Nope, levied in march 2012 after signing day, so impacted 13 thru 15. So saying "seriously under-recruited" is wrong. Looks to me like maybe 1 body occasionally 2 were under-recruited each yr.
Last edited:
OOTB Carolina football discussion thread
- Thread starter gteeitup
- Start date
I was looking more at 2017 and I noticed that we had 2 walk-ons carry over a scholarship. Both snapper/holder type of guys. Fed could've yanked their scholarship to make room for 2 more true frosh.
The sanctions were levied after signing day but the NCAA allowed UNC to apply them retroactively to 2012, making 2014 the last class with restrictions.
From Lee Pace's article on Signing Day 2014: "This is the last of the scholarship-restricted classes the Tar Heels can sign and they will be back up to 25 for the 2015 class."
I stand corrected and apologize.
Oddly though, we signed 23 that yr. Even if we back-counted the two early enrollees (Knox and Rashad), we'd still technically be 1 over the limit. James Summers actually didn't qualify during late spring, so that could've brought us down to 20, but i still would think it crazy to imagine their limit impacting the 2012 class which had already signed.
Looking at 2015 class, we had a tiny senior class (10 guys), and the next yr only added one walk-on Dalton Stogner to bring us from 80 to 85. So we definitely didn't lose many guys via attrition since were were up to 85 with only one walk-on.
So to sign 25 instead of 20 that yr, we would've been forced to pull the scholarship from 5 more players. Dalton Stogner could be one, but who else?
So this is funny. FSU isn't actually bowl eligible.
I do not know what to make of those rumors, based on what I heard from last year's (yet another) attempt to lure him back to Carolina.
I was surprised to hear that there was any interest. I had the impression that he burned all bridges here.
They had a great season, and this just cheapens it. The banner is ridiculous.
I like it. It's a poke in the eye of a flawed system. If everybody that goes undefeated but doesn't get the chance to prove themselves just quietly takes it nothing will ever change. Bama has banners for seasons in which the NCAA doesn't recognize them as the champion. Auburn probably does too. You could argue it's not all that different from our '24 banner. I'm not going to, but you could. Anyway, I figure why not make some noise about it, rattle the cage a little bit.
Alabama didn't win their division or conference and gets to play for the national championship. They may very well be the best team in the country, but they didn't earn the right to play for the trophy. That's far more of a traveshamockery to me than UCF hanging a banner for an undefeated season.
Here is UCF's 2017 Schedule
FIU, Maryland, Memphis, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Navy, Austin Peay, SMU, UConn, Temple, USF, Memphis, Auburn (bowl game).
Like I said, the undefeated season is a nice accomplishment, and maybe there is an argument that they deserved a little more consideration for the playoff. But to declare themselves "national champions" is insane. Any of the four playoff teams with that schedule would finish the year undefeated.
Welllllll, that's not really true now is it? Alabama and Georgia both lost to Auburn.
So what are everyone's thoughts on Thigpen coming back? He is known for being a great recruiter, but obviously that didn't work out too well for TN. Of course, that can be blamed on coaching and not the talent that came in. I think it's a good move, but not sure how well they are going to develop under the current staff.
I'm not saying they're better than Bama. I'm not saying their schedule stacks up against the others. I'm saying that they earned the right to prove on the field how good they are or aren't - they did that by winning all the games on their schedule and winning their conference. Bama didn't do either of those things. The system for determining the national champion should be set up to accommodate a team that goes undefeated through its regular season and conference championship. If four isn't enough to do that, then go to six or eight. UCF was more deserving of a playoff berth than Bama. Bama may be the better team of the two, but since UCF doesn't get a chance to find out, we'll never really know, will we? That's the problem with the current setup, and that's why I don't mind (and somewhat admire) UCF making a little fuss about it.
I get your argument, but there's really no perfect solution to crowning a true champion in college football, which is one of the reason I'm just not all that into it. If you focus more on rewarding teams that go undefeated, then nobody will schedule anyone but cream puffs, and the teams that are potentially better that are in really tough conferences get punished for losing a game or two more than the team who played a shit schedule. On the other hand, the team in a shit conference who goes undefeated never gets to prove itself because of the reasons you already stated. It's a flawed system no matter how it goes.
