As heartofthebear noted in a separate thread, the roster has only 14 seniors.Only 10 are on scholarship. We may have to greyshirt 2 of the 2013 recruits to get to the 85 limit in 2013.

The new staff s facing a major hurdle in this recruiting cycle.

Have you considered the dead weight on the roster?

Not sure if the two you are speculating on is/was before Bridgford left? That would help for sure. I didn't know they were that close to the 85...we will see who stays who goes come fall camp. They are that close to 85, yet that thin at DB?? hmmm....
The "hurdle" is about quality not quantity. I don't want to read another thread about how 2 star players are really better in the long run.

mbBear;842105360 said:

---

The "hurdle" is about quality not quantity. I don't want to read another thread about how 2 star players are really better in the long run.

---

Seriously. But I think this was touched on at the end of the last recruiting cycle and the numbers were projected to 17-20 depending on exactly how many academic losses transfers etc.

How do you know who is on scholarship and who isn't? I haven't seen a roster with that info.

Go Bears!

i doubt we sign any less than 20

Davidson;842105380 said:

---

i doubt we sign any less than 20

---

this.

mbBear;842105360 said:

---

The "hurdle" is about quality not quantity. I don't want to read another thread about how 2 star players are really better in the long run.

---

According to the experts on this board all of our lower rated guys are either under the radar, underrated, or diamonds in the rough!

GranadaHillsBear;842105417 said:

---

According to the experts on this board all of our lower rated guys are either under the radar, underrated, or diamonds in the rough!

---

Then there's the other set of experts that assumes every 2*/ NR we give a schollie is sausage filler the coach brought in just to make sure we have enough bodies to run a full practice and was a desperation move.

...you know, like the way Oregon State recruits...

The truth is probably somewhere in between those sets of "expert opinions."

TrenchMonster;842105376 said:

---

How do you know who is on scholarship and who isn't? I haven't seen a roster with that info.

Go Bears!

---

Number on scholarship is determined by tracking those announced each recruiting year who are listed on the spring roster plus current year announced recruits plus those who have been granted scholarships while on the roster(difficult since few are officially recognized on the calbears.com player capsules).

Bobodeluxe;842105352 said:

---

Have you considered the dead weight on the roster?

---

I never have been a big fan of eliminating "dead weight" by taking scolarships away from current players to make room for new recruits.

beachybear;842105450 said:

---

then there's the other set of experts that assumes every 2*/ nr we give a schollie is sausage filler the coach brought in just to make sure we have enough bodies to run a full practice and was a desperation move.

...you know, like the way oregon state recruits...

The truth is probably somewhere in between those sets of "expert opinions."

---

q4t

mbBear;842105360 said:

---

Not sure if the two you are speculating on is/was before Bridgford left? That would help for sure. I didn't know they were that close to the 85...we will see who stays who goes come fall camp. They are that close to 85, yet that thin at DB?? hmmm....
The "hurdle" is about quality not quantity. I don't want to read another thread about how 2 star players are really better in the long run.

---

Yes, 2 over is after considering the Bridgeford transfer.

Winner of the award for: Earliest sky is falling recruiting in 2014 thread.

Dan1966;842105467 said:

---

I never have been a big fan of eliminating "dead weight" by taking scolarships away from current players to make room for new recruits.

---

My kid had classes with a few team members who never played a down. They bragged about how they got over, free education, just kickin' it on the training table. Dead weight.

cubzwin;842105478 said:

---

Winner of the award for: Earliest sky is falling recruiting in 2014 thread.

---

I read these boards to keep up with the Cal Sports programs. The recruiting season is a major part of college sports. If recruiting doesn't interest you don't read recruiting posts.

I have been following Cal football recruiting for almost 20 years and have never seen such a low number of scholarship seniors. The 2014 recruiting class season is going to be extremely interesting.

Nothing negative intended; just discussing the facts.

When Joe Kapp took over as head coach from Thedar he had only 5 schollys to offer.

Here is the breakdown of our sholarship players for 2014...

QB=4, including Boehm
RB=5
WR=9
TE/FB=4
OL=13
DL=17
LB=12
DB=10
K/P=3
Total=77

This is assuming that the following players are still not on scholarship

Lapite DB
Maholic QB
Smith WR
Beito PK
Okwudiafor DB
Bartolo RB
Hodges RB
Fadelli DB
Agu DL
Piatt WR
R. Anderson WR
Moran LS
Mos P
Gingold RB
Langford PK
Moffett WR
Farley OL
Frazer OL
Sheperdson LS
Davis WR
Coles WR
Kriegsman LS
Grisom WR
McGovern WR
Worstell WR
S. Anderson WR
Northnagel DL

I can understand Lapite getting one since he has been around for a while and will be getting playing time this year. Other than that, any additonal scholarships given to a walk-on were a big mistake.

