Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Kind of interesting. A discussion on the Geauxcowboys.org forum led me to look at the roster of Southeastern Louisiana and how it was built vs. the roster of McNeese State and how it was built. What's clear is that Southeastern Louisiana has a national junior college (JC) recruiting program. Some transfers from FBS and D-II as well. Here are some notes on the 2013 rosters currently posted at the athletic sites of the two schools:

97% of the players listed on McNeese's roster are from "home towns" that are within 200 miles of the town, Lake Charles, where the school is located. In contrast, only 54% of players listed on Southeastern Louisiana's roster are from home towns within 200 miles of Hammond; where that school is located.

Here are the home states listed for players on McNeese's 2013 roster, the number of players from each state, and the numbers/types of transfers from each state in parenthesis when applicable (I mean the home state listed for the transfer, not the state of the school where the transfer previously played):

Florida 2
Louisiana 69 (6 FBS transfers)
Oklahoma 1
Texas 22 (1 FBS transfer)

Now the same kind of breakdown for Southeastern Louisiana

Arizona 1 (1 JC transfer)
California 13 (1 FBS and 10 JC transfers)
Florida 4 (2 JC transfers)
Georgia 3 (1 JC transfer)
Hawaii 1
Louisiana 58 (2 FBS, 2 DII, 4 JC transfers)
Missouri 1 (1 JC transfer)
Mississippi 7 (5 JC transfers)
New Jersey 1 (1 JC transfer)
Ohio 1
Oregon 2 (2 FBS transfers)
Tennessee 1 (1 FBS transfer)
Texas 16 (2 FBS, 2 JC transfers)

The trend continues with players added after the 2013 season. McNeese got 22 commitments including 3 tranfers; 2 FBS and 1 JC. The hometowns listed for 21 of the 22 commitments are within 200 miles of Lake Charles; with the one exception being the JC transfer from Austin, Texas (262 miles). All of the recruits' home towns are in Louisiana and Texas.

Southeastern Louisiana got 31 commitments; 13 of which are transfers (7 FBS, 6 JC). 23 are from within 200 miles of the school, with the other home towns involved being 211, 287, 318, 325, 499, 950, 991, and 1603 miles from Hammond. Home states of the Southeastern Louisiana commitments include California, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

So you can see what happened. They quickly established a system for drawing in players, and especially transfers, from all over the country. And they are apparently pretty good at identifying and acquiring JC talent.

I see SELA has a fellow NJ native on its list.Who is he??

dal4018 wrote:I see SELA has a fellow NJ native on its list.Who is he??

The 2013 Roster at http://www.lionsports.net/roster.aspx?path=football&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has a D.J. Williams from Jersey City, New Jersey. Has him listed as a 6'5", 320 pound offensive lineman. Went to James Farris High School then Garden City Community College in Kansas.

JohnStOnge wrote:

dal4018 wrote:I see SELA has a fellow NJ native on its list.Who is he??

The 2013 Roster at http://www.lionsports.net/roster.aspx?path=football&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has a D.J. Williams from Jersey City, New Jersey. Has him listed as a 6'5", 320 pound offensive lineman. Went to James Farris High School then Garden City Community College in Kansas.

Knew about this guy thought you snatched another Jersey native.

Since I did this for posting on the McNeese board I'll post the info here too. Southeastern Louisiana was definitely a transfer and Junior College player generated team.

I looked at where Southeastern's starters came from. I went to their game notes for their last game (New Hampshire). I looked at the player listed #1 on the depth chart at each position on offense and defense. On offense that meant looking at 13 players because they they had two extra positions that I guess would come into play depending on formation. So you're talking 24 players listed #1 on the offense/defense depth chart.

11 of the 24 were Junior College players. Two were FBS transfers. All three starting defensive linemen were Junior College players. Overall 8 of the 11 defensive starters were from Junior Colleges or FBS (7 JC, 1 FBS).

Four starters had home towns in California. They also had starters from Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and New Jersey.

JohnStOnge wrote:Since I did this for posting on the McNeese board I'll post the info here too. Southeastern Louisiana was definitely a transfer and Junior College player generated team.

