Transfers vs High School In Recruiting

[toddc 13,194]

The transfer portal is becoming a hot recruiting tool because you can take players with 2-3-4 years of eligibility and they can’t bail on you without losing a year sitting out. Every high school kid you bring in can leave at any time without a penalty. The transfer kids have also been through a year or more of college, strength and conditioning, and possibly playing time under their belt. I think we see more teams using the next year numbers to build up a team with transfers. What do you guys think about it? You also have a better idea in some cases what you’re getting when they get to your campus with transfers, but it can be hit or miss with some high school recruits.

Edited May 18, 2021 by toddc

[W.E.D 11,070]

5 hours ago, toddc said:

and they can’t bail on you without losing a year sitting out. E

That's a good point I haven't seen people bring up.

JUCO used to be the spot ppl tried to fill gaps and JUCO is really hit or miss.  Having transfers is a good way to mix experienced grad type transfers and back filling some positions with depth that your thin at.  

I'd like to see them do something to separate HS 25 limits with transfers.

[Zeek 16,649]

32 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

That's a good point I haven't seen people bring up.

JUCO used to be the spot ppl tried to fill gaps and JUCO is really hit or miss.  Having transfers is a good way to mix experienced grad type transfers and back filling some positions with depth that your thin at.  

I'd like to see them do something to separate HS 25 limits with transfers.

I've always thought it would be interesting if Auburn had a JuCo it ran and used as a development type team 

[AuburnNTexas 7,138]

With the new Transfer rule where 1st time transfer doesn't have to sit out a year (Inside SEC still TBD) this is a great way to flesh out a weak area on your team. It also depends  how many years the transfer has to play.  A GT with 1 year has to be a sure fire starter or is a wasted scholarship a 2 or 3 year player who is a possible starter or at worst quality backup is safer then a lower ranked HS player.  I can see teams saving some scholarships for transfers every year especially if NCAA adjusts how many players you can take based on if below 85 limit. 

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

On 5/18/2021 at 2:24 PM, toddc said:

The transfer portal is becoming a hot recruiting tool because you can take players with 2-3-4 years of eligibility and they can’t bail on you without losing a year sitting out. Every high school kid you bring in can leave at any time without a penalty. The transfer kids have also been through a year or more of college, strength and conditioning, and possibly playing time under their belt. I think we see more teams using the next year numbers to build up a team with transfers. What do you guys think about it? You also have a better idea in some cases what you’re getting when they get to your campus with transfers, but it can be hit or miss with some high school recruits.

I brought this up in another thread a couple days ago about the kids not being able to leave on you again with out sitting. I like it. I would plan to sign 7-10 transfers a year (hopefully at least 5 are multi-year guys) and then add 15-20 HS kids. 

You are essentially replacing the bottom of your high school class which is usually the lower rated late addition types. This will send more of those guys to mid major and lower tier schools helping their talent pool as well. 

[Mikey 16,575]

What I don't like about bringing in transfers is you are taking a guy who didn't cut it at his former school. For whatever reason, depth chart, culture, attitude,etc., there was a problem. You're bringing in a problem. The only exception would be a player at a small school who wants to prove himself at the P5 level. Which of the players who have recently left AU would we want back? Why do we think we are bringing in better quality then those who left? Some other school will pick up our leavings at the same time we are picking up theirs.

Maybe the problem at his previous school will fix, maybe it won't. I can see getting/needing a transfer as a band-aid in certain situations but I'd rather go with high school or JUCO recruits for the bulk of the class. Normally speaking, we will have more time to evaluate them.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Mikey

[W.E.D 11,070]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

What I don't like about bringing in transfers is you are taking a guy who didn't cut it at his former school.

The problem with this view, is it really isn't true.

What transfer have we taken that didn't cut it at their previous school?  Can you give me names of the handful we've taken so far?

