OFFICIAL 2022-2023 COLLEGE FOOTBALL THREAD

Status
Not open for further replies.
3 is a good rule, I’d be fine with them implementing a 2 min warning as well, along with the clock stoppages which I’m sure TV would like.
 
Listening to usc players talk about playing under the former head coaches. One said his older teammates told him Sark would be noticeably slurring his words and inebriated during recruiting visits. Another said he can’t believe parents saw that and still let their kids go to SC to play for him. They were eventually like “yeah he was a drunk but he still had that thing going. That offense was great.”

Another thing they said was that the video of Sark blacked out during the football banquet with donors was passed around the team and that once you saw him walk in that night they were like “oh man coach is feeling it, today.” “he's feeling it” was what they would say whenever they could tell he was drunk that day.
 
Screenshot_20230221-091908.png


Some rumors about SEC permanent opponents

Oklahoma's permanent opponents will be Texas, Florida and Mizzou

Texas's will be Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Arkansas
 
nako xl said:
Post that un pay walled version pleighboi
Click to expand...
Here you go

What college football transfer trends might mean in 2023​

New Colorado coach Deion Sanders is leaning heavily on the transfer portal, particularly with players from smaller schools. AP Photo/David Zalubowski
7:30 AM ET
  • i

    Bill ConnellyESPN Staff Writer
    The 2022 college football season was plenty of things. It was the year of the burgeoning Georgia dynasty. It was the year of great playoff semifinals.
    Most of all, though, it was the year of the transfer. Thanks to the NCAA's long-time-coming decision to allow first-time transfers to change schools without sitting for a year, and thanks to the general proliferation of the transfer portal as a means for roster building, FBS coaches made full use of transient talent.
    A decade ago, it was a pretty big deal if a school took five or six transfers in one class; in 2022, FBS teams averaged more than seven. It was a dizzying experience.
    Last summer, I took a look at the trends I found from portal usage as we headed into such a transfer-heavy season. Now that 2022 is over and we've turned the page to 2023, let's take on the same exercise.
    Once again, I am using stats to compare what players produced at their previous schools in 2021 (or, where applicable, earlier seasons) to what they produced at their 2022 destinations.
    Because the requirements of different positions are so varied, and because the statistics for measuring performance at given positions are too, I again kept things simple. I created a quick scoring system based primarily on two things: How much did a transfer play, and how well did he play?
    Loosely speaking, the scoring scale was set up like this:
    1. Almost never played (or played at a level lower than FBS)
    2. Played a little
    3. Played quite a bit and performed at an average or worse level
    4. Played quite a bit and did well
    5. Absolute star, one of the best in college football at their position
    (Note: For this exercise, I looked only at offensive and defensive players, not specialists. Apologies to all the kickers and punters out there.)
    I gave players a score for their performance at both their old school and their new school, then looked at the resulting changes and averages. This is an extremely subjective process, but the goal was to scope out macro-level trend data for an increasingly huge data set, and this was a solid process for achieving that.

    Offensive linemen and linebackers adapt quickly​

    One of the biggest takeaways from last year's exercise was that, per this simple scoring system, the range of outcomes by position wasn't incredibly wide. The transfer averages in last year's piece all ranged between 2.3 (for wide receivers and tight ends) to 2.6 (for offensive linemen).
    The range got a little bit broader in 2022, but the anchors remained similar.
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TH]POSITION[/TH]
    [TH]PCT. OF TRANSFERS[/TH]
    [TH]2021 AVG.[/TH]
    [TH]2022 AVG.[/TH]
    [TH]PCT. CHANGE[/TH]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]QB[/TD]
    [TD]8.6%[/TD]
    [TD]2.26[/TD]
    [TD]2.41[/TD]
    [TD]+6.6%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]RB[/TD]
    [TD]8.0%[/TD]
    [TD]2.29[/TD]
    [TD]2.61[/TD]
    [TD]+14.0%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]WR/TE[/TD]
    [TD]19.7%[/TD]
    [TD]2.09[/TD]
    [TD]2.29[/TD]
    [TD]+9.6%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]OL[/TD]
    [TD]15.8%[/TD]
    [TD]2.04[/TD]
    [TD]2.83[/TD]
    [TD]+38.7%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]DL[/TD]
    [TD]15.1%[/TD]
    [TD]2.08[/TD]
    [TD]2.69[/TD]
    [TD]+29.3%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]LB[/TD]
    [TD]13.2%[/TD]
    [TD]2.33[/TD]
    [TD]2.93[/TD]
    [TD]+25.7%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]DB[/TD]
    [TD]19.7%[/TD]
    [TD]2.22[/TD]
    [TD]2.78[/TD]
    [TD]+25.2%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]