The only serious issue we've had with developing talent is on defense. The LB play has been questionable at best under Fed, and the DB's have been terrible. We haven't recruited the DL worth a damn, so its hard to judge how well those guys are developing. If Thig can start building up the depth chart with 4 star and the occasional 5 star recruits, then we will be headed towards the greatest era in UNC football history. If our recruiting classes were consistently ranked as high as what Tennessee is/was working with, then we should win at least 10 games every year.
I guess what UCF did is comparable to what we (Carolina) did the year that the NCAA banned the team from post season play and we finished with the best record or the Coastal Division. We were ridiculed (by ABCers) for the players being rewarded with rings designating their accomplishment.
Yeah, I was referring to the D staff and not necessarily Fed, although he's ultimately responsible for the staff. I disagree with you on the DB play though. That's been the strength of the D the last few years and we've had some really good play from them. Thig was bringing in big talent at TN, but obviously that didn't get them over the hump. That could have been more of a coaching issue and not a situation of misjudging the talent though. The D seemed to get better the last few games of the year, so I have some optimism going into next year. I think 6-7 wins is possible.
I still say the five P5 conference winners + the best of the non-P5 teams should go to playoffs. UCF would've been in and Alabama out.
The 1 and 2 seed get a bye; seed 3 hosts no6, and 4 hosts 5. Similar to NFL.
They could do the first two games the week after conference championships, and then still have the four remaining teams play on New Year's Day just like always.
The 1 and 2 seed get a bye; seed 3 hosts no6, and 4 hosts 5. Similar to NFL.
They could do the first two games the week after conference championships, and then still have the four remaining teams play on New Year's Day just like always.
I'm fine with a 5 + 1 playoff model and I like the idea of making a requirement that each P5 team must win the conference championship. Of course, that would mean ND would finally have to join a conference.
Colin Cowherd made a good point about expanding the playoff. USC would have been the 8th team in the rankings. They got destroyed by OSU. Their 2 games against big boys before that, a beat down from ND and a beat down from Bama. In other words, the 8th team had zero chance of winning so why put them in?
This isn’t like basketball. An upset on this stage is not nearly as likely to happen. So why have more meaningless and most likely uncompetitive games?
Keep the playoff at 4.
This isn’t like basketball. An upset on this stage is not nearly as likely to happen. So why have more meaningless and most likely uncompetitive games?
Keep the playoff at 4.
Since Bama is rubber stamped every year regardless of whether they win their own division or not, .... I think You mean keep the playoff at 3, don't you?
I don’t think winning your conference should be a requirement either. Because some conferences can be weak. And what if the weaker of two weak teams win the conference? You’d be ok with an 8-4 team being in the playoff?
I'd have to be. But at least they won their conference.
But you could make the argument that Bama benefitted by losing to auburn and not even get to SEC championship game. If they had lost to UGA in the SECCG, then maybe OSU leap frogs them into the 4 seed and they get left out.
I'd have no problem with that. If a one loss team doesn't want to see a 4 loss team get in over them... then they can win their own conference (or at least division) and not have to worry about it
No system or number of teams will be perfect. There will always be teams on the fringe where you can make a case why team A should have been in and team B shouldn't. Conference champs vs. better record. Better record vs. stronger schedule. One WTF loss vs. two losses to top-ranked teams. Etc. etc. to infinity.
But the system should have some means of accommodating an undefeated conference champion. When you have an undefeated team on the outside watching four teams that all have a loss playing for a championship (and having just won a bowl game against a fifth team with similar credentials) it's not a good look. So kudos to UCF for raising a bit of stink.
But the system should have some means of accommodating an undefeated conference champion. When you have an undefeated team on the outside watching four teams that all have a loss playing for a championship (and having just won a bowl game against a fifth team with similar credentials) it's not a good look. So kudos to UCF for raising a bit of stink.
Conversely, what if alabamas division is brutal and they finish 9-3 but they beat an 11-1 Florida from a weak division for the SEC title. They deserve to be in the playoffs IMHO.
So no thoughts on this from @TarHeelNation11 @Raising Heel and @gteeitup? I guess @uncboy10 and I are the only two fans left.
Better recruiting on defense can only be a good thing. Improvement on development and schemes are also needed.
Similar threads
