What does it really mean for this class to be 10 short?

Does this mean that there are 10 extra walk-ons, blueshirts, or grey-shirts that have taken the scholies usually available to 10 of the freshmen normally in a class of 25? So, what are we getting instead of true freshmen and are they high quality players or long shot projects? We got Hunter Henry’s little brother and Drew Morgan’s bigger little brother. Are they potentially equivalent to the 4 stars we seem to be targeting in the 15 recruits in this class? I guess I am asking if this is a good thing or a bad thing to have so few scholarships available just as our recruiting in this class seems to be better than the past? Bumper Pool and Connor Noland seem to be working their butts off to fill the class with great recruits. Too bad they only have 13 other slots left to fill.

Hoping this is a good thing. Go Hogs.

In the first place I will be shocked if we end up with anything close to as low as 15. I have heard that several times over the years, it never ends up like that (I don’t think I have heard 15, but have heard 18 or 19 several times). I would be willing to bet the number is close to 22. Could be wrong. We will see.

Some of it is the staff is keeping guys on campus and the amount of walkons Bielema has awarded scholarships. Who knows how the numbers are at the end of the day? Bret has signed more than 20 in every class. I suspect you’ll see the same this year.

I think Hayden Henry will be an impact player at OLB sooner rather than later. Grant was definitely one of the better LBs this spring. He’s a lot like his brother and isn’t the most gifted, but he has very good instincts and just knows how to make plays.

Don’t mean to be a pest but I still don’t know if the shortage of scholarships just as recruiting seems on the upswing is a good thing or a bad thing. If the walk-ons, blueshirts, greyshirts, whatever are better than the recruits we could finish out the class with, then that would be a good thing. Right? Are they? If the outstanding start on this upcoming class could lead to a strong finish with the last 10 or whatever recruits being much better than in the past, maybe not. So, which is it?

Let’s go with a good thing as it means that there is good retention with people coming back.

You can only have 85 on scholarship, but it you were to sign 25 per year in a four -to five-year block , it would mean that you would have 100 to 125 to fit under the cap.

As far as the greyshirts, they can only be that if Arkansas did not recruit them or anyone at their school during the season.

One of those - Gabe Richardson - has already been put on scholarship while the other two are top Arkansas talents in Fayetteville OL Ty Clary and Pulaski Academy LB Hayden Henry, who just couldn’t get under the cap Arkansas had for 2017.

I think both will turn into significant players for Arkansas - and well worth sacrificing a couple of 2018 spots for in the long run.

Interesting bit of info I didn’t know (probably should have). How is “recruited” defined? Obviously taking an official visit would be. What if a coach called a kid and talked to him, never offered, etc.? A letter to the kid??? (Those letters start back in what, 9th, 10th grade?) Interesting.

The basic problem is that 25 times 4 does not equal 85. Never mind 25 times 5. Yes, people quit, transfer, get kicked off the team, etc. But you want to have the carrot of a scholarship for your walk-on program too. At some point, you don’t have enough people leave to have 60 scholarship players on February 1, and that’s what you have to have to sign 25.

You are right but you are missing my point. This (4x25 is lots more than 85) is true for all D-1 college football programs, yet most have steady attrition and recruit 25 freshmen every year. Occasionally an Alabama or a Southern Cal will only take 18-20, but that is the exception not the rule. So, we are retaining more players or bringing in more walk-ons or both compared to most other college football programs.

So, I am asking, as our recruiting seems to be getting better, are we getting better players by giving a scholarship to an older walk-on who has been seasoned in our program for a few years than we would by giving that scholarship to a high school recruit? If that recruit can ever be a four star elite athlete, I suspect he would be the better choice. If that walk-on is the next J.J. Watt, then he is the better choice. I am asking the knowledgeable ones on this board to speculate which we got here.

I think you answered most of your question in you’re first paragraph. It’s pretty much what most are saying.

I think Arkansas does do a good job of retention and then you add that Bielema probably awards more scholarships to walkons than most coaches.

I think you can look at Johnny Gibson and say he’s been a good walkon and has the potential to be a very good one. Kevin Richardson has been a good walkon and a great leader. I’m excited to see his him this fall. Grant Morgan is another walkon to keep an eye for for a future impact.

It’s hard to know if a scholarship guy or walkon will be the next great player early in their career. It could take a great offseason along with just another year of experience before you know.

Again, I will state I am willing to bet a lot that it won’t be 15. It won’t be 20, it will be more than that. I wouldn’t be shocked if it is 25. So to some extent it is a false problem.

Next, if it is a problem (hey, I could be wrong), I think your dynamic is wrong. Are we going to fail to sign some 4 star guy because we only have 15 scholarships? That answer is no. We have never, ever, ever, signed 15 or more 4 and 5 star players. So you can’t say we failed to sign some 4 star. Heck, if we only had 10 scholarships, we wouldn’t have to turn down a 4 or 5 star guy. So, again, if we really are limited to 15, the question is, who are we missing on in February of 2018 and who did we get in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 that are taking those slots? The answer to the first question is we are missing out on some guys we would be taking a chance on. The “last 10” guys (not the last 10 to commit, the “worst” 10, the ones the coaches would not have signed if 20 4 and 5 star players had been willing to come to us in those years) are rarely if ever, “can’t miss” miss guys. So, if we are limited to 15, we will still take just as many 4 and 5 stars as we would have anyway. We will just “miss out on” 10 guys who were “we hope they work out” kind of guys. Don’t get me wrong, some of those 10 guys WOULD HAVE worked out. So, you have to compare those 10 to the guys who “took their slots.” Those are guys who we are already on campus and the coaches haven’t told them “find somewhere else to go.” Odds are those “last 10” who are taking up the roster spots in question are as good as if not better than the 10 we won’t get. A few of those guys who would have to be “cut” if we were going to get to 25, will work out. Most likely (since the coaches have seen them in practice, seen them in workouts) more of them will contribute than the 10 guys who we don’t sign would have.

Maybe. Remember how we swung for the fences on the class before thiis last one? We had four or five 4* who came down to the end and all went elsewhere. Maybe that is the reason for using up all of the scholarships early instead of waiting until late and hoping for a home run finish to the class.

My question is, since recruiting seems much stronger in the beginning of this class, could we be giving up on some possible successful late shots at 4*'s since we appear to have given those scholarships to walk-ons? If the walk-ons are future stars like J.J. Watt or possible stars like Johnny Gibson, that sounds like a good choice. If the recruits are as good as the ones who went to Florida, LSU, Texas, etc. instead of us that year, we might be sorry we chose a walk-on instead.

I trust CBB and assume he is making the right choice. This is just interesting speculation to me.

You can send letters, the kid can have come on unofficial visits, but coaches can not have been on their campus during the recruiting period.