[Goose]

But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs.

True if and only if the plan B guy that you offer can play better than the guy(s) you could switch to ILB. If he can't, you waste time coaching him and you are stuck with him for four years. It may be the equivalent of the wrestler from Maine, except you can't cut him. PWO are much better alternatives because you can effectively cut them. Guys on scholarship, you can't.

Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.


BC

The crux of the issue is that the staff doesn't agree with that conclusion, although it may depend a lot on the exact characteristics of the "warm body". There certainly is such a thing as "addition by subtraction". If you can't get guys that you think can actually play at the PAC-12 level, having more warm bodies who you have to coach up, that still can't do the job, and can't cut is not a plus. If you have alternatives that you can move to the position that you think will be adequate, that may be a better choice. Naturally, neither choice is ideal. If there existed alternatives that were admissible and would have played at least as well as the guys we moved to ILB, I expect we would have offered them. Apparently the staff didn't think there were.

[Goose]

But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs.

True if and only if the plan B guy that you offer can play better than the guy(s) you could switch to ILB. If he can't, you waste time coaching him and you are stuck with him for four years. It may be the equivalent of the wrestler from Maine, except you can't cut him. PWO are much better alternatives because you can effectively cut them. Guys on scholarship, you can't.

Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.


BC

The crux of the issue is that the staff doesn't agree with that conclusion, although it may depend a lot on the exact characteristics of the "warm body". There certainly is such a thing as "addition by subtraction". If you can't get guys that you think can actually play at the PAC-12 level, having more warm bodies who you have to coach up, that still can't do the job, and can't cut is not a plus. If you have alternatives that you can move to the position that you think will be adequate, that may be a better choice. Naturally, neither choice is ideal. If there existed alternatives that were admissible and would have played at least as well as the guys we moved to ILB, I expect we would have offered them. Apparently the staff didn't think there were.