    In 2022, what you saw was mostly what you got from quarterbacks, running backs and members of the receiving corps. Plenty of players from these units saw success and increases in their scores above, as one would expect considering that sheer playing time is part of this scoring system and many players transfer in search of more playing time. But the percentage of players whose score increased was 41% or lower for these units (offensive line and all defensive units were at 45% or higher), and the percentage of players whose score decreased was 21% or higher (it was 15% or lower for the others).
    Offensive linemen remained the most likely to find the success they were looking for. The average score for offensive linemen was second to only that of linebackers, and no position unit saw a higher percentage increase. Interestingly, this was the case no matter what type of move this player was making, up or down the FBS ladder. Two transfer linemen, Michigan's Olusegun Oluwatimi (from Virginia) and Florida's O'Cyrus Torrence (from Louisiana), were named consensus All-Americans.

    EDITOR'S PICKS​

    What this might mean for 2023: Not every transfer O-lineman or linebacker succeeds, but this data does bode well for some of 2023's bigger-name transfers in these positions. Michigan parlayed its Oluwatimi success into a trio of well-regarded O-line transfers (Stanford's Drake Nugent and Myles Hinton and Arizona State's LaDarius Henderson). Meanwhile, new Auburn coach Hugh Freeze attempted to bulk up a thin O-line by bringing in a trio of Group of 5 successes (Western Kentucky's Gunner Britton, East Carolina's Avery Jones and Tulsa's Dillon Wade), Florida State won a high-profile commitment from UTEP's Jeremiah Byers, and a lot is expected of smaller-school stars such as new Oregon commit Ajani Cornelius (from Rhode Island) and Maryland commit Gottlieb Ayedze (Frostburg State).
    If linebacker really is a plug-and-play position, that says good things about marquee transfers like USC's Mason Cobb (via Oklahoma State) and LSU's Omar Speights (via Oregon State). It also says that guys moving up in the world, like Oklahoma State's Justin Wright (via Tulsa) and Virginia Tech's Stone Snyder(via VMI), could quickly find a niche at their new schools.

    The year of the small-school transfer​

    In 2021, 68% of all transfers to FBS teams came from schools at the power conference level. Last year transfers from Power 5 schools made up 65% of the pool, a slight decrease, as coaches proved slightly more willing to take on transfers from FCS schools. Considering the successes of these moves, they were also more capable of scouting these small schools properly.
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TH]CATEGORY[/TH]
    [TH]PCT. OF PLAYERS (LAST YEAR)[/TH]
    [TH]2022 AVG.[/TH]
    [TH]PCT. AT 4+[/TH]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]P5-to-P5[/TD]
    [TD]34.1% (33.1%)[/TD]
    [TD]2.68[/TD]
    [TD]33.7%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]P5-to-G5[/TD]
    [TD]30.9% (35.3%)[/TD]
    [TD]2.53[/TD]
    [TD]26.1%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]FCS-to-FBS*[/TD]
    [TD]12.3% (10.5%)[/TD]
    [TD]2.78[/TD]
    [TD]40.2%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]G5-to-G5[/TD]
    [TD]11.8% (10.5%)[/TD]
    [TD]2.76[/TD]
    [TD]37.2%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]G5-to-P5[/TD]
    [TD]10.9% (10.6%)[/TD]
    [TD]2.68[/TD]
    [TD]31.7%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]


    * This actually signifies transfers from FCS or any lower level. Most come from FCS, but there were a few from Division II, Division III or NAIA.
    In terms of pure volume and success, transfers between Power 5 schools remain the gold standard. Like transfers between Group of 5 schools, those players can be scouted in a pretty clear like-for-like way -- what's on film is coming against a similar level of competition -- and the success rates for both types of moves are high. The most interesting shift in this season's data came from the small-schoolers.
    FCS-to-FBS guys made up a disproportionately high percentage of transfers on the offensive line (28% of players, compared to the overall average of 16%) and in the secondary (25%, compared to the overall average of 20%). A potential reason is that the positions most directly dependent on pure size or speed might be the easiest to scout. Regardless, an emphasis on these positions resulted in a number of high-level successes. On the line, Penn State's Hunter Nourzad (Cornell) and Texas State's Richard West(Texas A&M-Commerce) stand out.

