Class of 2023 QB Malachi Nelson (CA) TRANSFERRING TO SYRACUSE (1/16/26)

[wfschrec]

If they only used 13 guys on D that means they never rotated at all on the dline.

The way injuries happen at SU we wouldnt survive 1 game

Well injuries are another story I don't disagree considering IU had Dailey pretty banged up.

That's fair and certainly no ill will behind any of it. Also, I actually think you and I chatted many times over the years, I don't always pay attention to posters names.

I think 16 is the bare minimum as it gives you 1 backup at each skill group. Versatility helps for sure but guys that run a lot OR are 300+ pounds can't play 60+ snaps a night. You can have a core group for sure but guys get dinged, injured, or need breathers.

I would agree ... I would go as far as 20 on each side O/D and then another 20-25 reserves ... this is why Cignetti goes after the older players .. more time in S&C and they hold up far better over a full season. My thought process works for a Cignetti style ... spend more money per player (on a smaller volume lets say 65 guys) and get more experienced battle-tested guys. Go hard after roughly 15-20 recruits ... if you pay attention to IU they are roughly 50/50 portal vs HS with Cignetti. In the end I think reducing the number of total players as we move closer to NFL behavior make sense. Much like having a 53 man roster and adding 7-12 via draft UDFA. Except in the NCAA free agency is an annual thing not many guys with multiyear deals and no real enforcement anyway (Mensah cough cough).

This allows you to reduce your player acquisition spend since you are chasing less recruits by volume ... players get more focus from coaches as there are less to manage and a reduction in overall expenses such as scholarships and other related budgets which can be applied to other areas of the program. You can be more selective with who you chase, how much you pay them, and use it on guys other programs have "built" while you bring along higher end recruits because you could pay a little more to make splash moves for 4-5 stars ... it requires a very tough balancing act no doubt.

 

[Offthedome]

Does anyone think this will eventually force programs to make a decision - rely on heavy investment in seasoned portal players and chase titles on a yearly basis, or plug holes with the portal and develop your young guys for as long as you can keep them and hope to catch lightning in a bottle every few seasons? I find it hard to see anything in between.

I'm not as well-versed in this stuff as our more knowledgeable posters, (due in large part to not investing the time necessary to understand the finer points and details of the college football landscape), hence my rather vague question.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Well injuries are another story I don't disagree considering IU had Dailey pretty banged up.


I would agree ... I would go as far as 20 on each side O/D and then another 20-25 reserves ... this is why Cignetti goes after the older players .. more time in S&C and they hold up far better over a full season. My thought process works for a Cignetti style ... spend more money per player (on a smaller volume lets say 65 guys) and get more experienced battle-tested guys. Go hard after roughly 15-20 recruits ... if you pay attention to IU they are roughly 50/50 portal vs HS with Cignetti. In the end I think reducing the number of total players as we move closer to NFL behavior make sense. Much like having a 53 man roster and adding 7-12 via draft UDFA. Except in the NCAA free agency is an annual thing not many guys with multiyear deals and no real enforcement anyway (Mensah cough cough).

This allows you to reduce your player acquisition spend since you are chasing less recruits by volume ... players get more focus from coaches as there are less to manage and a reduction in overall expenses such as scholarships and other related budgets which can be applied to other areas of the program. You can be more selective with who you chase, how much you pay them, and use it on guys other programs have "built" while you bring along higher end recruits because you could pay a little more to make splash moves for 4-5 stars ... it requires a very tough balancing act no doubt.

Right but those 40-50 that aren't playing regularly could be developing prospects that you don't have to back fill the following year. It's a delicate dance but Syracuse cannot buy 30 players a year the same way Ohio State or Alabama can.

Now would be interesting to net spend on only 10-15 portal players here IF you can also retain all your top talent. That said the market is insane. If Mensah is worth 8-10m I'm not sure how we can compete. We're a second world GDP at best in terms of school finances.

Scholarship cost is a non factor for me, Syracuse costs way too damn much and could have fixed that long ago. In light of that, I can't count a 70k+/tuition against Indiana charging 13k in state and 40 out of state. That's a hurdle the school chose and upholds. In the days of walk on that really hurt. Now tuition is just a made up number and will be subsidized elsewhere to "balance the books".