I suspect there will be up to 5 guys that will transfer or end up academically ineligible. That would put us at around 72 or 73.

In additon, I could see a couple of guys like Scarlett and Jalil leaving early for the NFL.

In any case, there would be nothing wrong with blue-shirting a good deal of the 2014 class for a year, since many players will be gone after that year. So we should still be able to recruit a full compliment of players for 2014.

If we can't, I suggest we recruit 3 safetys, 2 CBs, 2 RBs and sprinkle the rest.

Edit: Note UCLA will be in a similar situation with 71+ scholies going into 2014.

[SIZE="2"]Edit 3/26: Changed the date at the top from 2013 to 2014. My mistake for any confusion in the meantime.[/SIZE]

There is always natural attrition that occurs, healthy programs will lose a number of players each offseason for various reasons. Even without taking away schollies from guys who will never contribute, we'd probably go 15+ schollies in anticipation of losing guys. This will be amplified, I suspect, by the new coaching staff making PT decisions. As for any walk-ons who were given schollies for a year, they will simply not be renewed next season if the players won't be contributors. No biggie. I guarantee we'll have a class of 17+, probably 17-24 when I look at the schollie list. We always recruit well over the number of graduating players, check out our offers (granted, we have not always been able to do this, like last year with Tosh leaving, but we try to do this every year). Seriously, our problem will be closing enough high quality recruits, not needing to be overly selective with offers.

heart, makes sense to me. Any idea how we get to 85 this year?

vanity;842105706 said:

---

There is always natural attrition that occurs, healthy programs will lose a number of players each offseason for various reasons. Even without taking away schollies from guys who will never contribute, we'd probably go 15+ schollies in anticipation of losing guys. This will be amplified, I suspect, by the new coaching staff making PT decisions. As for any walk-ons who were given schollies for a year, they will simply not be renewed next season if the players won't be contributors. No biggie. I guarantee we'll have a class of 17+, probably 17-24 when I look at the schollie list. We always recruit well over the number of graduating players, check out our offers (granted, we have not always been able to do this, like last year with Tosh leaving, but we try to do this every year). Seriously, our problem will be closing enough high quality recruits, not needing to be overly selective with offers.

---

Yes, and the fact that it will be after the first year of a regime change will leave even more open schollies. Offensive players not fitting into the new system... defensive players feeling they don't fit into the 4-3, etc. Though I doubt there will be a lot of players leaving, even five or so makes a significant difference.

Okay, so to extend this a bit, a first guess at need?
1 Qb
2 RB
3 WR
3 OL
So, that's 9 on the offensive side of the ball
3 DL
2 LB
4 DB
and 9 on the D side...adds up quick to 18. I don't think one RB would be the end of world. Someone else can rip my numbers as needed!

mbBear;842105853 said:

---

Okay, so to extend this a bit, a first guess at need?
1 Qb
2 RB
3 WR
3 OL
So, that's 9 on the offensive side of the ball
3 DL
2 LB
4 DB
and 9 on the D side...adds up quick to 18. I don't think one RB would be the end of world. Someone else can rip my numbers as needed!

---

might go with 2 WR and 4 OL since OL is more of a crap shoot ... let Yenser and his buddy Likens fight it out ... they're old buddies who have worked together for years under Sonny ...
:woohoo
recruiting ain't easy ... but at least NOW we have a team of guys who love recruiting and understand what they're doing.

:gobears:

mbBear;842105853 said:

---

Okay, so to extend this a bit, a first guess at need?
1 Qb
2 RB
3 WR
3 OL
So, that's 9 on the offensive side of the ball
3 DL
2 LB
4 DB
and 9 on the D side...adds up quick to 18. I don't think one RB would be the end of world. Someone else can rip my numbers as needed!

---

mbB: It's really hard to establish need this early, but your #s are close to what I would estimate. I think getting quality could decrease the need for quantity. A couple of questions for ya...

1) Do we really need a QB every year now that we have a system that is easier and quicker to learn?

