

With guys from the portal your odds are better of getting someone in who can play right away but it is still a crap shoot and the downside is that you don't know who is going to be available and you don't have much time to evaluate who the player is as a person and establish a relationship with them. So you run a much higher risk of bringing in a guy who is not a good fit.

High School recruits are unlikely to be able to help you right away but you have time to get to know the player and evaluate them over multiple years so you have a much better sense on if they will fit your program and won't be a drag on the team.

So you need a mix of both but teams are still figuring out how this all works. The roster management piece of college football has changed drastically over the past few years....it takes time to figure out the best way to manage things.

Will be interesting to see what changes Fleck makes in how he manages the roster going forward based on what we have seen happen this year. It is always in flux and way more so than it ever used to be.
 

Yeah that's another thing .... I don't know if it makes sense anymore to take 25 guys 18 years old every year anymore.

A good chunk of them, no matter how highly rated, just won't be able to contribute that year immediately in a meaningful way.


We saw what happened when they threw that LB out there. Purdue went right after them and torched us, and we had to bench him at half.


I wonder if we need to drop that number down to 15, and the other 10 need to be guys who have played at FCS, G5 level. Bring up guys who at least have a chance to contribute on the field that year.

The way things are going ...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom