Ideal distribution of scholarships

[FKAGobucks877]

I think this is an excellent breakdown, but will obviously vary from year to year. Getting a true stud, or bringing in youth to groom will factor in. Personally, I like almost all of the numbers....don't really see a need for 5 QB's, so I'd agree with 4. I'd probably go one or two higher on the DB's, as those positions typically take more time to perfect, and if you play a run-and-gun team, it's not a stretch to be rotating 8+ DB's over the course of a single game.

 

[bucknut11]

This would allow us to gives ships to a kicker and punter, and up to four ships to senior walk-ons.

I think that at the very least, you need to add one for the long snapper. Drew Norman and Kyle Andrews have been terrific assets to the kicking games over the past 4 years. The kickers aren't the only reason we've been so good...

 

[exhawg]

15 is more than enough on the OL. Most teams that aren't blessed with depth can make it through a season only playing 7 or 8 linemen. My freshman year of college we only had 1 backup that wasn't redshirting and we somehow made it through the season only playing 6 guys. Truthfully 15 should be the goal for the OL, but the number will probably end up being more like 12 with at least 5-7 walkons. Most linemen know how to play more than 1 position so you will have 1 backup at tackle, 1 backup at guard, and a backup at center. My senior year my backup at LT was our starting LG. The only 2 backups that the coach would actually put in the game was a backup center and a backup guard. If the RT went down I would move over, the LG would move out to LT and we would put in the backup guard. Most of the time you have a couple walkons that are serviceable after a few years of college. Scout team works wonders for walkons.
With QB's 4 or 5 is good depending how many seniors you have and how many are going to redshirt. Taking 1 a year is always a good idea.
It is good to have 4 scholly RB's with 2 or 3 more walkons just in case. 2 FB's with 2 walkons is good as well. You can always move a LB to fullback if you run short.
With TE's I think it is a good idea to have 4. If you go under that you better have and athletic OL (Tyree) or big LB (Carp) to bump over to TE on the goal-line. Most teams use 3 TE's on the goal-line so you really need to have at least 4 on the team.
WR's are very important, and they are hard to project out of HS. You might recruit a guy who you think will be a stud, but he might have trouble catching or running good routes and never see the field. From my experience more receivers don't pan out than any other position. I'd say that most teams need 10 scholly WR's with 4-5 walkons.
The DL needs at least 3 deep with scholarship players and at least another 4 walkons. Most DL can play multiple positions but most teams roll in at least 6-8 per game.
College teams need more LB's and DB than the other positions because these are the units that make up most of the special teams. I would go at least 3 deep on LB's and 4 deep on DB's with at least 5 walkon LB's and 6 walkon DB's.
Kicker is also a hit or miss position. HS kickers kick off a block and many aren't able to adjust to kicking off the ground. While I was in college we had 2 kickers who ended up being good and at least 2 or 3 more that washed out. I don't remember any punters who didn't make it, but that is more of a position that you get a player to walk on and give them a scholly if they earn the job. Most schools probably have 3 or 4 scholarships budgeted for kickers/punters.
That leaves me with 79-83 scholarships for recruits and 2-6 left over for walkons, etc.
From my own experience I can't remember 1 walkon who didn't earn a scholarship if they stayed on the team for at least 3 years. The ones who weren't very good never made it that far. Ironically we had two walkon OL that were put on scholly only to quit the team within a year because they couldn't afford school. I never understood that.

 

[exhawg]

I think that at the very least, you need to add one for the long snapper. Drew Norman and Kyle Andrews have been terrific assets to the kicking games over the past 4 years. The kickers aren't the only reason we've been so good...

Very few coaches give snappers scholarships out of HS (except for Butch Davis). They will get a snapper to walk on and probably end up giving the starting snapper a scholarship once they win the job. Most of the time coaches hope one of the players they already have can snap. While I was in college we had a snapper that started out as a DL and became the full time snapper and he was replaced with 2 guys that had been walk on OL and another that was a scholly WR.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I think that at the very least, you need to add one for the long snapper. Drew Norman and Kyle Andrews have been terrific assets to the kicking games over the past 4 years. The kickers aren't the only reason we've been so good...

I would include the LS in the OL group (actually two LSs). Now I can better justify my 18 OL target.

 

[stxbuck]

I think 4 TE's should be a minimum-2 capable starters for 2 TE sets, plus 2 guys to develop. As far as LBs go, I think 3 deep including RSs is the way to go. You need to have at last 3 guys capable of playing MLB-size wise-they might play OLB like Carpenter Also, there are a lot of guys recruited-Nick Patterson, Schwartz, Moeller, Curt Lukens,etc-who can flop between LB or S-no one really knows their exact [position, but they can run and hit, so they are ideal special teamers.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

OL: This is the key area of the offense in my opinion. You can have the best QBs, RBs, and WRs in the world, but they won't mean shit if they QB can't the ball off and the RBs don't have holes to run through.

We saw this all too clearly on Jan 8th...

 

[jwinslow]

QB: 4
RB: 6
WR: 10
TE: 3
OL: 18
DL: 14
LB: 10
DB: 14

TOTAL: 79

My addition:
P/K: 3
Leftover: 3 (walkons, long snapper, etc)

1) I assume FBs are RBs, leaving only 4 RBs on scholarship?

2) 9 WRs, 1 short of your total, and still haven't found many playmakers. I'd argue they need 11-12 here.

3) 16 DL this fall. I'm not sure they can afford to lose much there.

4) LB has 9 bodies to your 10 proj.

5) DB has 17 bodies. They have 1 promising but young safety for 2010. They have big question marks at corner. I really don't think they can afford to give up 3 spots.

 

[BuckeyesFan0623]

I started reading the 1st page of this thread and got 1/2 way through and then realized i was reading a article from 2006 ,lol . Got this article from the depths , that is funny .

 

[smithlabs]

I agree with everything, but TE and OL. 18 on the OL is way too many. I know you play 5, but if you have 18 that would be 4+ in every class.

That would mean you would be breaking in basically a whole new line every year. Say we had 4 guys that were seniors next year, we would break in 4 new starters. I know that some of the guys would get some game time, but maybe 2 or even 3 could be green going into a new season.

I like the way that Tress has done it with bringing in anywhere from 2-4 guys a year. It also is a good way to show the top lineman as highschoolers that they will have a good shot to play in 2 years.

If a high school recruit saw that you had 14 guys still on the roster when he would join, that would tell him that you were loaded and he wouldnt play for a while. Also o-line usually isnt a place where you lose the guys early. The last guy I remember was Pace, but he was jsut a man child. I could be wrong on this.

As for TE, when you figure there is always a time in the game where you might want to go to a two TE formation, and what if two guys get hurt, much like this year, you could be stuck.

I say go with 4 especially considering you never know what type of formation you might want to line up in. I think once Smith is gone we might go to a 2 TE look more times in a game and if you only have 3 and one is a freshmen, then you could be screwed if one gets hurt. A good TE is always a major + for an offense, so if you bring in 4 you have a better chance of one turning out to be a stud than if you only want 3.

Good write up by the way tho. I think another thing you could look at is, balance by class, as in the number of guys you want to bring in each year, and spreading the classes out so you don't have 5 lineman graduate in one year.

I agree with this post. Also, a stream of servicable redshirt players who can play if needed adds flexibility.

The rover/spinner/nickle back can played with a db or lb so that adds flexibility.

I think the scholarship / position equation is a fucntion of (current players [per Mili's post], size/power/speed catagories [per CBF40's post], redshirts and to a lesser extent projected recruits [like the Millers in 2010])