2) I could see going with one less WR if the 2 are quality guys. What do you think?

3) Can't we recruit a full class and defer some scholies until 2015?

heartofthebear;842105871 said:

---

Do we really need a QB every year now that we have a system that is easier and quicker to learn?

---

I seem to recall Sonny saying that he plans to sign 1QB a year. No, I don't have a link handy...

Dan1966;842105467 said:

---

I never have been a big fan of eliminating "dead weight" by taking scolarships away from current players to make room for new recruits.

---

I have no problem with Sonny and his new staff telling some/all of the marginal players that their scholarships (given by Tedford) won't be renewed.

elpbear;842105895 said:

---

I seem to recall Sonny saying that he plans to sign 1QB a year. No, I don't have a link handy...

---

I thought sonny was quoted as saying they would only sign a "wow" qb recruit this year

mbBear;842105853 said:

---

Okay, so to extend this a bit, a first guess at need?
1 Qb
2 RB
3 WR
3 OL
So, that's 9 on the offensive side of the ball
3 DL
2 LB
4 DB
and 9 on the D side...adds up quick to 18. I don't think one RB would be the end of world. Someone else can rip my numbers as needed!

---

we got one running back (1 scatback) in the last two recruiting seasons. bigs is an injury risk, and lasco is unproven. i don't know the rest of the RB even matches up, talent-wise. we'll need 2 this year.

my guess:

0-1 QB
2 RB
3-4 WR (including "TE" and jumbo ATHs)
4 OL

4 DL
1-2 LB
4 DB

Dan1966;842105765 said:

---

heart, makes sense to me. Any idea how we get to 85 this year?

---

I think you have to consider a couple of things:
1) Not only our position need in 2014 but also 2015.
2) How the players in our current class play out. There is quantity but is there quality? This will effect our need. Offensive line is an example. Will quality eventually emerge over the next year? Cornerback is another example. It seems that the 3 early enrollee position players who were healthy this spring have shown quality (Goff, Kragen and Whitehurst). 3 out of 3 ain't bad. But we need the CBs and OL's come fall to show something as well.

Here is our position depth in 2015 for scholarship players assuming that nothing changes (# of quality players projected in parentheses):

QB=3 (2)
RB=4 (2)
WR=9 (8)
TE/FB=2 (1)
C=1 (1)
OG=3 (2)
OT=7 (6)
DE=5 (4)
DT=2 (1)
OLB=5 (5)
MLB=3 (3)
CB= 5 (3)
S=2 (1)
K/P=3 (2)

So I suspect that you'd want to recruit as follows if you only have 8 spots
RB=1 (1)
C=1 (1)
OG= 2 (2)
DT=2 (2)
S=2 (2)

If I had 5 more sholies to play with, I would put at least 3 more into the above positions, 1 into CB and maybe 1 at QB. If I have limited schollies, I wouldn't even consider recruiting at WR, OT, DE or LB unless you can get a top level guy.

Knowing that, here is a snapshot for where our offers are going right now for interested top recruits, according to one recruiting site...

QB=1
RB=4
FB/TE=5
WR=13
C=0
OG=4
OT=6
DT=3
DE=2
OLB=3
MLB=1
CB=5
S=3

When you consider that FB/TE=WR, we are recruiting 25 players for the passing game (QB, WR, and OT) and 25 for the entire rest of the team, even though we are already deeper in those positions than most of the others. At least we aren't recruiting much at LB. But we are extremely low at Safety, Center and Defensive Tackle considering our eventual need there. Fortunately we at least have already secured a commitment from a top safety.

edit: Forgot to mention that we have [U]10 walk-on WRs in camp[/U] as opposed to 3 DBs

Furthermore it seems odd that we have not offered Budda Baker, one of the top players and safetys in the country even though he has an interest. It's quite possible that he has an academic issue, but UCLA and Notre Dame have already offered him and I doubt he is worse than all 13 of the WRs we've offered. His interest in Stanford as well proves he values a good education.

I have always been a much bigger fan of the passing game and enjoy high scoring affairs so I will enjoy football under Dykes, but it does seem a bit out of balance to have such a huge emphasis on WRs and such a relatively low emphasis on DBs. And I still enjoy good defense. I realize that you need 2 times the # of WRs as DBs under the system, but still...

Maybe allowing big plays will keep our D from having to be on the field too long since we should be scoring quickly ourselves.

Anyway, plenty of fuel here for those that expressed early concern about defense under Dykes.