 

[dasher]

I'm just disappointed the 3 portal QBs we picked up weren't all P4 starters with proven success and production.

Finally someone makes sense.

 

[dan7800]

I'm just disappointed the 3 portal QBs we picked up weren't all P4 starters with proven success and production.

I was pulling to bring in Mendoza as a backup.

 

[rrlbees]

FWIW, last night vs Miami, Indiana played 16 players on defense. However, 2 of them played 2 snaps and 1 snap. Player 14 played 18 snaps.

 

[atlanticuse]

I was pulling to bring in Mendoza as a backup.

His brother?

 

[BKCuse]

Well injuries are another story I don't disagree considering IU had Dailey pretty banged up.


I would agree ... I would go as far as 20 on each side O/D and then another 20-25 reserves ... this is why Cignetti goes after the older players .. more time in S&C and they hold up far better over a full season. My thought process works for a Cignetti style ... spend more money per player (on a smaller volume lets say 65 guys) and get more experienced battle-tested guys. Go hard after roughly 15-20 recruits ... if you pay attention to IU they are roughly 50/50 portal vs HS with Cignetti. In the end I think reducing the number of total players as we move closer to NFL behavior make sense. Much like having a 53 man roster and adding 7-12 via draft UDFA. Except in the NCAA free agency is an annual thing not many guys with multiyear deals and no real enforcement anyway (Mensah cough cough).

This allows you to reduce your player acquisition spend since you are chasing less recruits by volume ... players get more focus from coaches as there are less to manage and a reduction in overall expenses such as scholarships and other related budgets which can be applied to other areas of the program. You can be more selective with who you chase, how much you pay them, and use it on guys other programs have "built" while you bring along higher end recruits because you could pay a little more to make splash moves for 4-5 stars ... it requires a very tough balancing act no doubt.

There is something to be said for the less is more strategy and you make good points about reducing your spend in money and time on the bottom of your roster.
We all know the injuries happen around here at an alarming rate but if we were to cut down from 85 to 75 we prob don’t miss those 10 bodies at all.

I wonder what the average number of players who saw the field for us each season over the past 10 years is.

I think each SU player gets a minimum of 42K in revenue share money. So that’s 420K savings plus the 10 scholarships and the money adds up pretty quick

In the interest of staying on topic - I’m fired up about Malachi joining our qB room!

 

[NJCuse97]

They had 16 guys on defense in the boxscore ... at least one of which only recorded a tackle on special teams ... both teams last night used roughly 16 defenders ... not 30. Miami was going to use a minimum of 12 simply because they had a guy sit out the first half due to a targeting call in the Ole Miss game. They do not rotate nearly as much as we do. Against OSU they had 17 in the defensive box score .. at least 2 were there only because of special teams tackles .. (Becker being one of them). The thing you aren't taking into account is they blew so many folks out they were emptying the bench in several games. Games vs tough opponents they did not rotate nearly as frequently the numbers bear that out. If you are up 56-10 you can afford to pull starters.

Genuine question. I have not done the homework. You are mentioning box scores and statistics/media commentary, but I am only seeing you reference playoff games or the championship. I have to believe that is the "put up or shut up" go time, where there is one game left and it's win or go home. I am curious if those numbers differ greatly from the earlier part of the season, or in the blow outs as was also suggested. Given our own history, I have a hard time imagining those 13 guys make it that far into the season if they aren't being subbed out earlier in the season. I'm not questioning the playoff stats you reference, or the validity of the 65 man roster you propose (kinda like it in fact, but I think I would hedge more and go for 75-85). I'm only curious if the 13-16 man rotation was full season, or was it a playoff thing?

 

[wfschrec]

Genuine question. I have not done the homework. You are mentioning box scores and statistics/media commentary, but I am only seeing you reference playoff games or the championship. I have to believe that is the "put up or shut up" go time, where there is one game left and it's win or go home. I am curious if those numbers differ greatly from the earlier part of the season, or in the blow outs as was also suggested. Given our own history, I have a hard time imagining those 13 guys make it that far into the season if they aren't being subbed out earlier in the season. I'm not questioning the playoff stats you reference, or the validity of the 65 man roster you propose (kinda like it in fact, but I think I would hedge more and go for 75-85). I'm only curious if the 13-16 man rotation was full season, or was it a playoff thing?

Cignetti would have to be a moron to not sub in a blowout … but I have read and included it in this thread where they purposely changed their rotation philosophy to reduce complexity. Part of the reason they did it rather easily is they have a few defenders that are very versatile. I have watched a few of their games this season and after having a friend watch us live at GT (he knows football quite well) he was shocked at how much we rotated… he felt we subbed too much and it prevented players from really getting into the game flow. I watched a few elite teams this year and none rotated as frequently as we did. At times the wholesale hockey line changes I felt kept our defense from establishing a rhythm.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Because injuries happen and pay rate is not a guarantee of performance.

You play 105 bets in roulette you have a better chance to win more often than if you only play 65. You may win bigger with 65 bigger bets but you also may lose your ass. You need at least 50 contributors from first team, second team and specials. I'd rather chance it with 55 extra plays vs only 15 especially in a post walk on world.

I think each spin has an unrelated probability of winning that doesn’t change with more spins.

 

[wfschrec]

I think each spin has an unrelated probability of winning that doesn’t change with more spins.

This is a difficult concept for people to grasp.

 

[orangenauburn]

Why do you even need 85? How many total players saw the field in a really bad 2025? Maybe 60? Why not save the upfront cost and go after the higher end high school kids and use a bigger pay bucket to compete? Treat like the NFL ... plan to add roughly 10 a year through recruiting and use portal for the rest bringing in players trained and prepped at the collegiate level by other staffs. Don't become the farm team be a parent club.

Thats outside the box thinking that's tough to do. Good call out and I am a believer in that philosophy

 

[Dinkyspond]

Let’s just say the QB room - I’m feeling wall to wall arm talent.

-sarcasm emoji

yeah, before last season we were saying the deepest QB room in years. Angeli goes down and we get an interception machine, a guy they won't let throw the ball and then a lacrosse player. Epic fail.

 

[kcsu]

I was talking to a coach yesterday about shift changes. His philosophy leans towards KISS as well unless it is pretty apparent what the O is doing

 

[ImperialOrange]

I think each spin has an unrelated probability of winning that doesn’t change with more spins.

Perhaps roulette wasn't the best because of to green spaces but if black/red only it means exactly that.

In a coin flip scenario you have a 50:50 probability each coin clip. You're base probability is the same each flip so you COULD get each wrong or right. Having more 105 flips absolutely gives you a greater chance of having more correct guesses than only having 65 flips. 50% on the former nets 52.5 correct, 50% on the latter nets you 32.5.

It's an over simplification but there's no logic to dictate that we'd hit a higher total number of 50:50 flips given less chances. You would have to hit on 80% of your 65 players to net the same total as hitting 50% on 105.

The fallacy of the 65 vs 105 argument is to assume our coaches would be exponentially less successful recruiting/retaining more players vs less. I'm not sure that logic exists to make said argument solely based on numbers vs "gut feeling".

Emotional responses ie "gut feeling" could argue the opposite actually given unplanned but known potential outcomes. Poaching, injuries, grades, players quitting, etc. etc. added vs simply player good vs player bad 50:50 scenario. Spending more per player doesn't mitigate those instances but does lower the chances of having a suitable contingency plan in place as with our QB, DT and Safety play last year.

 

[wfschrec]

Perhaps roulette wasn't the best because of to green spaces but if black/red only it means exactly that.

In a coin flip scenario you have a 50:50 probability each coin clip. You're base probability is the same each flip so you COULD get each wrong or right. Having more 105 flips absolutely gives you a greater chance of having more correct guesses than only having 65 flips. 50% on the former nets 52.5 correct, 50% on the latter nets you 32.5.

It's an over simplification but there's no logic to dictate that we'd hit a higher total number of 50:50 flips given less chances. You would have to hit on 80% of your 65 players to net the same total as hitting 50% on 105.