I looked at where Southeastern's starters came from. I went to their game notes for their last game (New Hampshire). I looked at the player listed #1 on the depth chart at each position on offense and defense. On offense that meant looking at 13 players because they they had two extra positions that I guess would come into play depending on formation. So you're talking 24 players listed #1 on the offense/defense depth chart.

11 of the 24 were Junior College players. Two were FBS transfers. All three starting defensive linemen were Junior College players. Overall 8 of the 11 defensive starters were from Junior Colleges or FBS (7 JC, 1 FBS).

Four starters had home towns in California. They also had starters from Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and New Jersey.

Looking at where our starters come from is a little misleading considering we roll two, and in some positions, three deep, throughout the course of a game. Roberts has said on many occasions that whoever is in the game at the time is the starter. Obviously Bryan Bennett will take most, if not all of the snaps at QB, but everywhere else it's a consistent rotation.

And for the record - not that it matters - but six of our 11 starters in our last game were JC transfers, not seven. One was an FBS (Hubert) and three were high school (Church, Sutton, Miller).

Looking at where our starters come from is a little misleading considering we roll two, and in some positions, three deep, throughout the course of a game. Roberts has said on many occasions that whoever is in the game at the time is the starter. Obviously Bryan Bennett will take most, if not all of the snaps at QB, but everywhere else it's a consistent rotation.

And for the record - not that it matters - but six of our 11 starters in our last game were JC transfers, not seven. One was an FBS (Hubert) and three were high school (Church, Sutton, Miller).

My guess is that one would get basically the same picture if one went through all of the players on the final game depth chart in the New Hampshire game notes at http://www.lionsports.net/documents/201 ... df?id=1002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I don't know if I'll do it or not but if I had to bet I'd bet at least half the players listed on that depth chart are JC, FBS transfer, or D-II transfer. If not it'll be close.

I interpret the roster at http://www.lionsports.net/roster.aspx?path=football&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as indicating that Marice Sutton is a JC player. It lists his previous school as New Mexico Prep. I didn't know what to make of that but I Googled it and hit an article at http://www.abqjournal.com/234656/sports ... s.htmlwith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; this explanation of what the school is:

OK, here’s the concept:

Norman recruits players from around the country and brings them to Albuquerque. Many have academic deficiencies that prevented them from getting the college offers they were hoping for out of high school. In other cases, the deficiencies, real or perceived, are physical: size, speed, etc.

The players are required to enroll in classes at Central New Mexico Community College. They play a schedule consisting of junior college, four-year college junior varsity and semipro opposition.

I counted him as a JC.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Looking at where our starters come from is a little misleading considering we roll two, and in some positions, three deep, throughout the course of a game. Roberts has said on many occasions that whoever is in the game at the time is the starter. Obviously Bryan Bennett will take most, if not all of the snaps at QB, but everywhere else it's a consistent rotation.

And for the record - not that it matters - but six of our 11 starters in our last game were JC transfers, not seven. One was an FBS (Hubert) and three were high school (Church, Sutton, Miller).

My guess is that one would get basically the same picture if one went through all of the players on the final game depth chart in the New Hampshire game notes at http://www.lionsports.net/documents/201 ... df?id=1002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I don't know if I'll do it or not but if I had to bet I'd bet at least half the players listed on that depth chart are JC, FBS transfer, or D-II transfer. If not it'll be close.

I interpret the roster at http://www.lionsports.net/roster.aspx?path=football&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as indicating that Marice Sutton is a JC player. It lists his previous school as New Mexico Prep. I didn't know what to make of that but I Googled it and hit an article at http://www.abqjournal.com/234656/sports ... s.htmlwith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; this explanation of what the school is:

OK, here’s the concept:

Norman recruits players from around the country and brings them to Albuquerque. Many have academic deficiencies that prevented them from getting the college offers they were hoping for out of high school. In other cases, the deficiencies, real or perceived, are physical: size, speed, etc.

The players are required to enroll in classes at Central New Mexico Community College. They play a schedule consisting of junior college, four-year college junior varsity and semipro opposition.

I counted him as a JC.

New Mexico Prep is a prep school, not a JC ... Sutton was considered a true freshman when we signed him in 2011, and though a senior to be, still has a redshirt year available.