But keep in mind that it is early. Player ratings and interest level can change. And Dykes has a way of finding guys that are better than they rated (i.e. Kyle Kragen-DE & Drake Whitehurst-WR).

In any case it should be much better football under Dykes IMO.

82gradDLSdad;842105898 said:

---

I have no problem with Sonny and his new staff telling some/all of the marginal players that their scholarships (given by Tedford) won't be renewed.

---

I agree. Scholarships are on a year-to-year basis which means they are not guaranteed. Certainly there are criteria that have to be met for kids on purely academic scholarships. And, regardless of what the standards were before, Sonny has emphasized accountability in both football and academics.

There are circumstances whereby guys can no longer compete, such as injury or health problems, but are doing well academically. I wonder if they can be moved to a different scholarship category, if such a thing exists, wherein they aren't counted as part of the roster but deserve to have their education at Cal continue.

Sonny and the other coaches have run into these problems before but now he's at the top university and coaching in a major conference.

heartofthebear;842105942 said:

---

When you consider that FB/TE=WR, we are recruiting 25 players for the passing game (QB, WR, and OT) and 25 for the entire rest of the team, even though we are already deeper in those positions than most of the others. At least we aren't recruiting much at LB. But we are extremely low at Safety, Center and Defensive Tackle considering our eventual need there. Fortunately we at least have already secured a commitment from a top safety.

Furthermore it seems odd that we have not offered Budda Baker, one of the top players and safetys in the country even though he has an interest. It's quite possible that he has an academic issue, but UCLA and Notre Dame have already offered him and I doubt he is worse than all 13 of the WRs we've offered. His interest in Stanford as well proves he values a good education.

I have always been a much bigger fan of the passing game and enjoy high scoring affairs so I will enjoy football under Dykes, but it does seem a bit out of balance to have such a huge emphasis on WRs and such a relatively low emphasis on DBs. And I still enjoy good defense. I realize that you need 2 times the # of WRs as DBs under the system, but still...

Maybe allowing big plays will keep our D from having to be on the field too long since we should be scoring quickly ourselves.

Anyway, plenty of fuel here for those that expressed early concern about defense under Dykes.

But keep in mind that it is early. Player ratings and interest level can change. And Dykes has a way of finding guys that are better than they rated (i.e. Kyle Kragen-DE & Drake Whitehurst-WR).

In any case it should be much better football under Dykes IMO.

---

good post heart.

- i think by looking at the offerees of this class, it's well-balanced. like you said, we've only offered 4 LBs, and it's unlikely we take more than 2, 1 if there are stronger needs elsewhere. if you take out the highly unlikely target in D.Williams, we are essentially only going after 3 guys: Calhoun, Laz, and Alaka.

- i am also curious why Bishard "Budda" Baker hasnt been offered by now. he was already a top prospect during the last season, and has talked about leaving the state, though he prefers Oregon. we may not land him, but Cal should still offer him...

- Dykes's offense cycles through a lot of WRs, and of course those numbers are combined with FB/TEs. i think the few # of DBs we took in in 2013 had a lot to do with availability. besides allensworth, walker, and cheek, we would've loved to have moore and priest willis as well--but that just didn't pan out. with the safety offers left out there, 1 is committed to us, the other 2 are solid to SEC schools, leaves only 3 prospects. CB situation is similar, only ~3 prospects we're currently hard after

Oh, I agree, this is a total blow it out my rear number total as we sit here right now, but yep, so much could happen.
Probably true on the WR deal. And my feeling on the RB number was with Copich sticking at the position and showing anything, that provides depth.
Everyone's question/comments about QB is very interesting.
The Bear in the Room(see what I did there?): who has a great year and goes pro early. Bigelow would be the pie in the sky hope and dream, but now I am just sounding like I already had my first cocktail of the night...

all of the scholly #s listed in this thread are inaccurate

if you join the bears insider, there is a listing of the current scholly players

Shocky1;842106196 said:

---

all of the scholly #s listed in this thread are inaccurate

if you join the bears insider, there is a listing of the current scholly players

---

Has there been attrition since the spring roster? Heartfthebear & I have the same #'s.

Shocky1;842106196 said:

---

all of the scholly #s listed in this thread are inaccurate

if you join the bears insider, there is a listing of the current scholly players

---

I doubt its necessary to join in order to get that information.
I'm guessing that some of the walk-ons I listed are now on schollarship.