TJ Finely is probably the only transfer that we can point to that "washed out" at their prior school.  But he's a talented kid that needs to be developed and gives us much better QB depth for the future

Edited May 20, 2021 by W.E.D

[metafour 4,968]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

What I don't like about bringing in transfers is you are taking a guy who didn't cut it at his former school. For whatever reason, depth chart, culture, attitude,etc., there was a problem. You're bringing in a problem. The only exception would be a player at a small school who wants to prove himself at the P5 level. Which of the players who have recently left AU would we want back? Why do we think we are bringing in better quality then those who left? Some other school will pick up our leavings at the same time we are picking up theirs.

Maybe the problem at his previous school will fix, maybe it won't. I can see getting/needing a transfer as a band-aid in certain situations but I'd rather go with high school or JUCO recruits for the bulk of the class. Normally speaking, we will have more time to evaluate them.

We are bringing in starters or heavy contributors from their prior teams - NOT "problem guys". The transfer portal is going to open up a wormhole wherein the best players from small and mid-tier programs will be enticed to move up to the SEC and other major conferences to better market themselves. These are kids who slipped through the cracks out of HS and are now being "re-recruited" by the big dawgs. Tony Fair and Knighten are 1-year small school guys who are trying to audition for the NFL.

The guys we "lost" have been non-contributors (essentially processed out of the program) or guys like Bryant/Newkirk who just didn't want to be part of a potential "rebuild" and bolted before Harsin even took over. There is a big difference.

Vanderbilt, West Virginia, Kansas are NOT happy that they lost Kaufman, Miller, and Harris. Those were some of their best players. Kaufman might be Vanderbilt's best player period and he's leaving to follow the coach that recruited him at a bigger program. Harris is probably Kansas' best DL and is already a Big 12 starter with several years left to grow - he's being poached away from them by a bigger school following a coaching change (he was recruited/signed by Les Miles). Miller was a standout at WVU, he's leaving after their DB coach was hired away by Georgia and again...he's moving up from WVU to Auburn in the SEC. None of these programs are happy that they lost these players. Big difference in comparison to guys like Marco Domio who never saw the field and weren't expecting to see the field being "pushed out" by Auburn. 

[DAG 33,972]

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

What I don't like about bringing in transfers is you are taking a guy who didn't cut it at his former school. For whatever reason, depth chart, culture, attitude,etc., there was a problem. You're bringing in a problem. The only exception would be a player at a small school who wants to prove himself at the P5 level. Which of the players who have recently left AU would we want back? Why do we think we are bringing in better quality then those who left? Some other school will pick up our leavings at the same time we are picking up theirs.

Maybe the problem at his previous school will fix, maybe it won't. I can see getting/needing a transfer as a band-aid in certain situations but I'd rather go with high school or JUCO recruits for the bulk of the class. Normally speaking, we will have more time to evaluate them.

Hilarious seeing as two transfer guys pretty much put Auburn back on the map nationally and three of them led us to SEC championship games.

Edited May 20, 2021 by DAG

[fredst 9,064]

Not sure why we would be opposed to guys from the portal. As has been pointed out, we aren’t bringing in redshirts or bench warmers that are unhappy with their situation. So far we are bringing in guys that have game experience and film that can be watched with collegiate competition, not just a dominant athlete running circles around overmatched high school competition. I hope that we are ultimately recruiting elite HS guys to fill our needs but for a new staff in the middle of a truly unprecedented recruiting situation this is the perfect way to fill holes in a roster mismanaged by the previous staff. I would embrace this at least for this year and potentially the next 1-2

[McLoofus 35,182]

Bless you all for earnestly responding to him. You truly do him a kindness.

But I'm starting to see the wisdom in keeping him fed just long enough for reality to set in. 

[W.E.D 11,070]

4 hours ago, DAG said:

Hilarious seeing as two transfer guys pretty much put Auburn back on the map nationally and three of them led us to SEC championship games.

I think those were all JUCO transfers, which makes his point.  Portal is better than JUCO, IMO.  this isn't 2010

[Eagle-1 3,821]

On 5/20/2021 at 11:13 AM, metafour said:

We are bringing in starters or heavy contributors from their prior teams - NOT "problem guys". The transfer portal is going to open up a wormhole wherein the best players from small and mid-tier programs will be enticed to move up to the SEC and other major conferences to better market themselves. These are kids who slipped through the cracks out of HS and are now being "re-recruited" by the big dawgs. Tony Fair and Knighten are 1-year small school guys who are trying to audition for the NFL.