As for our depth chart rotation: on defense, the regular rotation mix in 2013 included 13 HS players, 11 JCs, 3 FBS ... Offensively, the rotation was 15 HS, 10 JC and 3 FBS. We had several season ending injuries at various points in the year and those guys are included. We routinely played anywhere 54 to 60 guys per week throughout the course of a game, not including kickers/punters which were all high school kids.

To me if you are going to a school with a team composed of players such that "...academic deficiencies that prevented them from getting the college offers they were hoping for out of high school" and which plays a schedule "...consisting of junior college, four-year college junior varsity and semipro opposition" that's a lot closer to Junior College than it is to what we think of as high school football.

I went ahead and counted up the depth chart for the New Hampshire game. There are 50 players listed on the depth chart. 18 came from JCs and 6 are FBS transfers. So it's 24 of 50 or slightly less than half. If you don't count the guy that went to New Mexico Prep you can say 23 of 50. It does not really change the basic picture much. It's obvious that Southeastern Louisiana did what it did through acquiring a bunch of JC players along with some FBS transfers.

That's especially true of the defense. 14 of 24 players listed on the defense depth chart including 6 of 8 defensive linemen are either JC or FBS transfer (that's if you include the New Mexico Prep guy as I think you should).

BTW I also think that listing people as starters means something. A coach can say "they're all starters" but to me that's coach speak. They may be close but when you're listing people as starters that means something.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong about it. I'm just saying that's how Southeastern Louisiana did it. It's pretty obvious that the coach engaged in a strategy of upgrading the talent level by bringing in a whole bunch of JC players and FBS transfers. And he apparently did a good job of it.

JohnStOnge wrote:To me if you are going to a school with a team composed of players such that "...academic deficiencies that prevented them from getting the college offers they were hoping for out of high school" and which plays a schedule "...consisting of junior college, four-year college junior varsity and semipro opposition" that's a lot closer to Junior College than it is to what we think of as high school football.

I went ahead and counted up the depth chart for the New Hampshire game. There are 50 players listed on the depth chart. 18 came from JCs and 6 are FBS transfers. So it's 24 of 50 or slightly less than half. If you don't count the guy that went to New Mexico Prep you can say 23 of 50. It does not really change the basic picture much. It's obvious that Southeastern Louisiana did what it did through acquiring a bunch of JC players along with some FBS transfers.

That's especially true of the defense. 14 of 24 players listed on the defense depth chart including 6 of 8 defensive linemen are either JC or FBS transfer (that's if you include the New Mexico Prep guy as I think you should).

BTW I also think that listing people as starters means something. A coach can say "they're all starters" but to me that's coach speak. They may be close but when you're listing people as starters that means something.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong about it. I'm just saying that's how Southeastern Louisiana did it. It's pretty obvious that the coach engaged in a strategy of upgrading the talent level by bringing in a whole bunch of JC players and FBS transfers. And he apparently did a good job of it.

There's a distinct difference between a prep school kid and a JC kid, namely years of eligibility. Mo Sutton is from St. Aug HS in New Orleans and we recruited him out of high school. He actually signed with SMU but they wanted to grayshirt him ... he went to prep school instead so he could play, and see if he could get bigger offers while still maintaining all of his eligibility. Bottom line is he's been in our program for four years, dating back to Mike Lucas, who signed him.

As far as starters listed on the depth chart, no it does not mean anything in our program, other than the QB position ... Our top three leading receivers started 15 games combined, which is an average of 5 starts per guy over a 14 game schedule. Geremy Wilson is listed third on the depth chart but played more snaps than anybody on the O-line outside of Gasten Gabriel Marshall Paris. Tyler Stoddard, Theo Alexander, and Mo Sutton, all started less than half the games. Our leading tackler for nearly the entire season - Drew Misita - only started three games. I could go on.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with how we do things, and in fact, it's a major reason why we are where we are ... that said, we have a strong core of high school signees who are major contributors, and it's not like we're just bringing in a bunch of transfers off the street at their expense - which seems to be the implication from some of the posts I've read on the McNeese board. In fact, you even have a post saying your coaches should use it against us as a recruiting strategy.

In fact, you even have a post saying your coaches should use it against us as a recruiting strategy.

