It's the NCAA. 'Nuff said.
A frontrunner is always going to suffer do to an off game. Everybody has an off game.
Except perhaps for PG, I've heard that in the NBA they essentially evaluate a player's position by who he can guard. When you're on offense, the other team is the one who has to adapt to defend against whatever you do offensively, allowing offenses to be built using the skills of the personnel available. On defense, though, the other teams is determining how to attack, and so you need to have players able to guard the typical types/positions. So, for example, if you don't have a defender quick enough to guard your typical SG, that guy is going to kill you. I'm imagining that the same is true, at least to some extent, in college, even if not to the same extent.
I think Holtman almost HAS to add another big to the 2018 class, which would then not only allow more depth, but having the opportunity to play two together.
Ok, I'll add to my list - "... and one other major upset to a team who shouldn't even be in the game against the Buckeyes." I think that covers it.
The Haskins (or Burrow) in 2018 might well be much improved over the Haskins (or Burrow) of 2017 It's easy to surmise that a Haskins (or Burrow)i who is better in 2018 than Barrett in 2017 would also have been better in 2017. That's not necessarily the case. This same situation has been debated (with opinions on both sides) for Hooker of 2016 vs Hooker or Powell in 2015. It's easy for us to opine; but fortunately the coaches who have to make the call have more expertise and info. (not that this always makes them right).
I didn't see anywhere that he said "irrelevant." But there may be offsetting qualities - in this case, JT's ability as a runner, his decision-making in the run game, his leadership, Other factors which could come into play with experience, like decision-making in the passing game (JT has been questioned on this, but neither have his backups actually demonstrated it while truly under fire in a game). And no, not every upperclassman with experience is necessarily going to better when considering all factors simply because he is experienced. But experinece DOES matter, even if it it isn't the be-all and end-all.
Wow! So how does one sign up?(I'll avoid that line)
maybe if they handicapped teams by allowing them to play whatever number of players at a time to equalize the recruting points on the field at any given time
Those benefits... are they as good as those for "friends with benefits?"
And as unfair as that might be, and however much we might not LIKE it, how does it really AFFECT us?