As much as Le Chuck and you guys are right, there's still some shit that's the same, and a few other things that actually help instead of hurt.
Imagine for me, for a moment, even with the benefit of hindsight, that you're trying to recruit kids for 2025 (which means kids who would be second year players this year) and you handed them this depth chart:
Do they want NIL money? Sure. Do they want to play and get seen and go to the NFL? Yes, they still want that stuff too.
Do a bunch of them learn in about 15 months that they're not going to be first round draft picks once they see what those guys can do? Yep. So, to me it's gone from Woody's got 150 schollys where he'll pay a kids way to never play for Michigan or anyone else to, kids can move around freely (and we can dump them pretty freely too, so that's the other side)
But the key feature on that chart isn't so much that you've got a really formidable 2 deep so a newer guy might have a while to wait to start, so why not get paid and be closer to starting somewhere else.... its harder to manage because you've got a guy like JTT on there who in previous years might have gone to the NFL but its more lucrative for him to stay (we can argue that point but, there's reason to believe he had that decision to make), I'm guessing Kenyatta is about the same, etc.
In addition our OL coach sucks, wait, no that's not my point.
So, you get into this thing where you gotta manage 90 or 95 guys "in play" over a cycle and it becomes this really complex game of do you do the pre NIL Kentucky (pick you basketball program of choice, and I know things are changing there too) where you recruit all one and done guys who are all all world but realize you're gonna get some misses or the Villanova/Gonzaga model where took a longer view to your roster.
Now... its obviously both, but for kids who are realistic about how they need to develop and what their position value is, there's some stickiness if you get them.
| 2024 |
22 (No. 5) |
8 |
30 |
25 |
~33 |
65% (No. 56) |
| 2025 |
26 (No. 4) |
11 |
37 |
16–21 |
47 |
46% (No. 101) |
| 2026 |
29 (No. 3) |
17 |
46 (58 w/ walk-ons) |
31–32 |
47 |
60% (No. 31) |
(the returning production I think is snap count so, you know, OL heavy, what was I saying? Nevermind that, also AI summaries may make mistakes)
So the two things the stick out to me is if you're having twice as many transfers in, and 50% more total new scholarship players, you have a very "new" team. Obviously you all know this but I mean, its really new.
Breaking out the departures:
| 2024 |
4 |
4 |
25 |
33 |
| 2025 |
7 (14 total drafted*) |
19 |
21 |
47 |
| 2026 |
5 (11 total drafted*) |
11 |
31 |
47 |
(not to mention those 5 early departures in 26 were probably more critical -- and some would have played sooner if they hadn't been behind players who stayed)
The larger story is that I think our particular landscape this year is that it was 2 off seasons that led to this, really 3, not one, and I would say we could have done better with the 11 incoming than we did for 25, but when you have to get 17, you were in bad shape already. The thing here I don't accept is that teams with brands and money don't still have a distinct advantage, they obviously do, its not actually a redraft every year like some folks are making it out to be, and you still have to get the best out of the dudes you have and you need to retain your talent.