    Top stories of the week from
    espnplus-editorial_v2@2x.png

    Get exclusive access to more than 3,000 premium articles a year from top writers.
    • Overhaul Tiers: Stacking NFL teams »
    • MLB offseason grades for all 30 teams »
    • Ceilings, floors for top CFB teams »
    More ESPN+ content »
    New Louisiana Tech coach Sonny Cumbie, meanwhile, turned his secondary over to a pair of Stephen F. Austin transfers, Willie Roberts and Myles Brooks, and they combined for seven interceptions and 14 pass breakups. They were immediate successes, as were Tulane's Jarius Monroe (Nicholls State) and Liberty's Kobe Singleton (Southern Utah) at cornerback and Duke's Darius Joiner (Western Illinois) and West Virginia's Jasir Cox (North Dakota State), a pair of playmaking safeties.
    There was a smattering of success stories at other positions: Western Kentucky quarterback Austin Reed(West Florida) threw for 4,744 yards, Cody Schraderled Missouri in rushing after jumping from Division II Truman State to the SEC, Louisville receiver Tyler Hudson (Central Arkansas) topped 1,000 receiving yards, and Florida State edge rusher Jared Verse(Albany) lived up to the hype with 16.5 TFLs. But with a focus on offensive line and defensive back, smaller-school transfers enjoyed strong overall averages.
    What this might mean for 2023: We talked about potential O-line stars Cornelius and Ayedze above, but Colorado coach Deion Sanders is leaning heavily on the transfer portal to make desperately needed upgrades to the Buffaloes' overall talent level.
    Among the multitude of transfers are quite a few small-schoolers. Sanders brought in a trio of former Jackson State defensive backs, including Travis Hunter; offensive lineman Landon Bebee (Missouri State) will have a chance to make a quick impact as well. Deion didn't stop there, bringing in JSU quarterback Shedeur Sanders and Dartmouth defensive tackle Shane Cokes, among loads of others from all levels.

    Get yourself a Lumberjack​

    Just as certain positions seemed to provide more likelihood of success for FCS-to-FBS transfers, certain schools provided a higher level of success, too.
    Best average scores for players from FCS schools (min. 3 players)
    1. Stephen F. Austin: 4.0 average (three players)
    2. Incarnate Word: 3.7 (three players)
    3. Harvard: 3.5 (four players)
    4T. Illinois State: 3.0 (three players)
    4T. Monmouth: 3.0 (three players)
    6. East Tennessee State: 2.8 (four players)
    SFA's Roberts and Brooks were indeed FBS-ready -- to such a degree that Cumbie has gone back to the well, bringing in SFA transfers Myles Heard (safety) and Brevin Randle (linebacker) for 2023 -- while another Lumberjack transfer, TCU defensive tackle Caleb Fox, made an immediate impact for the national runner-up. I'm not sure "Sign with Stephen F. Austin, and you'll become a star elsewhere!" is a great recruiting pitch, but 2022 certainly said solid things about the talent that coach Colby Carthel is developing in Nacogdoches.
    What this might mean for 2023: Almost certainly nothing. But when you have a chance to write "Get yourself a Lumberjack," you take it.

    Pulling a Zach Kittley-Bailey Zappe special doesn't always work​

    Maybe the most interesting transfer story of the 2021 season was the way Western Kentucky coach Tyson Helton pulled off an immediate program turnaround with a batch of Houston Baptist (now Houston Christian) transplants. He hired HCU offensive coordinator Zach Kittley, who brought in quarterback Bailey Zappe and multiple receivers, and the Hilltoppers immediately ignited, going from averaging 19.0 points per game in 2020 to 44.2 in '21. Even after losing Kittley and Zappe in 2022, WKU held steady at 36.4 points per game with the bones of the Kittley offense.

    Get your favorite live sports, stories and originals with ESPN+, Disney+ and Hulu. Upgrade to a Disney Bundle plan and start streaming something for everyone today!
    I was fascinated by whether other coaches would try similarly massive moves in future seasons, and one indeed did something similar in 2022. In moving from Nevada to Colorado State, head coach Jay Norvell brought 10 Wolf Pack players with him, including quarterback Clay Millen.
    The result? Colorado State was dreadful in 2022. I'm not going to say the Reno infusion was the cause of the fall from 96th to 126th in SP+, but the Wolves-turned-Rams certainly didn't stop it from happening.
    What this might mean for 2023: OK, maybe Sanders' Jackson State-to-Colorado maneuver isn't guaranteed to succeed. But there's another intriguing experiment to watch in Dallas, where second-year SMU coach Rhett Lashlee has earned commitments from six former Miami players -- Lashlee was Miami's offensive coordinator in 2020-21 -- including running back Jaylan Knighton and receivers Key'Shawn Smithand Romello Brinson.