The guys we "lost" have been non-contributors (essentially processed out of the program) or guys like Bryant/Newkirk who just didn't want to be part of a potential "rebuild" and bolted before Harsin even took over. There is a big difference.

Vanderbilt, West Virginia, Kansas are NOT happy that they lost Kaufman, Miller, and Harris. Those were some of their best players. Kaufman might be Vanderbilt's best player period and he's leaving to follow the coach that recruited him at a bigger program. Harris is probably Kansas' best DL and is already a Big 12 starter with several years left to grow - he's being poached away from them by a bigger school following a coaching change (he was recruited/signed by Les Miles). Miller was a standout at WVU, he's leaving after their DB coach was hired away by Georgia and again...he's moving up from WVU to Auburn in the SEC. None of these programs are happy that they lost these players. Big difference in comparison to guys like Marco Domio who never saw the field and weren't expecting to see the field being "pushed out" by Auburn. 

Thanks, saved my big finger a lot of typing.

[Mikey 16,575]

On 5/20/2021 at 10:18 AM, DAG said:

Hilarious seeing as two transfer guys pretty much put Auburn back on the map nationally and three of them led us to SEC championship games.

Two were JUCO guys, so forget them they are a different subject. One came to AU because of a coaching change, so there could be more of that in the future..

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

Depends on the student-athlete's reason for transferring and how they fit an Auburn need. Transferring due to a coaching change, because injury forced them far down the depth chart, or for family reasons makes sense. Transferring because they expected to be "the man" like in high school but suddenly had to work for playing time or felt coaches were "disrespecting" them is b.s. I absolutely dont get a player w/ low NFL probability transferring out of a Harvard, Stanford, Vandy etc to a resume-neutral program. Many of these young men are flat out getting bad advise.

Edited May 24, 2021 by aucanucktiger

[toddc 13,194]

Something I hadn’t thought about but high school players might have to commit sooner to a college in order to get a spot. If it’s not there favorite then they could still commit and hope for a better offer and flip. I think there’s going to be more of these flips than ever before. I don’t think teams will fill but 15-18 slots from high school kids and save the rest for transfers unless it’s a big time recruit (who can be choosier).

[Mikey 16,575]

On 5/24/2021 at 10:32 AM, toddc said:

Something I hadn’t thought about but high school players might have to commit sooner to a college in order to get a spot. If it’s not there favorite then they could still commit and hope for a better offer and flip. I think there’s going to be more of these flips than ever before. I don’t think teams will fill but 15-18 slots from high school kids and save the rest for transfers unless it’s a big time recruit (who can be choosier).

We've already had a couple of guys do this to AU in recent years. I do think we'll see more and more of it in the near future. Following recruiting won't be as much fun as it has been in the past. Maybe the best thing will be to just see who's on the roster at kickoff and hope AU wins?

[gabo4au 227]

I see it as "the rich get richer" sort of system. AU is traditionally a "fairly rich program" so it's probably going to be good for us. 

 

By this I mean, all the powerhouse schools will use it to move non-producing guys out and pull in better potential players. Some of those better players might be from smaller schools and were overlooked or developed better than projected. But I can even see top players at SEC schools going to the portal to transfer to somewhere like turd, LSU, GA, Ohio State, Clemson or anywhere they think they might be able to win a National Championship. I mean if you've proven that you're a stud at some place like KY, wouldn't you want to transfer to some place to win a Championship?

 

gabo

[AuburnNTexas 7,138]

I don't see the Clemson, bama, Georgia types doing a lot of this as they are getting high 4* and 5* types so not a lot of need for transfers. That said I think next year since we have new staff and are just now developing relationships for 2021 recruits and 2022 this might get us over the hump. It seems to have helped us this year with 2020 class. By 2022 we should be weaning off of it except a position of need or an emergency. I can see reserving one or two picks every year for transfers but in long run if we need to rely on that we are not dong a great job recruiting at HS level.