Yes I do and they should. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong or illegal about the strategy Roberts has adopted but it is indeed a strategy that should give recruits on the Northshore, in Baton Rouge, and in New Orleans pause when they are considering whether to sign with Southeastern Louisiana or with McNeese State if it comes down to that. It is pretty clear that Roberts has made the decision that he is not going to rely primarily on recruiting high school players then developing them.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that or even that it will hurt Southeastern Louisiana. If it works it works. But it IS something that should give a high school player in that area of the State pause when they're considering who to sign with. It is what it is.

JohnStOnge wrote:

In fact, you even have a post saying your coaches should use it against us as a recruiting strategy.

Yes I do and they should. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong or illegal about the strategy Roberts has adopted but it is indeed a strategy that should give recruits on the Northshore, in Baton Rouge, and in New Orleans pause when they are considering whether to sign with Southeastern Louisiana or with McNeese State if it comes down to that. It is pretty clear that Roberts has made the decision that he is not going to rely primarily on recruiting high school players then developing them.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that or even that it will hurt Southeastern Louisiana. If it works it works. But it IS something that should give a high school player in that area of the State pause when they're considering who to sign with. It is what it is.

I hear ya, but not sure it's a strategy that will work when we counter with the facts, and the videotape, which shows on average, 54+ kids playing meaningful snaps every Saturday. In fact, we won several battles for HS kids this cycle because of that. They know when they come here, there's a very good chance they'll play - not to mention our staff is outstanding when it comes to player development.

I hear ya, but not sure it's a strategy that will work when we counter with the facts, and the videotape, which shows on average, 54+ kids playing meaningful snaps every Saturday.

Yeah but based on the depth chart one would have to figure somewhere near half of those 54 kids were JC players and FBS transfers. And I don't buy the "starting means nothing" thing. Coaches don't decide who is number 1 on the depth chart by using a random numbers generator. They put somebody number 1 on the depth chart for a reason. It may be close. And they may change their minds and switch things up as the season goes on. But when they put somebody number 1 on the depth chart it's not just because they flipped a coin or threw a die.

Congrats to SLU for creatively finding a way to win within the rules.

Sly Fox wrote:Congrats to SLU for creatively finding a way to win within the rules.

Yeah that's the bottom line. And you have to give them credit to be able to find JC talent all over the country like that and have it work out. I guarantee you they did that without a big budget.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I hear ya, but not sure it's a strategy that will work when we counter with the facts, and the videotape, which shows on average, 54+ kids playing meaningful snaps every Saturday.

Yeah but based on the depth chart one would have to figure somewhere near half of those 54 kids were JC players and FBS transfers. And I don't buy the "starting means nothing" thing. Coaches don't decide who is number 1 on the depth chart by using a random numbers generator. They put somebody number 1 on the depth chart for a reason. It may be close. And they may change their minds and switch things up as the season goes on. But when they put somebody number 1 on the depth chart it's not just because they flipped a coin or threw a die.

The bottom line is if you're a high school kid, and we sign you, there's a damn good chance you're going to play unless you don't work hard or go to class. The notion that we'll just bring in a JC or FBS transfer to replace them, or hog the playing time, is not borne out by the facts.

Ron Roberts recruited and signed Xavier Roberson, Rasheed Harrell, Jeff Smiley, Joe Graves, Harlan Miller, Javari Nichols, Juwan Rogers, Taylor and Travis Romero, Brent Wagner, Josh Dakin, Dereck Robinson, Caleb Young (hurt) and Trenon Trosclair ... all high school kids who were either freshmen or sophomores, who played meaningful snaps or were major contributors this fall. We also have a very good group of redshirts in Taylor Cochran, Titus Charles, Eric Jenkins, Charles Sataraka, Dario Robinson, Ryan Sigers, and Daniel Henderson ... and that's not counting the high school guys who were signed by Mike Lucas who are/were significant contributors: Tony McCrea, Gasten Gabriel, Marshal Paris, Geremy Wilson, Drew Misita, Mo Sutton, Jeremy Meyers, Chris Malott, Taylor Jenkins, Tyler Stoddard, Kaleb Muse, Justin Church, Denzel Thompson, Scott Korte, Seth Sebastian, Ryan Adams and Matt McKormick.

Our two leading receivers and our two leading rushers from the tailback position are high school kids ... three of five starters on the O-line are high school kids ... our top three leaders in interceptions are high school kids ... seven of our top 14 tacklers are high school kids.

When you're playing close to 60 kids per week, there's room for everybody to contribute ... that's why we've been successful and kids love playing for our coaching staff.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Sly Fox wrote:Congrats to SLU for creatively finding a way to win within the rules.

Yeah that's the bottom line. And you have to give them credit to be able to find JC talent all over the country like that and have it work out. I guarantee you they did that without a big budget.

You don't need a big budget. Internet, cell phones, and human connections across the country don't cost much money. Only real cost is flying the kids you want to sign, in for visits.

The bottom line is if you're a high school kid, and we sign you, there's a damn good chance you're going to play

Not as good a chance as there would be if you were to sign with McNeese State. And that's what I'm hoping McNeese State recruiters are going to be able to get across.

I think the rosters and depth charts suggest that more players on the McNeese team who signed with the Cowboys out of high school saw meaningful playing time than players in that category on the Southeastern team did.

McNeese also has the philosophy of playing a lot of players; running people in and out. Their philosophy is to sacrifice size for speed, to run hard, and to substitute liberally in order to combat fatigue. That's been their program philosophy for a long time. If you're on the McNeese depth chart, you play meaningful snaps.

If you look at the final game depth charts of rosters of the two teams, you can calculate that 63% of the players that came to McNeese directly from high school are on the depth chart as opposed to 45% of such players at Southeastern being on the depth chart. And that's counting kickers and long snappers. If you leave those out it goes to 63% vs. 41%.

It can't be both ways. If a coach adopts a strategy such that more than a third of the players (37% in this case) on the roster show a "previous school" following high school that is going to impact the odds that a player who signs with that coach's school out of high school is going to advance to a given level. The coach has shown that he's going to go to transfers, JC players, or whatever in a heartbeat.

BUT, it obviously worked for Southeastern Louisiana this year. So I'm not saying it's a bad way to go. Time will tell.

I suspect it's the kind of thing that will make some high school coaches tell players "you don't want to go there" but at the same time that doesn't matter if you're getting JC players that are better than the high school players you'd get anyway.

I see it as a potential benefit for McNeese because McNeese, for better or worse, isn't going to do that. McNeese is going to try to sustain it's program primarily with high school recruits taken from within 200 miles of the school. Even when they take transfers it's usually going to be someone they had a relationship with. Someone they tried to recruit. Someone who knew the coaches. So on and so forth.

And since they are like that I think it could be good for them that Southeastern has chosen to go the JC route. Like I said on the McNeese board: I don't want Southeastern Louisiana to go downhill, I want McNeese to go uphill. I think the re-establishment of the Southeastern Louisiana and Lamar programs have hurt McNeese due to competition for recruits in the Southeast Louisiana and Southeast Texas areas. So anything that might help McNeese in either of those areas is fine by me.

If you look at the final game depth charts of rosters of the two teams, you can calculate that 63% of the players that came to McNeese directly from high school are on the depth chart as opposed to 45% of such players at Southeastern being on the depth chart. And that's counting kickers and long snappers. If you leave those out it goes to 63% vs. 41%.

You miss the point. The percentage breakdown of HS vs transfer on our roster is irrelevant if the high school kids are playing. If McNeese and Southeastern are competing for the same guy, we can show - through facts - that he has just as good, if not better, chance of playing at Southeastern, as he does at McNeese. If your argument is that there's a greater chance that McNeese would offer a scholarship, than Southeastern, you may have a point, assuming we continue the same recruiting trend. But if both schools offer, the tactic doesn't hold water. But it's a nice try!

The DB for this school didn't participate at combine in the 40 hope he runs great at pro workout!!!

If McNeese and Southeastern are competing for the same guy, we can show - through facts - that he has just as good, if not better, chance of playing at Southeastern, as he does at McNeese.

I've got to admit that I don't see how you could quote what you quoted from my post and say that. The facts say that a substantially larger percentage of players that were recruited out of high school at McNeese were on the depth chart than at Southeastern. McNeese not only has a much higher percentage of its roster composed of players recruited directly out of high school. A higher percentage of those players that were recruited out of high school were on the most recent depth chart.

There's no way "the facts" support your position.

JohnStOnge wrote:

If McNeese and Southeastern are competing for the same guy, we can show - through facts - that he has just as good, if not better, chance of playing at Southeastern, as he does at McNeese.

I've got to admit that I don't see how you could quote what you quoted from my post and say that. The facts say that a substantially larger percentage of players that were recruited out of high school at McNeese were on the depth chart than at Southeastern. McNeese not only has a much higher percentage of its roster composed of players recruited directly out of high school. A higher percentage of those players that were recruited out of high school were on the most recent depth chart.

There's no way "the facts" support your position.

You're arguing the wrong point. It's not a matter of who's roster has a greater percentage of high school players, it's the percentage of scholarship high school players on each roster who play meaningful snaps each week (meaning when the game is still in the balance). In our case, it's nearly 100% when you take out redshirts and injured players, and the few who don't are either the backup QB (who did play in 10 games, including leading us a win over Samford), or contribute on special teams.

I haven't looked at McNeese's roster in a while, but assuming the overwhelming majority of scholarship players were signed out of high school, there's no way they can come close to 100% of non-redshirt/non-injured players playing meaningful snaps. That is unless they're only offering 63 fulls and no partials.

Bottom line, the high school kids we offer and sign, play. Period.

You're arguing the wrong point. It's not a matter of who's roster has a greater percentage of high school players.

No, I'm not talking about which team has a greater percentage of high school players on the roster. I'm talking about this: Look at only the players on each roster that signed out of high school. Set them off to the side. You've got group M (McNeese) and group S (Southeastern). For both schools you're just looking at players that signed out of high school.

Now, look at the number of players in each group that are on each school's depth chart. The percentage of players in group M that are on that school's depth chart is substantially higher than the percentage of players in group S that or on that school's depth chart.

If you say you're going to randomly pick a player on the Southeastern roster who signed with the school right out of high school, there is a 41% chance that you're going to pick somebody who was on Southeastern's final depth chart. If you say you're going to randonly pick a player on the McNeese roster who signed with the school right out of high school, there is a 63% that you're going to pick somebody who was on McNeese's final depth chart. A player on the McNeese roster that signed with the school right out of high school was substantially more likely to appear on the referenced depth charts than a player on the Southeastern roster that signed with that school right out of high school.

Again, I'm not talking about the total number of high school signees on the roster. Yes, it's true that McNeese had the higher percentage of such players. But also when you look at JUST such players on each roster the depth charts strongly suggest that a higher percentage of THEM saw meaningful playing time at McNeese.

JohnStOnge wrote:

You're arguing the wrong point. It's not a matter of who's roster has a greater percentage of high school players.

No, I'm not talking about which team has a greater percentage of high school players on the roster. I'm talking about this: Look at only the players on each roster that signed out of high school. Set them off to the side. You've got group M (McNeese) and group S (Southeastern). For both schools you're just looking at players that signed out of high school.

Now, look at the number of players in each group that are on each school's depth chart. The percentage of players in group M that are on that school's depth chart is substantially higher than the percentage of players in group S that or on that school's depth chart.

If you say you're going to randomly pick a player on the Southeastern roster who signed with the school right out of high school, there is a 41% chance that you're going to pick somebody who was on Southeastern's final depth chart. If you say you're going to randonly pick a player on the McNeese roster who signed with the school right out of high school, there is a 63% that you're going to pick somebody who was on McNeese's final depth chart. A player on the McNeese roster that signed with the school right out of high school was substantially more likely to appear on the referenced depth charts than a player on the Southeastern roster that signed with that school right out of high school.

Again, I'm not talking about the total number of high school signees on the roster. Yes, it's true that McNeese had the higher percentage of such players. But also when you look at JUST such players on each roster the depth charts strongly suggest that a higher percentage of THEM saw meaningful playing time at McNeese.

The depth chart is irrelevant because it's for media and fans, and isn't accurate as to who actually sees meaningful snaps during games each week. As I've stated, nearly 100% of our available (not injured or redshirting) high school kids play. You can argue it and spin it however you want, that is the record. McNeese has more scholarship high school kids "buried on the depth chart" and not playing than we do.

OK SLUlionsfan I'll just leave it to others to decide whether or not they believe that the depth chart means nothing in terms of who gets playing time and how much.