    Losing a ton of transfers didn't hurt much​

    From a narrative perspective, Josh Heupel's tenure at Tennessee didn't start particularly well. After Jeremy Pruitt's dramatic departure and a once-fraught coaching search, the Volunteers ended up losing 33 players to other schools before Heupel could establish himself. It felt like the program was going to be in transition for quite a while; instead, Tennessee improved in 2021, then improved even more in 2022.
    The trend continued elsewhere last season. Thirty-six FBS teams lost at least 10 transfers to other FBS schools in 2022, and those teams improved by an average of 1.4 points in SP+. While teams like Nevada, Michigan State, Arizona State and Virginia did not benefit in any way from a double-digit exodus, plenty of others did.
    A mass exodus tends to signify one of two things: Either a really good team is losing a lot of backups -- Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State and Michigan were among the teams that lost 10 or more players, and they improved by an average of 4.4 points in 2022 (the backups went from an average score of 1.6 to 2.5, which suggests an "everybody wins" type of situation) -- or a team in disarray is starting anew. Either way, this can be a positive process.
    What this might mean for 2023: While Alabama's Nick Saban is dealing with massive change this fall -- he had to replace both coordinators, and his Crimson Tide rank 125th in returning production -- the fact that Bama has lost 14 players to the portal doesn't, in itself, signify doom. We'll see if the same can be said of Kent State, which has lost 18 players to the portal (plus head coach Sean Lewis to the Colorado offensive coordinator job) and ranks dead last in returning production.

    Massive offensive overhauls didn't work​

    Luke Fickell is attempting what might be the biggest offensive makeover of 2023 at Wisconsin. Chris Coduto/Getty Images
    Four head coaches -- two entering their respective first seasons (Colorado State's Norvell, Nevada's Ken Wilson) and two on the hot seat (Georgia Tech's Geoff Collins, Texas State's Jake Spavital) -- attempted massive offensive overhauls in 2022, bringing in at least 10 players on that side of the ball. All four offenses regressed, and by an average of 10.6 points per game in SP+. Only Texas State (minus-1.0) regressed by fewer than eight points.
    In all, it seemed like there was definitely a "too much change" line with last season's offensive transfers. But it was still advisable to bring in some amount of change.
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TH]OFFENSIVE TRANSFERS[/TH]
    [TH]NO. OF TEAMS[/TH]
    [TH]AVG. CHANGE (OFF. SP+)[/TH]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]9+[/TD]
    [TD]9[/TD]
    [TD]-3.2[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]6-8[/TD]
    [TD]17[/TD]
    [TD]3.3[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]4-5[/TD]
    [TD]36[/TD]
    [TD]1.1[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]2-3[/TD]
    [TD]42[/TD]
    [TD]-0.6[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]0-1[/TD]
    [TD]26[/TD]
    [TD]-1.3[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    This sample includes 130 of 131 FBS teams -- newcomer James Madison was excluded.
    The sweet spot seemed to be bringing in six to eight transfers. USC and South Carolina both improved their offenses massively while bringing in eight such newcomers, and USF, TCU, Texas Tech and Houston all saw upgrades from this range. While a handful of teams improved their offenses with almost no portal help -- Clemson, Ohio, Louisiana Monroe, Baylor -- a majority of low-transfer teams regressed slightly.
    USC's immense and immediate turnaround was impressive, as Lincoln Riley brought in stars such as quarterback Caleb Williams, receiver Jordan Addisonand running backs Travis Dye and Austin Jones, and the Trojans rocketed from 35th to first in offensive SP+. But the most noteworthy offensive change of 2022 might have happened in Statesboro. New Georgia Southern coach Clay Helton was able to engineer an almost instantaneous identity shift, from the Eagles' typical option-heavy rushing attack to a pass-first offense, with help from transfers such as Buffalo quarterback Kyle Vantrease (who threw for 4,253 yards last year) and receivers Jeremy Singleton(Houston) and Ezrah Archie (Monmouth), who combined for 831 receiving yards (mostly from Singleton).
    What this might mean for 2023: Watch Madison and Tempe. Luke Fickell might be attempting the most significant identity shift of 2023 at Wisconsin; he brought in tempo- and pass-friendly coordinator Phil Longo to upgrade the Badgers' typically plodding and power-heavy offense. The Badgers have gotten commitments from three quarterbacks (including SMU veteran Tanner Mordecai), five wide receivers (led by Oklahoma State's Bryson Green and former USC blue-chipper CJ Williams) and two offensive linemen. Will the Badgers see a Georgia Southern-esque seamless shift or will there be growing pains?
    Wisconsin has nothing on Arizona State. New head coach Kenny Dillingham is attempting an outright transfusion via the portal: two quarterbacks, two running backs, four receivers and tight ends, four offensive linemen. Considering how many players had left via the portal in recent years already, the Sun Devils are almost starting from scratch in terms of continuity.

