• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Ideal distribution of scholarships

MililaniBuckeye

The satanic soulless freight train that is Ohio St
Staff member
Tech Admin
  • Some comments in prospects' threads started me thinking about what would be the ideal distribution of scholarships at each position on our team. Since we have a maximum allowed of 85, and we have 22 positions on the team, I started by allotting four scholarships at each position for a total of 88 and then trimming some off.

    You should have both a scholarship place kicker and punter, and should have 2-3 ships available to give to senior walk-ons, plus one for "contingency" purposes (player on some other athletic scholarship playing in a game, thus switching that scholarship to the football pool). For now, I'm setting my target for the standard 22 positions at 80 scholarships.

    OFFENSE:

    Using the initial method of four ships per position and using the old-school formation of single tight end, two receivers, and two running backs (TB and FB), you get 44 ships broken down as follows:

    QB: 4
    RB: 8
    WR: 8
    TE: 4
    OL: 20

    Let's now look at how we can pare these numbers down a bit, with a target of 40 ships (half our overall target of 80).

    QB: I'll let this number stand. We have four scholarship QBs now. We had three last year and almost had to burn TB's redshirt because an injury and a suspension. While suspensions won't (hopefully) happen again, multiple injuries at a position are possible. Four seems like the right balance.

    RB: Woody said "A pair and a spare" at tailback. I like having four, just in case (injuries, resting starters in blow-outs). I also would have only two scholarship fullbacks. Our fullbacks right now are little more than blocking backs, and aren't even on the field 2/3 of the time. Now, I'm not belittling their importance, but rather saying that two should suffice. Six scholarships for running backs should work (a reduction of two from the initial calculation of eight).

    WR: We've been fairly lucky since Tressel has been here in not losing too many starting receivers to injury (Carter in 2003 was the last I can remember). Still, with us running up to 5-wide sets, and running 4-wide sets very often, injuries can cut into our available pool quite quickly. Keep in mind that your number of scholarship depends not only on being able to have players ready for game time, but also for development. By my count, we have nine receivers on scholarship (Holmes, Ginn, Gonzo, Hall, Dukes, Robiskie, Hartline, Lyons, and Jordan), and none of them are seniors eligibility-wise (although Holmes has declared). Add in the fact we have at least one receiver coming in from this recruiting class, and as many as four total, we could have up to 12 receivers on scholarship. Granted, a couple may move to defense, but still a scholarship is a scholarship. My opinion is eight receivers on scholarship should be enough, but with the way we shift players around and also the fact we have some receivers on special teams, I'll say that 10 scholarships at receiver is the target (increase of two from the initial calculation of eight).

    TE: We don't use the TE in passing formations much, but that could change with the right kind of TE. We also use the TE extensively in run blocking and near the goalline. I would think "a pair and a spare" would apply here. Three scholarships is about right (a reduction of one from the initial calculation of four).

    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. The way we rotate OL, as many as 10 OL will see game time. We've been lucky in that we haven't lost many OLs to injury, but we can't count on that (see Michigan's OL). I want at least 3-deep across the line (15), within and additional backup at main position (center, guard, tackle). That gives 18 scholarships at offensive line, which I think is a good number (a reduction of two from the initial calculation of 20).

    So now we have a breakdown that looks like this:

    QB: 4
    RB: 6
    WR: 10
    TE: 3
    OL: 18

    That's 41 scholarships, one over our target of 40 for offense. Not bad. Now let's look at the defense.

    DEFENSE:

    Using the initial method of four ships per position, we get a breakdown like this:

    DL: 16
    LB: 12
    DB: 16

    Let's see how we can get this down to 40 ships, or maybe even less:

    DL: Like on offensive, the line is what makes it all happen. While we do rotate the line a bit during game time, being three-deep at each position, plus an extra end and tackle, for a total of 14, should be sufficient (which is our current roster total). Fourteen scholarships at DL gives us a reduction of two from our original calculation of 16.

    LB: Ohio State has always produced great linebackers, and as we've seen since Tressel's arrival, linebackers can be the missing link to a dominating defense. You want to be deep at linebacker for three reasons:

    1.) Injury buffer
    2.) Rotation/relief (hot climates, rest starters during blowouts, etc.)
    3.) Bench linebackers are a huge part of special teams (Kerr, Terry, Hoobler, Laurinaitis off the top of my head)

    Being three-deep at each position plus a rover-type linebacker (one who can play either of the three) gives us 10 scholarships at linebacker, which is two less than our initial calculation of 12.