The fallacy of the 65 vs 105 argument is to assume our coaches would be exponentially less successful recruiting/retaining more players vs less. I'm not sure that logic exists to make said argument solely based on numbers vs "gut feeling".

Emotional responses ie "gut feeling" could argue the opposite actually given unplanned but known potential outcomes. Poaching, injuries, grades, players quitting, etc. etc. added vs simply player good vs player bad 50:50 scenario. Spending more per player doesn't mitigate those instances but does lower the chances of having a suitable contingency plan in place as with our QB, DT and Safety play last year.

Actually higher retention favors the 65 model ... the simple math leads to also increasing the likelihood of retention due to more available funds per player.

$13 million split evenly (yes I know it doesn't have to be even and assuming the rev share is $13 million of the $20.5) across 105 players is $123,800 per player. Across 65 players it becomes $200,000 and as you tier the payouts .. (premium players get larger cuts i.e. QB gets a lot more than kicker) it decreases the burden on NIL and also means you have a better chance to pay for seasoned portal replacements. In theory if you select 8 players (lets say special teams like kickers, punters, snappers, or just special teams designates like a LB for kickoff coverage) and pay them $100K a piece (which is rather healthy) you then have an extra $800K which now means you could designate that allotment to paying $1 million with rev share to a starting QB without even touching NIL. If you are able to retain at a high clip you are removed from having to pull in gobs of NIL to go out and bring in a large class or a lot of new bodies from the portal. With the way classes are now and if we go to 5 for 5 expect most players to be on campus 5 years anyway which means you may lose anywhere from what ... 13-20 bodies per season tops. If you are a high retainer that is far less to replace on a rotational basis.

The coin flip analogy is fine if this is a heads or tails situation but whether or not a player succeeds isn't equivalent to a coin toss due to a litany of environmental factors.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Actually higher retention favors the 65 model ... the simple math leads to also increasing the likelihood of retention due to more available funds per player.

$13 million split evenly (yes I know it doesn't have to be even and assuming the rev share is $13 million of the $20.5) across 105 players is $123,800 per player. Across 65 players it becomes $200,000 and as you tier the payouts .. (premium players get larger cuts i.e. QB gets a lot more than kicker) it decreases the burden on NIL and also means you have a better chance to pay for seasoned portal replacements. In theory if you select 8 players (lets say special teams like kickers, punters, snappers, or just special teams designates like a LB for kickoff coverage) and pay them $100K a piece (which is rather healthy) you then have an extra $800K which now means you could designate that allotment to paying $1 million with rev share to a starting QB without even touching NIL. If you are able to retain at a high clip you are removed from having to pull in gobs of NIL to go out and bring in a large class or a lot of new bodies from the portal. With the way classes are now and if we go to 5 for 5 expect most players to be on campus 5 years anyway which means you may lose anywhere from what ... 13-20 bodies per season tops. If you are a high retainer that is far less to replace on a rotational basis.

The coin flip analogy is fine if this is a heads or tails situation but whether or not a player succeeds isn't equivalent to a coin toss due to a litany of environmental factors.

It would favor your model IF we had the most funds or if funds were all equal between schools. We don't and they aren't. I think that's what you're missing in your theory.

We now live in a world where Clemson has players poached. If we max out 65 players to our max, all of those 65 players that are successful can easily get more elsewhere. Given our limited funding, we're also not picking all of our 65 from the top 1%. We're either taking flyers on former high rated recruits that haven't yet produced or lower ranked players that have out performed their rankings.

Anyone that performs to the level you're indicating will not be at Syracuse for 5 years. They'll be pro's or cashing bigger checks elsewhere. Every player now needs rerecruited every year. Your model for retention is more akin to Ohio State's reality vs Syracuse's.

Trust me, I wish you were right and we could have more top players coming to and staying at Syracuse. We're just not positioned to do that and never will be unless we have a Mark Cuban type step up to outbid or outpay whenever necessary.

Coin flip analogy is actually a sunny outlook vs our actual positioning. We're probably more of a dice throw situation.

Appreciate the conversation though, it's well thought out and certainly interesting to talk out.