    Massive defensive overhauls worked​

    There might have been such a thing as "too much change" on offense, but transfer-heavy defenses thrived quickly.
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TH]DEFENSIVE TRANSFERS[/TH]
    [TH]NO. OF TEAMS[/TH]
    [TH]AVG. CHANGE (DEF. SP+*)[/TH]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]9+[/TD]
    [TD]6[/TD]
    [TD]-9.0[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]6-8[/TD]
    [TD]16[/TD]
    [TD]+0.7[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]4-5[/TD]
    [TD]32[/TD]
    [TD]-0.1[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]2-3[/TD]
    [TD]46[/TD]
    [TD]+0.1[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]0-1[/TD]
    [TD]30[/TD]
    [TD]+1.0[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    Since SP+ is presented as an adjusted points per game figure, negative numbers mean improvement here.
    The trend lines weren't clear on defense, but one thing was certain: Teams that went for huge changes were rewarded. Six teams added at least nine defensive transfers -- USC at 12 and Georgia Tech, LSU, Missouri, South Alabama and UMass at nine -- and they all improved by at least 4.2 adjusted points per game in defensive SP+. Eleven teams added at least eight defenders, and only two (Ole Miss and USF) saw their defenses regress. (USF's defense regressed enough for the entire sample combined. The Bulls had the worst defense in FBS.)
    Mizzou won the Best Portal Use on D award, getting huge performances from linebacker Ty'Ron Hopper(Florida) and linemen Kristian Williams (Oregon) and DJ Coleman (Jacksonville State), among others, and improving by 19.9 points from 110th to 19th on defense.
    What this might mean for 2023: The trends weren't as strong on defense, but for teams such as Colorado (14 defensive transfers and counting), Arizona State (12 -- Dillingham is all-in on the portal), Louisiana Tech (10), SMU (9) and Indiana (8), bold gambits might pay off.

    Unless you're Georgia, you really should be dipping into the portal​

    We're still very early in this transfer-heavy era, and there's plenty we still don't know. How will things work out long term for programs like Lane Kiffin's Ole Miss, Chip Kelly's UCLA and evidently Cumbie's Louisiana Tech, which are relying on heavy transfer loads year after year? Who will do the best job of balancing short-term transfer needs with long-term player development?
    What we know for now, however, is that aside from powerhouse Georgia and a few other exceptions, teams that didn't use the transfer portal to at least fill a few holes here and there likely fell behind those that did.
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TH]TOTAL TRANSFERS[/TH]
    [TH]NO. OF TEAMS[/TH]
    [TH]AVG. CHANGE (SP+)[/TH]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]14+[/TD]
    [TD]17[/TD]
    [TD]+1.1[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]11-13[/TD]
    [TD]12[/TD]
    [TD]+3.5[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]8-10[/TD]
    [TD]20[/TD]
    [TD]+2.4[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]6-7[/TD]
    [TD]34[/TD]
    [TD]-0.8[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]4-5[/TD]
    [TD]20[/TD]
    [TD]-1.3[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]0-3[/TD]
    [TD]27[/TD]
    [TD]-1.2[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    This sample is a bit biased because teams with lots of holes to fill were more likely to dip more heavily into the portal than those who didn't -- and teams with lots of holes to fill were probably worse the year before (and therefore had more room to grow). But if we take out the teams in the top and bottom 20 of SP+ from 2021 and look only at the 90 teams in between, those that signed at least eight transfers basically held steady (+0.1 average change in SP+), while those that signed fewer regressed (-2.1 average change). The transfer portal is quickly becoming a vital tool.
    What this might mean for 2023: We'll see! Plenty of last year's top teams (the Georgias and Ohio States of the world) continued to recruit mostly blue-chip high school prospects, but there are quite a few teams that were iffy at best in 2022 and haven't leaned on the portal to mend a wounded depth chart. Among them: Virginia (6 incoming transfers), Arizona (5), Texas A&M (5), Iowa State (2), Vanderbilt (1), Northwestern (1). Others, like Pitt and Wake Forest, have lost a lot more to the portal than what they've brought in. Does this mean they're doomed? Of course not. But it's certainly a sign that teams are attempting lots of different roster-building strategies at the moment.

atlsfinest said:
Oklahoma's permanent opponents will be Texas, Florida and Mizzou
Click to expand...
Wonder why they’re getting Florida. Seems random.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom