We opened up the question segment to the afternoon crowd and they responded in kind. Thus, as I watch this mini-marathon of one of my favorite shows, House Hunters, I'll be answering football questions. Here we go!
I think it depends on a couple of different things. First, just how well-versed in the offense is each guy? Second, are you willing to suffer the ills of inexperience? Third, is there a clear separation between the two?
My man Matt is talking about the Mountaineers battle between Paul Millard and Ford Childress. Millard has been there awhile and played the backup role to Geno Smith. Childress is a redshirt freshman and probably more talented than Millard.
I'd go with open competition in the spring. Split up the reps evenly and let both guys work with first and second teams on any given day.
Hell, depending upon how I'd split up teams for the spring game, I'd make the guys play on both teams to make sure I got a good look at things. Then, I'd refer to those three questions and make my choice.
If both guys are close in the first and third areas, then I'm willing to go with youth. However, if Millard has a better grasp of the scheme and there is clear separation there, I'm taking the older player.
Basically, if it is a tight race, go with youth and ride the wave all the way out. If it isn't, go with experience.
Oh, and I'm curious to see the early enrollee Chavas Rawlins. I don't expect him to factor into this battle, but in the future, as Dana Holgorsen gets a chance to tweak his offense around the dual threat's ability, that could be fun to watch.
No. Unless college football completely disappears and ceases to exist, it will always be the minor league for the NFL. The colleges love it because they get the best players for three seasons and get to make bank off of it. The NFL loves it because it gets a farm system that it does not have to fund.
The way both sides love their money, I just can't imagine that changing unless college ball were to disappear as an option.
No way. Cal was not very good a year ago. So now, it's taking away guys like Isi Sofele, CJ Anderson, Zach Maynard, Keenan Allen plus Josh Hill and Robert Mullins. I know Spike Dykes' son worked wonders at Louisiana Tech, but I don't think the magic is going to happen for him that quickly in Berkeley.
That does not mean that Cal won't get better, it certainly will be an improved team in 2013.
However, between the pieces lost and the fact that the Pac-12, as a whole, is rapidly improving, it is going to be tough sledding. The Golden Bears are pushing to catch Oregon and Stanford, but they have to get past Washington and Oregon State before they can be considered contenders.
I think obviously the advantage of filling certain spots with junior college players is that you get guys that are physically ready to come in and play. They also have a better understanding of football than most high-school-to-college guys and, quite simply, JUCO to BCS level as a transition is a lot easier than random high school to BCS-level competition.
The reason a lot of other schools don't do it is because they are not allowed. Most schools are not as liberal with the acceptance of junior college players as Kansas State has been throughout its history.
Some schools, like Notre Dame, don't take any at all and most put a cap on the amount of guys that a coach can take in a given cycle.
A few coaches, in times of desperation, have dipped deep into the JUCO talent pool in an effort to save themselves, but for the most part junior college transfers are very lightly sprinkled on rosters.
While Snyder has been great at meshing the talent that he can get with his coaching style, it just is not something that most schools can do.