    DB: Tressel seems to recruit DBs by the truck load, so there must be a reason for it. Still, 16 DBs (and actually we had 15 on scholarship this past season) seems to be a lot. Being three-deep at each position plus an extra corner and safety give us 14, which easily allows us to cover nickle and dime package requirements, along with special teams slots (DBs fill out or special teams as much as linebackers do), even with some injuries. Fourteen DB scholarships are two less than the original calculation of 16.

    After our adjustments, we have:

    DL: 14
    LB: 10
    DB: 14

    That's 38 scholarships, two under our target of 40 for defense.

    Coupling that with the 41 ships on offense gives us 79 scholarships total on offense and defense. This would allow us to gives ships to a kicker and punter, and up to four ships to senior walk-ons. My totals came out to two more scholarships than we had on roster this past season (77).

    In summary, I think the ideal distribution of scholarships (sans kickers) goes as follows:

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

    TOTAL: 79
     
    Good stuff Mili. I do have one comment. Since walk-on tryouts are before the recruiting process is over it very rarely results in a scholarship given to any walk-ons (senior or not). Usually the process is you walk-on and you aren't on scholarship but then the following year they can offer you one if they want you back. If it is up in the air you have to re-tryout with all the new walk-ons. This would free up those four senior walk-on scholarships. They would probably be spent on one of those positions you can never have to many of (lineman, running backs). They would be unlikely to waste a scholarship on a walk on unless he was a highly preferred walk-on (such as a guy like Drew Parry last year). Good breakdown though.
     
    Upvote 0
    You still want to "bank" a few scholarship for senior walk-ons just in case anyway. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think Tressel was failed to give out at least two scholarships to senior walk-ons each year he has been here. The fact we had only 77 total on scholarship last season (which included both our place kicker and our punter) shows how much he values having extra scholarships for those senior walk-ons who have stuck it out for the previous 3-4 seasons.
     
    Upvote 0
    In summary, I think the ideal distribution of scholarships (sans kickers) goes as follows:

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

    TOTAL: 79
    I agree with most of that, and the reasoning behind it, but would tweak it just a little bit: My allocation:

    QB: 5 (+1). I agree that 4 is sufficient, but this is a position where the afterthought guy just might develop to make a huge impact so let's increase the odds of getting lucky
    RB: 6
    WR: 10 I could drop to 9, but don't see a need to.
    OL: 15 (-3): The way OSU uses one guy to back up multiple OL positions, I think a full 3-deep is plenty.
    TE: 4 (+1) I want two all-around solid guys, a speedy slot receiver type, and a great big "extra tackle" type.
    DL: 13 (-1): 6 DT and 6 DE is a full 4-3 three-deep + 1 spare makes 13.
    LB: 12 (+2): Given the increased use of some 3-4 type formations (really more 3-3-5 I suppose) and the value of LBs on special teams, I'll take a full 3-4 3-deep.
    DB: 15 (+1): The Bucks have been playing a lot of nickel and these guys are useful on special teams so give me a full nickel three-deep. I also see a great cover corner as a huge impact position, so I'm going to increase the odds of getting one.

    3 Specialists (+1): 1 kicker, one punter, and one guy who's adequate at both in case a starter gets hurt. Edit: I could easily be convinced to use a walk-on as the back-up and save one more for the walk-ons.

    That makes 83/(82 with my specialist edit) and I'll leave two/three open (+ inevitable attrition) for deserving walk-ons).
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0
    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.
     
    Upvote 0
    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.

    ...

    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.

    There are too many variables to allow you to get 4-5 linemen every single year. Some years you will get 1-2, some you'll have to take 6-7. Factors such as available scholarships, amount of worthwhile recruit talent, and personal preferences of those recruits come into play when trying to "spread out" your classes. Keep in mind we had 13 OL on scholarship this year in addition to two past casualties (15 total). Now, maybe 18 is a bit on the high side, but if there is one area on the team I'd rather have too many good players, it would be OL (very closely followed by DL).
     
    Upvote 0
    Great stuff Mili, Mahalo.

    The only thing that I can add is that it seems like we would not have the pressure on our 85 ships with so many of our kids coming out early. It seems that we free up 1-3 every year.
     
    Upvote 0
    In the past 9 seasons OSU has inked 24 OL on NLOID. That averages less than three per year. Granted, some TEs have moved down, but this still falls far short of the numbers one might expect. Pretty sure I read somewhere that the target was 14 scholarship OL on the roster. (We were one over that this year with Conroy and Winner).

    I also recall Bollman saying in the Spring of '04 that he had more OL in camp than he had ever had anywhere he had been. That would have been prior to Skinner, Mitchum and Person joining the team - meaning 11 schollie OL plus Winner and Conroy who were not on schollie at the time.
     
    Upvote 0
    Good post Hawaii. I think a few extra DBs are needed due to the pounding they take in a game, plus all the shifting and cutting is hard on the knees, hips, etc. These guys tend to be smaller than other players and can be more susceptable to injuries by hitting and getting hit by bigger players. These guys also make great special team players. I think 15 to 16 OL is plenty with some players able to backup multiple positions. Good thought provoking post.:)
     
    Upvote 0
    How do you dovetail this with JTs philosophy of recruiting Speed, Big Speed and Power?

    Since he has been here quite a few folks have played at more than one position or a different position than they were recruited for (or at least different than what the recruiting services said). That would include Arden, Tyree, Brandon Smith, Guillford, Ginn, Lane, Washington, Russell, Amos, Lyons, Hoobler, Lukens, Gonzo, Coleman, Schafer, and White. If Justin Zwick had been all we had hoped Troy might be a wideout right now. And I have heard it suggested that if Boeckman didn't work out at QB he could slide down to TE. If we get Grant and Gibson we will have 12 LBs in the program and you can be certain some of those will be moving.

    Thinking in terms of these larger groups certainly gives you lots more flexibility. It also marginally reduces the concern over injuries because a larger pool makes things more predictable.

    One thing I did notice in looking at this is that I have seen several players moved to OL but nobody moved from the OL. I think this says something about the nature of good OL in HS. Big kids who have a lot of speed are more likely to be listed as TEs or DLs. That may be why the number of recruits listed by the services as OL are lower than we would guess. What you want in an OL is a frame you can hang a lot of weight on and a reasonable amount of quickness with the feet - not necessarily speed.
     
    Upvote 0
    There are too many variables to allow you to get 4-5 linemen every single year. Some years you will get 1-2, some you'll have to take 6-7. Factors such as available scholarships, amount of worthwhile recruit talent, and personal preferences of those recruits come into play when trying to "spread out" your classes. Keep in mind we had 13 OL on scholarship this year in addition to two past casualties (15 total). Now, maybe 18 is a bit on the high side, but if there is one area on the team I'd rather have too many good players, it would be OL (very closely followed by DL).

    Yeah I would rather see it in the 15 range, and that is where it should be next year, after bringing in 4 and 2 departing. We also usually have a good number of solid walk-ons that can give you that addede depth if need be.

    Moses came in last year as a preferred walk-on and Conroy and Winner got some time this year.
     
    Upvote 0
    Good stuff, Mili. I would decrease the OL and increase the LB's and RB's. I also think there should be a 4th TE.

    QB: 4
    RB: 7
    WR: 10
    TE: 4
    OL: 15
    DL: 14
    LB: 12
    DB: 14

    TOTAL: 80<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
     
    Upvote 0
    Great thread, by the way, Mili.

    QB 5 - I think you take one QB every year or adjust as necessary to always have 5, and assume that the new guy is going to be redshirted

    RB 8 - 2 typical FBs and 1 who can be an H-back. Plus 5 TBs. this allows you to specialize and form different packages and sets. Aslo gives you extra options for return men (like an E Haw or M Wells - think M Hall) and this position is higher injury risk.

    TE 4
    OL 14 - 2 across the board, plus one extra G and 2 extra Ts, and I would give my long snapper a schollie if I could spare it.
    Wr 10 - gives depth, flexibility in creating packages, and extra return men

    41 total

    DL 14 - 6 each of Tackles and Ends, with an extra 2 for the LEO type players

    LB 11 - gives you at least 3 deep, since 5 or 6 will also be special teams players as well

    DB 15 - load up on the DBs. You will have to play alot of nickel and even dime in the Big 10 now, and you will want great special teams.

    40 total

    Leaves 2 for kickers and 2 more for walk-ons.
    (looks like my long snapper may not get one after all)
     
    Upvote 0
    Back
    Top